Re: The proper scientific method is: hypothesis - test - collect data - analyze data - accept or reject hypothesis
Cool.
Hypothesis: Since Intel reported that they made a lot of money during the past several years, it should be worth what it was worth several years ago, plus what it made. By "worth" I mean the value of the company according to its accounts, not the stock price.
Collect data:
In Q3 of 2000, Intel had assets (cash, FABs, investments, etc.) of $49.0 Billion dollars - and that was with their FABs valued at only $13.4 Billion.
Since then, they claim they made $8.6 Billion (pro forma, after taxes), so Intel should be worth $49 + $8.6 = $57.6 Billion. But, Intel claims that its FABs are now worth $4.6 Billion more than they were 2 years ago, so Intel should be worth $57.6 + $4.6 Billion, or $62.2 Billion.
But, according to its financial statements, in Q3 of of this year, Intel had assets (cash, FABs, investments, etc.) of $43.6 Billion dollars - and that was with their FABs (now producing less revenue, not more) valued at $18.0 Billion.
Analyze data:
The FABs now produce less revenue, and should be valued no higher than they were 2 years ago. Intel's FABs should probably be valued at less then they were 2 years ago, not more.
So, where did $18.6 Billion Dollars go?
Conclusion:
The original hypothesis is wrong. Intel did not make $8.6 Billion during the past 2 years, as they claimed. In actuality, they lost $10 Billion in the past 2 years.
:-) |
