To: Burt Masnick who wrote (95170 ) 1/6/2000 8:08:00 PM From: Paul Engel Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 186894
Burt - Re: 'the manufacturing snafus are certainly unlike Intel, but unless there has been a personality transplant on the entire executive staff, the abscence of any preannouncement still indicates to me that Intel ran pretty near flat out for the quarter. Yup, there were shortfalls on high end Coppermines and the now-infamous chipset follies. But I am guessing that the factories did not lose the formula for producing oodles of processors for the quarter. I am personally guessing that they shipped well in excess of 32 million processors for the quarter. Having said that, they went into a market that could have absorbed 36 million or more processors. That's the shortfall. " You pretty much nailed it. Intel's factories, I have learned, are running at FULL CAPACITY, and where demand from PC OEMS have exceeded the OEM's forecast, Intel has been unable to match the increased demand. So Intel suffers the embarrassment of not having infinite capacity when demand surges, and takes the "fall" for Gateway. Intel's recent announcements of increasing fab capacity - restarting Fab 5, expansion of Fab 17, filing papers for a new facility approval on Ocitillo, Az, and accelerating 0.13 micron and 300 mm wafer programs are all in reaction to this demand. Despite Gateway, Lucent, etc warnings, I am pretty well convinced that Intel is going to report impressive revenues and profits next Thursday - the VOLUMES were up - as you noted - and the lack of any significant price cuts on older products - plus high ASPs on the new (but limited) Coppermines - which represent INCREMENTALLY ADDITIVE REVENUE - should result in an excellent quarterly report. I sold MORE PUTS on Intel today (April $60's) to capitalize on the negative market hysteria. Paul