Amy, RE: No, sounds more like you don't understand what improved yields can do to inventory (even I understand that concept.)
Yes, I do understand that. And it is a problem, as Intel management has acknowledged.
me: If Intel had been a little better in managing their inventory, they wouldn't have made the quarter. It appears as though Intel was late to the inventory issue because they were way too focused on making the earnings number, which is not a good way to run a business.
you: I think that's an extremely strong accusation that's incorrect. You either trust these guys or you don't. I also think you could ask what it means to have yields increase.
On the call, Andy Bryant stated that in hindsight, he wished he had caught the inventory problem earlier. That is a fact. If Intel had slowed production earlier, they wouldn't have made the quarter. That isn't a fact but it is a pretty darn reliable guesstimate. Yeah, I understand it has to do with yields. Bryant said it, and you've stated several times that somehow I didn't understand it. I don't think you understand the accounting that Intel uses to get their net income numbers and how important capacity utilization is to Intel.
On another note, I didn't listen to the CC, your post implies Barrett gave the CC, which would be unusual since Paul O always gives it. Who gave the CC?
Actually, I mistated that one. It was Andy Bryant, not Carig Barrett. (I have the nasty habit of interchanging those two guys' names. At least that's not as bad as my habit of calling our dog one of my kid's names.) My impression has always been that both Bryant and Otellini are on the conference calls, and this didn't seem any different. Andy Bryant was the guy running the call, which I think is no different than normal. |
