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: f.simons who wrote (120949)	7/26/2000 6:19:46 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Frank, <So I can safely assume that you owned no AMD stock a year ago. Bottom lines are certainly important, but so are peace of mind and a good night's sleep and stock price. Intel has had good bottom lines for many, many years. AMD has had good ones for three quarters, any you act like they invented the concept of profits.> BS. I have been most forthright. I do not expect AMD and Intel to be valued the same way. Market leaders with track record are given better valuation. There should not be any dispute about that. I am just asking you what the metric is that you use to value Intel. And, I haven't yet seen an answer. And, something tells me I will not see the answer. (Would love to be wrong though.) <We will never agree on criteria for investment decisions.> Agreed. And, I wasn't saying we should agree either. I was wondering what your valuation criterion is. <Some posters here repeat ad nauseum that Intel's revenues YOY are up 88M. Paul has repeatedly debunked that figure, but the same posters come back with it again and again.> I have no idea what you are talking about what you are talking about here. As far as Paul is concerned, he is too busy clowning around to debunk anything. I would love to see you or Paul or anyone else to post Intel's numbers (whatever numbers you choose for the last several years) and come up with a valuation metric. <20 years of great profits, which are continuing, is important to Intel investors. It understandably means squat to an AMD investor. > This kind of thinking does not qualify for investment criterion in my mind. It is like driving on the road while looking out of the rear window. Britain was once a great country. What does that tell you about where it is today? Intel was a growth company till 1996 (and beginning of 1997 and did zilch since then) <Only the last three quarters matter to you. > Au contraire, I give diddly about AMD's last 3 quarters - the next 12-18 months is what matters to me. In general, my observation is that past seems to be lot more important to Intel investors than AMD investors. <You have no idea how funny it is to see Intel slammed as a has-been company, all washed up etc. and have the stock double every two years or so.> You know how funny it is to see a stock grow 4-fold when the numbers stay flat or go down and the competitive situation keeps getting worse? Cest la vie. Chuck