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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (2018)	7/24/2000 7:18:32 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Jackson to maroon central(Paul's house). I know you understand what I am saying. Intel has been on a profit nosedive for the last few quarters as far as fabbed sales and profits are concerned. Why do I pull out the share sales profits?, well I remember a similar quibble from you about AMD selling a division, and you wanted to pull out those sales profits to show the AMD production was earning negatives. Profits from semis would be 3-4 times as large as they are now and would re-connect to the early days profits graphs, that AMD has now kicked it off. We all know how much Intel would have made with no P-III 'botched gate' fiasco, no Rambus fiasco, no 820 fiasco, no huge mobo recall campaigns, etc. Intel would avoid these problems because the P-II would have had a far longer life, at 100% market share and a $200-300 higher ASP and all those forced errors would not have emerged because Intel would have had the time to make it right the first time, Oh and by the way, we would still be at 600 Mhz max. So do not play the game that Intel has not suffered body blows, many of them, and a few knockdowns, it has run it's course. Face it, Intel is a company in decline and AMD is ascendant. Intel is larger than AMD, of course, but for how long?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (2018)	7/24/2000 11:01:33 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Paul, I was hoping to be the first thrown off this thread, but it looks like you may give me some competition! Scumbria

To: Paul Engel who wrote (2018)	7/24/2000 11:35:29 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

Paul wow, that is staggering growth of 42% in a relatively negative for intel year. WOW -Albert

To: Paul Engel who wrote (2018)	7/24/2000 1:24:52 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Engel, <All time IAG revenues> What about those nasty "footnotes?" In addition, "all other" includes certain corporate-level operating expenses (primarily the amount by which profit-dependent bonus expenses differ from a targeted level recorded by the segments) and reserves for deferred income on shipments to distributors not allocated to operating segments. Adjusted for this distributor deferral, IAG revenues would be approximately $6,760 million in Q2 2000, $6,650 million in Q1 2000 and $5,850 million in Q2 1999. Accordingly, "all other" revenues would be approximately $1,540 million in Q2 2000, $1,340 million in Q1 2000, and $900 million in Q2 1999. The IAG revenues and profits as reported are meaningless numbers. "certain corporate level operating expenses" (NO NUMBERS, INTEL!) are "allocated to the all-other category." IAG "income" includes income from distributors that has not been sold to end uses yet. Again, a TOTALLY BOGUS NUMBER. What does Intel have to HIDE? Petz