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: Charles R who wrote (86971)	1/13/2000 7:05:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Chuck - <Finally, one thing that slid by was that apparently this quarter had 14 weeks compared to the typical 13 weeks in a quarter. That means possibly one full week of extra revenues compared to normal.> Q4 was 13 weeks, I believe. Q1 will have 14 weeks. PB

To: Charles R who wrote (86971)	1/13/2000 7:12:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Chuck, <This indicates flat to slightly negative growth in the core Microprocessor business. Do you understand what this means?> If I remember correctly, Intel shifted some business out of IABG into other groups during the course of 1999. Certainly the near 100% growth in revenue from the "All Other" category can't be due to self-contained growth alone, can it? <Finally, one thing that slid by was that apparently this quarter had 14 weeks compared to the typical 13 weeks in a quarter. That means possibly one full week of extra revenues compared to normal.> Wrong. In the CC, the extra week will be tacked onto Q1 2000. Q4 1999 was still 13 week period. <As I have been saying on this thread AMD will do a lot better than Intel this Q.> You also said that Intel would miss. Face it, Chuck, you were wrong. Tenchusatsu

To: Charles R who wrote (86971)	1/13/2000 7:27:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Chuck - RE: "This indicates flat to slightly negative growth in the core Microprocessor business. Do you understand what this means?" Check out this post on the Intel thread - Message 12566319 Both analysts see it, one questions it the other applauds it. Since the stock was up in AF it seems like the market only cares if Intel makes more money. Anyone who doesn't see what Intel had to do to achieve what it did is clearly in denial. (Notice how no one has replied to that post so far?) But if there the market as a whole doesn't care I guess Intel gets to show off earnings that beat estimates.

To: Charles R who wrote (86971)	1/13/2000 7:28:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572507

Chuck, Re: "earnings report" You do make some good points. However the interest gains and monetising the interest assets are treated separately and don't affect the earnings/share directly. The goodwill/R&D write-off is a scam that govt. acctg rules provide. Essentially the company can write it off as a one time deal rather than affect future earnings reports. In addition the extra week is for Q1 2000. Some extra good news for Intel: ASPs were up. Margins were up. Flash was up. Chipsets were up. MB's were up. Inventory was down( no channel stuffing here). The bad news: As you have noted the year on year comparisons suck for the CPG. Top line growth was only 10%. And unit growth Q2Q was in the 10% range as well. Now remember that VIA (who dumped around 2M+ units in Q4 last year is gone) and overall unit demand in PC market growth was OVER 15%. So if we had 40M units in Q4 last year that translates to OVER 46M units in Q4. So CLEARLY Intel didn't pick up additonal 8M units over last year. If they picked up 5M units that STILL 3M units left over for AMD to PICK UP. AMD did over 5M units in Q4 last year. The implications are that either the market didn't grow as expected or AMD had one hell of a quarter ie over 7M units. All indications are that demand was robust. So 6M K6-2's and 1M+ K7's sound pretty reasonable to me. Perhaps AMD will challenge Intels per share profits after all!!!! regards, Kash

To: Charles R who wrote (86971)	1/13/2000 10:47:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1572507

Chuck, great DD on the Intel financial statements: "* Interest and other was $508 million in the fourth quarter, higher than previous guidance of $280 million, due to higher than expected gains on sales of equity investments."* I have NEVER seen a company report capital gains as part of "interest and other income." Capital gains should be reported as a separate line item because it is a one time only income. True income from investments or interest expense tend to be stable from quarter to quarter and therefore belong in net income. Capital gains do not. Petz