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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (74151)	10/5/1999 10:55:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572645

<Look at the cash and equivalents on the Intel balance sheet. Notice how the cash grows.> Really? Cash grows? Let's look at the last year: siliconinvestor.com and read: "Net change in cash" = -$2.064B, for 1998 year. You probably did not master basic math objectives for 3-rd grade since you took "-" as "grows" :)

To: Windsock who wrote (74151)	10/6/1999 12:06:00 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 1572645

Re: Here is a tip.... Here's another one. There's a saying that goes; "Don't look at the income statement for income, look at the balance sheet. Then look at the income statement to see how they got there" From June of 98 to June of 99 total assets of Intel went from $33,093 to $32,801. That means its assets are worth a little less now than they were a year ago. So how did it happen? Well, in the latest quarter, the income statement says they bought 25 million shares of their own stock, but the change in shares outstanding for the quarter went from 3324 to 3310, a difference of 14 million. So what happened to the other 10 million shares? They were probably used as payment, either to employees, or as part of an exchange with another company, but most likely to pay employees or as part of an employee purchase plan. If the cost of those shares was $50 each, that's $500 million dollars of expenses that aren't reflected in the income statement. If the shares were sold to employees, they didn't have a net $50 dollar cost to Intel, and the balance sheet should reflect this. There was another 4 or 500 million as the write off on the video card business, but that should have been reflected in the income statement Some of it is due to shares being retired and retiring stock does reduce total assets without indicating a loss, but, as we've seen, the number of shares purchased, and the number of shares retired, it quite different. Intel didn't lose money in the last year, a possibility the Balance sheet hints at, but it didn't really make nearly as much as the Income statement indicates, either. 72 million shares were retired in the last year. Price of the shares retired over this period was around $50. That's $3.6 Billion worth of legitimate balance sheet reductions. Intel claimed profits of about twice that for the period, the Balance sheet should have shown a $3.5 Billion dollar increase, not a $290 million dollar drop. There is also a good chance that, given the nature of this business, the actual depreciation of plant and equipment was greater than the accounting value of that depreciation. You would expect to see fairly substantial increases in the total paper value of plant and equipment in a successful ongoing operation given the reality of the rate of depreciation of semicon equipment and the limits placed upon deprecation by FASB. Dan