Jeff, >>>But that's this last year - what about next?
1. Intel must hold today's level on the desktop and notebook.
2. Intel must achieve rapid growth in Intel Architecture workstations, file servers and compute servers.
3. Increase Information business penetration - This is the "everything else" category such as network and flash. <<<
Excellent analysis. That is what it is all about. History is what brought us here. It is always about what the future will bring.
There is nothing in history that will tell us what the economy will be like in the future - except may be in a very broad brush kind of way. As an aside, that reminds me of some predictions made by Herman Kahn of the Hudson Institute (a think tank)in a book written in the late 70's or early '80. In it he predicted tremendous increases in worldwide prosperity at the turn of the century attributed primarily to technology.
Similarly, there is nothing in the past that can tell us on a micro level how Intel will do in the future. The reason that I mention this is because I fear that Tom Kurlak over the next 90 days or so will be issuing pretend type of analysis to Move Intel and causing lasting damage to Intel valuation - to either maintain or enhance his own personal reputation.
A fair question you might be asking is if you don't believe in any analysis, what is your own investment based on?. I'm glad you asked.
Mostly it is intuition based on the following knowledge.
1. Reading Paul Engel and others describing Intel technology and manufacturing - that it is all in place.
2. Discussing with Tony Viola, Michelle Harris and others in the market and getting a sense of market size for IA64 products.
3. Studying Intel's Balance sheet to make sure that Intel has the financial wherewithal to achieve its strategic plan(s).
But, at the end of the day - it is purely a gut reaction and assessment of Intel Management as epitomized by Craig Barrett. This is a person that has made the grade all his life (gpa, sat, gre, p&l . . . .). Is there any chance that this man is not going to achieve the numbers that are suggested by his guidance to analysts?
As a person that has been around a while, I can tell you that by looking into their eyes (even if it is looking at a Ceo's eyes via TV) that I could tell if they are going to bs me.
I could tell for instance the first time that I saw Kim Edwards on Squawkbox that his character troubled me. I could tell he was going to bs me with his airplane crashes, monsoons, personnel inherited from a previous Ceo, a slow down in the European economy - and the best one of all was when he blamed his personnel inherited from a previous administration for misplacing ~$300M in inventory - all used to explain unexpected business volume downfall.
Now, is it possible that macro economic conditions could have a negative impact on future Intel earnings - well, of course. But, I doubt Craig Barrett will use it to explain any of Intel's failures - and besides there will be far fewer mishaps or shortfalls to explain under a Craig Barrett stewardship.
Just some thoughts,
Mary
|
