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: Elmer who wrote (107517)	4/24/2000 1:34:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Re: "Intel should be able to go from 31M in Q3 to 32.6M in Q4 and 35.4M in Q1. They only did 31.8M in Q4 and 31.8M in Q1 from CC. Ramp is what is not good. See previous message" Perhaps you missed my previous response to this issue. I will repeat: Intel shipped ~32M processors in Q4 while depleting their inventories to record lows. That means they shipped more processors than they manufactured. Kind of like dipping into your savings account when you spend more than you make. So entering Q1 they had virtually no inventory, according to Andy Bryant yet they still shipped ~32M processors. That looks to me like increased manufacturing output to me. Re: "Of course the key factor is what was the inventory at the beginning of Q4"a. Yes taht would reveal a lot but I don't think Intel breaks down its inventory numbers into product groups. Meaning that if you have the dollar value of the inventory you still don't know WHAT is in inventory. I simply take Andy Bryant at his word when he said processor inventories were at record lows. Others claim he is a liar but what's new there? They think Andy's a liar and Jerry's a saint. EP, I asked the question re inventories in order to determine whether your supposition that the ramp was good was any more valid than pgerassi's. And the answer is no.....I am not saying you are wrong but there is no assurance that it is right either. Your supposition requires that there be significant inventory at the beginning of Q4 but we don't know what the inventory was at the beginning of Q4. Were there 50k chips on hand or 200k or 1 million? That number is significant when deciding the accuracy of your supposition. Without that number pgerassi's supposition is as valid as yours. Now my next question to you is why do we not have those numbers; why does Intel not provide more specificity in their reporting? Its always irritated me that they won't provide their ASP numbers. Sanders, the alleged, incompetent crook according to Intel longs, generally provides all of those numbers in his CC. As an Intel investor wouldn't you want to know this stuff? Doesn't make you wonder what Intel has to hide. ted