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 (117084)	6/22/2000 12:24:00 AM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586116

Too good to be true. Anti-"Straddle" Tax laws concerning offsetting positions are designed precisely to prevent recognizing loss and gain in separate tax years. Of course, they knew all about such tricks...damn. Ah well. optionsclearing.com Doug

To: Elmer who wrote (117084)	6/22/2000 1:13:00 AM
From: enzyme	Respond to of 1586116

re: In my opinion he was not entirely on the money. What I took issue with was his insistence that they blew it, implying they were incompetent. Yes they turned out to be wrong but they made the right decision based on the available information at the time. It turned out the information was wrong. No one foresaw the huge demand. Was that incompetence or just the limitations of the forecasting system? I say it was the latter but in true AMDroid fashion they couldn't pass up an opportunity to bash Intel. Elmer, I think it was the former (strategic failure). You can blame it on any lack of robustness of their forcasting models you wish, doesn't change the fact that it is causing Intel to now lose market share to AMD. But in true Intellabee fashion you can't pass up on an opportunity to defend Intel. 'zyme

To: Elmer who wrote (117084)	6/22/2000 2:36:00 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586116

It turned out the information was wrong. No one foresaw the huge demand. Was that incompetence or just the limitations of the forecasting system? I say it was the latter but in true AMDroid fashion they couldn't pass up an opportunity to bash Intel. EP, I disagree (and this is not AMD bashing Intel). I think that most analysts of manu. operations consider Intel's miss of the market demand a major miscue. This was not missing one quarter but at least 3-4 quarters. I believe Intel has not gotten as much flack as may be warranted is because of its excellent reputation and history. What I don't understand is that with this poor demand call plus the other mistakes that have been made this past year, why there has not been a mgmt shakeup? It really mystifies me. ted

To: Elmer who wrote (117084)	6/22/2000 7:23:00 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1586116

Elmer ...Re..<<<<<<<In my opinion he was not entirely on the money. What I took issue with was his insistence that they blew it, implying they were incompetent. Yes they turned out to be wrong but they made the right decision based on the available information at the time. It turned out the information was wrong. No one foresaw the huge demand. <<<<<<< Elmer, how could Intel not have foreseen the huge demand when Intel created it by driving Cyrix and IDT out of business with a price war. Isn't that the main reason of a price war; to eliminate competition.? And once you eliminate competition; doesn't the last man standing pick up the business? If Intel management couldn't see this one coming, what can they foresee? The main question stockholders should ask management, If you didn't have the capacity to manufacture the chips, why start a price war to begin with?