Scumbria,
<<<I can see that INTC is really in the dumps.>>>
Just because you are extremely biased and frightenly without any traces of objectivity, but that doesn't mean that you can't be right every so often.
The same is true for Drew Peck and Mark Edelstone. Drew Peck makes a point that I have been saying all along about Intel management:
<<<"It's not obvious they [Intel] have any specific capabilities or talents that lead them to being the leading communications company in the world other than huge amounts of money and desire," said Drew Peck, .....After Intel acquired Level One, Mr. Peck says, the communications company "basically disappeared off the radar screen as a competitive factor in the markets where they used to be a leader.">>>
I beleive that Craig Barrett is a very hard working and ethical person, looking out for shareholder interests and probably a terrifc engineer - with a very in depth understanding of technical issues - more so than you, Drew Peck, or Mark Edelstone put together.
But he does lack business acumen and personnel judgement skills that makes it almost impossible for him to really succeed in these acquisitions. He relies too much on the bean counters. Fortunately for Intel, I don't see the competition with any advantages. They almost all are equally poor in management without technical skills at the CEO level and have trouble raising cash.
The exception may be with Jerry Sanders. He has one skill that very few others have - and that is to be able to raise cash via OPM. Fortunately, again, Intel does not have to tap into OPM. They can raise cash the old fashion way - by earning it.
Mary
public.wsj.com
Intel's Chief Vows Aggressive Strategy To Build Communications Business By Dan Goodin Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Intel Corp. president and chief executive Craig Barrett vowed to continue building his company's fledgling communications business by maintaining an aggressive acquisition strategy, which has already seen the chip giant spend more than $10 billion in the past two and a half years.
"We have been aggressive last year and so far this year and you should extrapolate it [our aggressiveness] going forward," said Mr. Barrett, in an interview in advance of a speech Tuesday at the Networld-Interop trade show in Las Vegas.
Since the beginning of the year, Intel has spent nearly $2 billion on eight communications companies, most recently acquiring three fiber-optic firms for more than $500 million. Intel's single largest purchase over the course of its communications buying spree was Level One Communications Inc., which it purchased in 1999 for about $2.2 billion.
Intel, Santa Clara, Calif., has turned its attention to the communications market as sales have slowed for its microprocessor chips for personal computers, which account for 80% of revenues. Despite all the money Intel has spent so far, some analysts say the chip giant still lives in the shadows of companies like Agere Systems Inc., Broadcom Corp. and PMC-Sierra Inc., which tend to focus the majority of their efforts on helping build large corporate networks.
"It's not obvious they [Intel] have any specific capabilities or talents that lead them to being the leading communications company in the world other than huge amounts of money and desire," said Drew Peck, a chip analyst at SG Cowen.
Mark Edelstone, an analyst at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, says Intel so far has acquired smaller companies in the industry, a strategy that has prevented the chip company from building a communications business that can produce volumes that are competitive. Other analysts have criticized Intel's ability to maintain the momentum of the companies it acquires. After Intel acquired Level One, Mr. Peck says, the communications company "basically disappeared off the radar screen as a competitive factor in the markets where they used to be a leader."
Mr. Barrett, however, defended Intel's efforts to date. "I'm very comfortable with our position" in the communications business, he said adding he didn't expect the company to veer from its current course. He wouldn't quantify how much Intel plans to invest on future details, or name any specific targets.
"We're looking at smaller acquisitions with key pieces of technology that fit in with our current strategic thrust," he said.
Since 1999, Intel has spent about $10.3 billion acquiring some 36 communications companies. By contrast, Broadcom, also well-known for the fast clip it has acquired companies, says it spent $7 billion on about 18 acquisitions over the same period.
Both companies remained dwarfed by Cisco Systems Inc., which has spent more than $26 billion since 1999 on acquisitions.
Acquisitions by both Cisco and Broadcom have slowed considerably since the market downturn. Broadcom's last acquisition was in January, and Cisco hasn't acquired a company since last December.
But with $10 billion in cash and a stated goal of spending its way out of its financial doldrums, Mr. Barrett says he doesn't expect to pull back. "We have a form of capital which doesn't get depreciated," Mr. Barrett said. "We think it's an opportunity to get aggressive and to make both in-house R&D investments and look for acquisition candidates that fill in the blank spaces between what we can develop inside and what we already have." Separately, Intel says it has redeployed employees from its Internet Online Services group, which provides Web hosting and other services, to other areas of the company. An Intel spokesman said the move was designed to help the company reduce its headcount by 5,000, but declined to say how many employees were affected. CNET News.com reported that hundreds of employees within the division had been reassigned. |
