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: Mary Cluney who wrote (119261)	11/26/2000 4:33:21 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, >I understand your passion. I understand your technical expertise. But, please consider your comments in light of risk management and equity investing. There are people out there investing for widows and orphans - and you may influence their decisions. Nice post as always. At first, I was going to come back with a retort like caveat emptor, or take it for the source from whence it came, or you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. In other words, you've been around here long enough to recognize the negative ones that post any slant possible trying to say that Intel is going to go out of business. Fuchi, Albert, Martin Atkinson-Barr, types come to mind. Then, I thought, as you implied, that there are casual readers that drop by for a few posts only and might actually take some of these complete negative types to heart. Now that I've typed all that, I've changed my mind again. It is caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, where the buyer is a reader. He/she better be prepared to take it all with a grain of salt, or be prepared to take the consequences if they act on one fervent poster or another. Freedom of the Internet, or something. Well, freedom of speech. Tough luck on the Qualcomm thing. A guy for New Orleans named Oldham made a beautiful interception to slam the door on the Rams. Tony

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (119261)	11/26/2000 4:33:51 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: But, the fact of the matter is that AMD has no credibility and presence in the IT world. AMD has enough problems just keeping its head above water - and is not assured of survival. They do not have the resources to compete in the IT market much less influence the direction of the future of IT computing. A year ago, AMD had no credibility or presence in the midrange to high end retail/small office market. Now they are tied, if not leading, Intel in this market. AMD had been losing money for several years while it financed a huge expansion program. Now AMD will earn $1 Billion after taxes this year - demonstrating a huge growth rate that looks to continue, has the only working production X86 copper process or FAB on the planet, and can subsidize its CPU operations, if need be, with its market leading flash operations. It is as assured of survival as is any tech company these days. Intel would have had a year on year decrease in earnings if not for the serendipitous Micron investment it made for political, not economic reasons. Intel loses money except for its X86 business, and is certainly facing an "inflection point" in its business plan. I happen to think Intel will continue to make boatloads of money and isn't a risky stock, but I also doubt its earnings can grow much over the next few years, more likely, they will decrease slightly. Too bad you treat this as a blood sport I didn't start that aspect of it, but I'm not going to ignore it from others. I remember very clearly, how a technical type caused me to lose a huge amount of money (actually not to make a lot of money) when years ago I was ready to invest in Qualcom, I read an Alan Abelson column in Barrons, where a well meaning professor type was advocating with utter finality that CDMA was a fraud and that it would never work. Like Paul Engel keeps saying the status quo can never be challenged? And you shouldn't invest in a $6.5 billion company because there is no such thing as growth or market share change? What if that company has been successfully taking market share away from its only competition, a $295 billion company? Intel has far too high a market cap and P/E to jump the way Qualcomm did, but AMD is small enough by those measures to support a 5x or 10x price increase. If the P4 doesn't have a rapid and successful transition to .13 / copper, we could be looking at two $125 Billion companies by early 2002. (by the way, I expect Intel will pull off its concurrent transitions to .13 and copper, but probably not quite as quickly or smoothly as it hopes). So I expect Intel's stock to stay about where it is - up or down by 2x, while AMD rises substantially - up to 5x or 10x current, or goes down no more than 3x. JMHO (to the nitpickers out there, down 2x = 1/2) Intel isn't risk free, and has limited upside. AMD is unquestionably a riskier investment, but has 5 times the upside potential of Intel. A prudent widow or orphan would own some of each, and not too much or either! Regards, Dan

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (119261)	11/26/2000 4:43:42 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Respond to of 186894

re. I know you don't mean to do so, but your advocacy could unwittingly cause investors to lose money. you mean DUMB investors, Mary ? smart ones also care reading Paul's replies :-)

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (119261)	11/26/2000 8:57:34 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Mary - Re: "I read an Alan Abelson column in Barrons, where a well meaning professor type was advocating with utter finality that CDMA was a fraud and that it would never work. As a result, I did not invest in Qualcom (about 1000 shares) in around 1995. The rest is history." Was this, by any chance, a professor from Stanford? I recall the identical controversy - and a noteable Stanford Prof sticking his neck out - making a most damning assessment of the viability of CDMA. Clearly, he was COMPELETELY wrong. I'll bet he got a promotion. Paul

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (119261)	12/15/2000 2:31:34 PM
From: greg nus	Respond to of 186894

mary, <Too bad you treat this as a blood sport and have to compromise yourself to prove your point. Regardless, I believe you also have a responsibility. There are many investors who come to this thread seeking due diligence for their investments. I know you don't mean to do so, but your advocacy could unwittingly cause investors to lose money.> Mary, your own words have come back to haunt you. Here is a tip for the future. make your investments based on your gut. Not on written word. if you look hard enough you will always find a negative opinion on any investment, besides professors never vote with their pocketbooks I also question you ability to exicute you should have bought Qulacom at the first indication of a 50% gain, as market action would have disproven any negative dispariges. learn to read the volume charts. right now the volume charts are indicating Intel goes lower. however should Intel have a plus 200million share up day and close on the high for the day things could change untill then Intel is at best dead money and at worse a lose generating liability. Further please learn to have the ability to seperate how a company performs how it's stock trades. Like right now Intel is a terrific company and has terrific technology. Intel stock shares however, seperating the two, are a different story. The world economy is slowing, prospects for intel growth are evaporating, i's stratigic portfolio of investments are declining in value in sympathy with a world wide decline in demand for technology. Intel has it'self curtailed capital expenditures this means growth is dead and business perhaps will even begin to decline. Sorry but stock prices for companies with good technology but flat or declining growth do not increase they do however decrease. Further p/e rations are contracting not expanding. Here is another example for you Intel just announced breakthrough technology for packing transistors on a chip, since the announcement Intel shares have traded down 6 points. Intel shoud have saved that tidbit for better times when that news qould have been good for a 25 point pop to the upside for Intel.