Dale, <You have got to look at the total score. Right? Of course I'm right.>
Of course you are wrong. Same way as you were wrong on
the Forbes Magazine research of Intel's stock option
plans and hidden costs.
Let ME try to explain it to you since you cannot
get it right by yourself:
<Say you and I take a test on microprocessor design.
I score 195 out of a possible score of 200.
You score 85 out of 200.>
Let's think you can do 195 out of 200 which seems
to me still too high. More likely 160 out of 200.
Since my die is 2X smaller, I have 400 candidates
in one shot, not 200 as you mistakenly assumed.
Now it makes my scores already 170 under your
assumption of yields.
Now, if more aggressive 0.18 and even 0.13 is
economically feasible in the clean rooms, what
makes you think that the current 0.25um process
cannot be perfected to the same level of 80-85%?
Just because Intel is a semi-God and others are
handless morons? Is this your assumption, right?
Now see, even at current 50% it makes 200 out of
400, and 200 > 160 and even 195 as you wish to
believe. With a tiny improvement in a process step
or in air filtration or whatever, the 200 can grow
to 300 or 350 overnight. In your case, your score
cannot be higher than 195 under any circumstances,
even Yousef cannot make it so:)
<Profit is the ultimate goal and the ultimate benchmark.>
<Profit matters, and profit is decidedly in Intel's favor.>
You seem to have a short memory about Intel stock
options in their labor compensation. Let me remind you
that the labor compensation is a significant part of
operating expenses that normally affect profits in a
negative way :) It means that Intel
just is cheating under your "ultimate benchmark". They
were caught once in cheating in computer benchmarks,
now they continue to do this in financial benchmarks.
That simple. Happy investing in the scam. Intel set up
this financial trap themselves. With the poor overlook
in stock growth, all the granted options will be cashed
out as soon as possible, and this process will drain
all financial resources at Intel in few quarters.
Yes, this is my current "theory" based on limited
observations. It may be wrong in fine details, but
I am sure it captures the general trend correctly. |
