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: Amy J who wrote (102629)	4/19/2000 9:03:00 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Let's try some other numbers - plug in any ASP delta: Amy, There was a shortage of parts all quarter. AMD sold out of all the K6s it could make at steady to rising ASPs (it expected to be dropping K6). The brand new Coppermine PIII, in a shortage market should have had increasing ASPs (unless you think that Intel is getting creamed by Athlon - which would be another story that may well come true over the next several quarters). So try plugging an ASP increase into your formula. AMD had rising ASPs in this shortage market, why couldn't Intel manage the same thing? Regards, Dan

To: Amy J who wrote (102629)	4/19/2000 11:58:00 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Looks like LaFountian could be very wrong (on this one point, and that bugs me because I would expect accuracy in an analyst on all points - otherwise, how would I know which statements to believe?" I guess that by your analysis you are trying to say that additional demand far exceeded Intel's ability to deliver. If so, you must factor in added capacity due to .25um to .18um conversion. I would guess that even in quarter one, Intel should have had 10% additional capacity simply due to the partial (maybe 33%) conversion to .18um. What's your estimation of this?? THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Amy J who wrote (102629)	4/20/2000 12:43:00 AM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

Amy, Re: I would venture a guess that he accidently was thinking/using revenue or profit growth, when he should have been using "unit growth" relative to "supply." I believe you are correct. If we look at AMD's number as well as Intel's CC, it is pretty clear that unit demand was strong but the sweet spot was at some lower price point than both company wanted. In AMD's case, their majority was still K6 and not Athlon. In Intel's case, they had an almost flat revenue growth but they still said demand > supply and also stated that they had not lost market share so the possibility of AMD eating into its territory can be discarded. Gary