J,>>>I had intend to stop, but some of the stuff above is just wrong.<<<
I didn't intend to get into this further either, but today is such a lousy day - well why not?
>>>But, Mary, Intel has to spend 5 or 6 billion per year in research to keep that technology at the top of the heap. <<<
Intel is in the driver's seat here. They could choose to spend any amount they want. They have chosen to spend more on R&D than their competitors combined gross revenues - instead of viewing this as a negative - look at it realistically as a tremendous barrier for competition. I can't realistically see this in any other way.
>>>The PE that they are accorded by the market is reflective of that and other risks associated with the company.<<<
You sound so certain - without any doubts - that the market is completely rational and almost as if their is an algorithm that determines P/E ratios. I have a lot of doubt in this respect.
>>>Many of us remember that for a long time DEC was king, Cray was king, and heaven only knows how many other companies ruled the road.<<<
Yes I remember those good ole days too. There was DEC, WANG, Prime, Nixdorf, Basic IV, Datapoint, Olivetti, NBI and a lot of the others.
This time things are different Apple and Radio Shack capitulated early on - leaving only knock-offs. Like the Rolex & Philip Patek you find in Indonesia for $10.00.
However, you aren't really the one whose posts upset me. It is those one liners that state unequivicably the case for a particular P/E valuation - the certainty and absoluteness about it.
Mary |
