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: jackrabbit who wrote (133679)	4/30/2001 9:06:22 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: What other gross inaccuracies are in your post? Ahhh the mysteries of arithmetic. For Q1, INTC Assets - Liabilities were $18.739 - $7.387 while for the previous quarter they were $21.150 - $8.650. The difference is a net change of -$1,148 Million. During the same period, running the same calculation, AMD's change was +285 Million. That was too much for you to figure out, eh? And it's getting worse, much worse. Intel's various divisions evolved over the past ten years thinking that spending $3 in costs for every $2 in revenues was how business worked. Meanwhile, Intel's competition was hardened by competing with a company that kept growing while losing money. The whole house of cards that was built when the Justice department stopped IBM from competing with Intel is starting to come down. AMD is well positioned for the next generation without needing to build new FABs because they put copper and PODs in place 2 years ago even though it was "hard" and they "didn't need it yet". For $500 million in capex this year, they are moving to 1 FAB with copper, SOI, and .13. For $7,500 million this year, Intel is moving to 3 FABs with copper and .13, but not SOI because SOI is "hard" and they "don't need it yet". Intel has grown incredibly fat and lazy over the past 10 years, they're pouring 15 times as much into capex as AMD to produce facilities that are 1 to 2 years behind. Intel should stop whining about how "hard" it is to move to the next generation of processes. They should start trying to build state of the art FABs instead of FABs typical of technology used by AMD 2 years earlier even though their overly conservative middle management puts together beautiful slide shows that claim they "don't need it yet" - what they did with copper and PODS. And look what's happened to their market share, profitability, and competitive position in the meantime. Look what's happened to AMD in the same period. The days of Intel having monopoly profits from the CPU business are gone. AMD has built a cost structure that lets them thrive in such an environment, Intel has not. Intel has cash and liquid investments equal to 1.5 quarter's costs, while AMD has cash and liquid investments equal to 1 quarter's costs. AMD has debts equal to about another quarter's costs, but these companies may be less than 1 year away from being evenly matched in terms of effective financial resources. And Intel hasn't a clue about competing in such an environment. Dan