Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64598)	7/15/1999 12:18:00 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Fred, I didn't want to look silly by averaging out 1 year <g>. BTW, 1994 to 1999 is only 5 years, why do you keep saying 6? Last time I checked, 1998 was just 1 year ago. That is, one year ago to now is just 1 year, not 2 years!! That means your 1998-1999 number is 1 year, no compounding annually etc. Unless you're a mathematician, then you can go ahead and compound over 1.000 years. I think the most important numbers there are the 5 year to 3 year, which completely exclude the anomaly of 1998. This shows the natural trend in any maturing industry to have it's growth slow. Your belief is that this slowing was due to other factors, and the natural slowing is going to happen much later -- that is, you expect growth to pick up again and stay in the 30% range for a while. I think the growth rate will remain lower as I feel umph is out of the PC revolution. PC's won't go away, but the nature of them will continue to change in the next few years. Perhaps Intel will simply adapt. That said, I agree that Intel is an excellent very long term bet. They spend hordes on R&D and I expect them to try to capitalize successfully on many initiatives. At least, they will have one of the best chances of any major semi company. However, their current valuation is too high for my blood.