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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (102562)	4/18/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: snoman	Respond to of 186894

<<Bryant said it finally took four quarters of higher than expected demand to finally wake up and do something about it, so now we see the up-ante to 6 billion or so for capital equipment this year.>> And thus we see the beginnings of what may be the next sillycon cycle! ;-) sm

To: Tony Viola who wrote (102562)	4/18/2000 7:05:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, re: "I'd say the CC was so so" I thought the analysts questions were openly hostile, especially as it related to revenue growth, ASP's and future gross margin declines. The Intel folks sounded defensive, and sometimes just plain stupid. When they said that it took them 4 quarters to realize that the Internet would stimulate growth, you have to ask, what planet were they living on? This is the company that was famous for their execution. I don't think we need to worry about how many analysts are in the boat. I expect we will start seeing downward earnings revisions, soon. My initial reaction is that these guys are not focused on the core business. John

To: Tony Viola who wrote (102562)	4/18/2000 7:06:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

Tony and all, from the INTC CC re: Rambus, (taken from the RMBS thread: Message 13457876 ) "As we go above 1GHz, we see RDRAM as the memory choice for the forseeable future. As we move forward this year, we plan on optimizing the availability of Rambus products and processor availability." "We have looked into DDR and we don't believe in it for the desktop." Interesting. I think it's remarkable that Intel is sticking to its guns on Rambus, at least for the desktop. (Of course, the Intel-bashers on the AMD thread will look at these statements and laugh.) Tenchusatsu

To: Tony Viola who wrote (102562)	4/18/2000 9:25:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Tony, RE: Dumb question, maybe for GV: does that 17 cents of tax consequence get factored into P/E? Certainly not a dumb question, and subject to opinion. Here's how I answered a little while ago to the question posed in a little different way: Message 13397247 Bottom line is that because the tax rate does not appear to change going forward, the PE shouldn't change, IMO.

To: Tony Viola who wrote (102562)	4/19/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Respond to of 186894

Tony Viola. Re: "...does that 17 cents of tax consequence get factored into P/E?" A better way to look at the 17½ is in terms of shareholder value. That $600 million adds to your cash flow as an investor. Just multiply your number of shares by 17½ and that's your "share". So it is certainly better in your pocket than the IRS's.:) Another factor to consider is that this cash flow helps fun the new $1 billion in capital expenditures, so your company is putting your money to work right away. Without the $600 million, they would have to dip into cash/profits to pay for the new expenditures. If you look at PE/cash flow or even better "look through earnings" (profits+depreciation-capital spending) then these two transactions should leave the PE about the same. Without the $600 million added to shareholder value, one could argue that Intel's "P" should go down since its "E" has gone down, all other things being equal. I hope I have not confused you more. HL