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: John Hull who wrote (126260)	1/30/2001 1:29:42 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, Thanks for the response. re: "To some extent you should have faith in Intel management's ability to guide these businesses." When you invest in any company, you are ultimately making a bet on their management. But in most cases you have a decent portion of the information needed to benchmark their success. Intel's "other" is like a black hole, profits from IAG and Intel Capital go in, and no information comes out. And the results from "other" have had an increasingly important impact on Intel's valuation in the last year. My guess is that Intel investor's will have faith in management until "other" is about a third of revenue, in another year, maybe two. If we're on the same track, the patience may wear thin. John

To: John Hull who wrote (126260)	1/31/2001 10:04:54 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

John, <<<To some extent you should have faith in Intel management's ability to guide these businesses. If you don't, you're free to invest elsewhere. >>> That sounds a bit like Henry Ford's attitude, don't complain, don't explain". The only difference is that they didn't name the company after BARRETT. The last time I noticed, the name of the company is still INTEL. I am all for giving management some lattitude to run the business. I don't think they should have to give us detailed P&L information. I think they should be given plenty of time to succeed. I do think, however, they should be able to communicate the overall strategy, be able to defend it, convince the investment community of their point of view and demonstrate some intellectual flexibility to adapt quickly to a fast changing environment. My personal fear is that Intel is much too much bottom line oriented and not sufficiently people oriented. My sense is that they acquire companies purely for the tangible assets. The bean counters understand the price of all tangible assets,(hoping to pay less than full dollar - something that Intel bean counters do all too well) but have no understanding that it is all about intellectual property and most of the assets reside in the heads of people working for the companies they acquire. IMO, that is the principle reason why Intel acquisitions are not achieving above average returns. As long as they stonewall and not open up to what they don't seem to understand - the returns will continue to be meager. That is just my sense of the situation. I do believe, however, they should be given time to prove their case. At the same time, they can't completely duck the investment community. Mary