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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (112190)	10/3/2000 11:05:52 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John here it is Regards -Albert 01:33pm EDT 2-Oct-00 Merrill Lynch (J.Osha (1) 415 676-3510) INTC INTC.GWI INTEL CORP:Change in Roadmap (10-02-00) ML++ML++ML Merrill Lynch Global Securities Research ML++ML++ML INTEL CORP (INTC/OTC) Change in Roadmap (10-02-00) Joseph Osha (1) 415 676-3510 ACCUMULATE* Long Term: BUY Reason for Report: Company Update Investment Highlights: o INTC has cancelled plans for the Timna processor; we have also heard reports that it is pushing out the P-IV to later in 4Q. o We believe that the company made the decision to cancel Timna because of 1) a history of production difficulties, 2) marginal support for the product, and 3) difficulty in positioning the product vis-a-vis Celeron. o In our view, both developments should not result any significant financial impact in 4Q, but we believe they highlight the extent to which INTC is trying to improve its communications with the PC channel, which has been poor up to this point. o Because both products would have low gross margins, we believe that both of this roadmap change could actually help gross margins. o Our 3Q EPS and 4Q EPS estimates remain $0.39 and $0.42, respectively. We maintain our Accumulate/Buy rating. Price: $41.56 12 Month Price Objective: $70 Estimates (Dec) 1999A 2000E 2001E EPS: $1.17 $1.66 $1.77 P/E: 35.5x 25.0x 23.5x EPS Change (YoY): 41.9% 6.6% Consensus EPS: $1.66 $1.76 (First Call: 28-Sep-2000) Q3 EPS (Sep): $0.28 $0.39 Cash Flow/Share: $0.53 $1.75 $1.93 Price/Cash Flow: 78.4x 23.7x 21.5x Dividend Rate: $0.02 $0.06 $0.07 Dividend Yield: 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Opinion & Financial Data Investment Opinion: B-2-1-7 Mkt. Value / Shares Outstanding (mn): $291,127.8 / 7,005 Book Value/Share (Jun-2000): $5.23 Price/Book Ratio: 7.9x ROE 2000E Average: 25.9% LT Liability % of Capital: 9.7% Est. 5 Year EPS Growth: 26.0% Stock Data 52-Week Range: $75.81-$32.50 Symbol / Exchange: INTC / OTC Options: AMEX Institutional Ownership-Spectrum: 45.2% Brokers Covering (First Call): 24 *Intermediate term opinion last changed on 12-Nov-1999. For full investment opinion definitions, see footnotes. Intel cancels Timna, and P-IV looks late - no financial impact, though Intel officially announced the cancellation of its Timna microprocessor project on Friday - the Timna has been intended to compete in the low-end PC market, and Intel has decided that the market opportunity no longer merits releasing the product. Separately, industry sources are claiming that Intel has delayed the launch of its P-IV microprocessor by approximately a month, until the end of November. Neither development is going to have a meaningful impact on Intel's financial performance in the fourth quarter - we had not factored much Timna into our model at all, and P-IV was not scheduled to ramp in earnest until 2001 anyway. Both developments do, however, highlight the extent to which Intel is still struggling to improve its communications with PC OEMs and refocus its mpu business after a series of ill-considered initiatives. We had not been factoring much Timna into our model... It was never clear to us why Intel was developing Timna in the first place, and as a result we never incorporated aggressive assumptions for Timna revenues into our model. Intel suffered following the introduction of its Celeron line- up, which high-end Celerons began to cannibalize the low-end of the P-III business. The introduction of the Timna would have created the same set of problems all over again, and Timna would likely have generated lower gross margins for Intel than Celeron. We do not agree with Intel's assertion that demand for low-price microprocessors does not exist - rather, we believe that Intel has decided that it would rather not engage price-aggressive competitors such as Via and National Semiconductor, especially at the risk of impacting Celeron sales. The questionable decision to have Timna support RDRAM also has created problems, as Intel has been working to correct problems with the memory translator hub, delaying Timna's launch. ...and P-IV volumes for the fourth quarter were not going to be that high either We are a little surprised that so much attention is being given to the reported P-IV delay, since Intel was never going to get enough P-IV into the market by the end of the year to have much of an impact anyway. We had only been modeling a few hundred thousand units during the fourth quarter. However, our checks indicated that PC OEMs planned to have P-IV based products on sale for the holidays, and a late November launch date makes that essentially impossible. We have not been able to confirm industry reports to the effect the launch date is, in fact, November, and Intel's wide time window for the launch eliminates any need for an official comment from the company. Yet, our earlier checks with both PC companies and distributors had indicated that the product was expected in October. Positive impact on gross margin - over the short term Interestingly, the Timna cancellation and the P-IV launch snafu should have positive financial implications for Intel, at least over the short term. Our checks indicate that the P-IV die will be approximately 200 sq. mms, much lower that P-III. Timna would have carried lower gross margins than Celeron, let alone P-III, and canceling that product takes some pressure off of Intel's gross margin, which will be under enough pressure anyway as it enters 2001. Bad calls at Intel are continuing to affect the company We continue to believe that all of Intel's recent problems, including the two we've been writing about, flow from two bad decisions by Intel management. The first decision was to push RDRAM into the PC market before the standard was commercially viable, and to use RDRAM even for low-end products such as Timna. There were other questions surrounding Timna, of course, but the delays associated with getting the memory translator hub to work are what finally killed the product. Intel's other bad decision was to reduce capital spending for three years, from 1997 to 1999, before reversing in spectacular fashion in 2000 to nearly double cap ex. Had Intel not underinvested, it would have had enough additional capacity to begin ramping P-IV sooner. Unfortunately, delays associated with bringing P-IV online have resulted in the end-of-the year scramble that is now leaving prospective P-IV buyers empty-handed for the holiday.