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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (82604)	12/10/1999 1:58:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575767

RE <<<Under the old rules companies were supposed to generate cash - back when there wasn't an Internet revolution in progress. ... Under the new rules, if you have any profits, it means you aren't moving fast enough, it means you aren't hiring enough employees, aren't buying enough ads, aren't buying out your competition.">>> Tenchusatsu, I have the highest respect for Amy J and while the above observation is a bit exaggerated, I basically concur with the observation although I think it has been true in times past as well. But what's unfortunate about the comments and the rest of the info in her posts (and I probably should be addressing my comments to her), these observations are used primarily to justify staying fully vested in intc.....that investing in intc is as safe as having your $ in the bank.....that investing in intc allows you to sleep well at night. However its my contention that by investing in intc, you will miss out on an incredible opportunity to grow your $ quickly, and that maybe, just maybe, intc may reap you financial benefits that are not that much better than putting your $ in a bank which truly is safer. First the contention that the new tech stocks are an example of tulipmania (how that word has been overused)is an oversimplification. Just 2 years ago everyone was predicting that all the net stocks were a disaster waiting to happen and that they would crash and burn from their stratospheric heights. Funny but that has happened only to a few of them. For the most part the ones that crashed nd burned were the ones showing no profits and no prospects for profits, the notable exception being AMZN. The ones who have stayed up there either were making a profit at the time ie AOL or became profitable shortly after hitting the stratosphere. So much for the old profit rules not applying. And as you know, the investors who bought the good net stocks and the principals in those companies have become wealthy virtually overnight. Of course intc is not one of those stocks although I bet at one time intc had the attributes of a net stock. But those days are long gone. Intc is old tech and its only hope for substantive growth is to reinvent itself like CSCO and SUNW have done. Essentially its seems that intc has two possible models to follow: one is a xerox....for the most part, sporting solid dependable growth with very little fluctuation in the stock price which goes up slowly in good times and down slowly in bad (although recently xerox's stock price had the rug pulled from under it and dropped significantly). The other model is the CSCO one where intc comes up with new slants to its core business, permitting it to maintain high revenue growth rate which in turn fuels the stock price. Frankly making this transition is a tough one and very few firms pull it off....how many IBMs, GEs and CSCOs are there? So an investor has to decide whether its smarter to keep your $ with intc where the rate of growth may continue to slow but presumably there is less chance of losing your $, or is it better to invest in new tech where if you pick wisely, you may strike it rich. Obviously my bias is for the latter approach.....and there is a stong argument to be made that it is the better approach at least for investors like me. I guess what I am saying is that as smart and safe sounding as Amy J's position is, it may not be the smart way to go. ted