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 (123549)	9/6/2000 8:58:06 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570755

Frank, RE:"My theory is that the sound generated by champagne corks popping all over Droidland after the downgrade drowned out the message that if he is right, (a big if) both companies would be hurt. The stock prices the last 2 days certainly show that a lot of people did get the message." Frank, Frank, Frank...what in tarnation are you doing? Droids can read and and very few think Intels downgrade was warranted. As far as Kumars excuse about PC demand slowing down. This is Wall Street excuse number 9 rehashed incorrectly 9999 times now. And wrong... Kumar is just a lapdog... Jim

To: f.simons who wrote (123549)	9/6/2000 10:29:40 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570755

frank: Don't know about any impact of any downturn on AMD...I'll bet AMD produces a 4th succesive quarter of record earnings, something I'm not confident in predicting for Intel...As well, AMD's Q3 earnings are likely to be some multiple of Intel's like 2 or 3 times Intel's Q3 eps...The market just won't buy Intel's "future-if-ever" promises much longer...not when they can purchase AMD shares at 1/2 the price when AMD has triple the current growth rate and 1/3 the multiple based upon current year eps estimates...Just doesn't make sense, Frank...The AMD dam is about to burst...Trust you're weighting your INTEl/AMD portfolio in favour of AMD at these relative pricing levels...

To: f.simons who wrote (123549)	9/7/2000 12:20:42 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1570755

Frank Re...<<<<The stock prices the last 2 days certainly show that a lot of people did get the message.<<< Frank, when you said "a big if" in the previous sentence, even you understood that Kumars message is probably wrong, and that if Intel doesn't meet expectations, it isn't necessarily because of a slowdown in demand. Kumar himself only last week deplored Intel paper launching and releasing of bad chips; and the subsequent damage done to Intel's rep. The end result,(Intel won't meet expectations), could very well be true, but the reason given is flawed; and doesn't conform to sales reports, 2nd quarter forecasts for 3rd quarter etc. Without a worldwide recession, there is no reason to believe computer demand has slowed suddenly; other than normal seasonal fluctuations. So I consider this drop a buying opportunity rather than a permanent way of life.

To: f.simons who wrote (123549)	9/7/2000 9:11:25 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570755

Dear Frank: I think that what Kumar and many analysts do not want to say is that demand is soft for Intel CPUs only and AMD has plenty of demand. This would mean that Intel has really two choices and both of them are bad. The first is to price their CPUs down to a level where they can sell them thus, lowering their ASPs to a point where gross margins suffer but, they still make money (just not as much as they are used to). The second is to keep prices where they are and claim that they have plenty of demand. This will become increasingly obvious that they have plenty of supply at lower ASPs but not enough supply for the high end. This is because they must limit their low end to keep up the ASPs for their high end CPUs. What they risk is that their customers begin to switch to their competitor's CPUs (AMD) due to the artificial shortage. This reduces their demand and makes it appear that the shortage is lessening. Given the second choice that fits the current facts, Intel is persuing a very dangerous course. Once AMD begins to start making large quantities of CPUs say somewhere between 5 and 10 million a quarter, Intel will have very little sales of high end CPUs no matter what they do. Their ASPs will tank to low levels (still probably sustainable without any drag by unprofitable side businesses) being obvious to everyone at a surprise quarter earnings statement. The signs will be there for all relatively intelligent people (like us) but, the vast majority of retail stockholders will be left "holding the bag" when Intel tanks to their true worth (still a valuable company like IBM in the late 80's but not .5 trillion worth) say about 50 to 100 billion (this could be the worth due to their ability to act as a silicon foundry (although massive layoffs will be necessary)) or a stock price about $7 to $14 a share (a p/e of about 10 to 20 (their natural amount before the tech run up)). The problem for us is it is very hard to see if Intel will continue this strategy or come clean at some point (only if their other businesses start making a lot of money). If they continue, just when it will be obvious is unknown. Certainly no later than Intel Capital being sold out and AMD producing 15 million CPUs in a quarter (about Q1, Q2, or possibly Q3 2001 given AMD production forecasts and Intel Capital's burn rate). This all presupposes that Intel does not pull a rabbit out of their hat with a true barn burner of a CPU (a practically non existent possibility (there would be some believable rumors to that by now)). All in all, a very interesting (but frustrating to us) period coming up. Pete