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: GVTucker who wrote (136426)	5/31/2001 1:52:18 PM
From: Windsock	Respond to of 186894

GV - Re:"FYI, in Ashok Kumar's report that he released yesterday, he estimates that the Itanium family will generate revenues in excess of $6 billion annually by 2004." Just to give some perspective to that number, $6 billion is larger than AMD's total estimated revenue for 2001 of about $5 billion. And only about half of AMD's revenue comes from processors.

To: GVTucker who wrote (136426)	5/31/2001 10:06:18 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 186894

FYI, in Ashok Kumar's report that he released yesterday, he estimates that the Itanium family will generate revenues in excess of $6 billion annually by 2004. Was there any mention of near term impact? Obviously, it is going to be a high margin chip.

To: GVTucker who wrote (136426)	6/2/2001 11:29:25 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GVTucker, <<<FYI, in Ashok Kumar's report that he released yesterday, he estimates that the Itanium family will generate revenues in excess of $6 billion annually by 2004.>>> Do you think if any of the other analysts share this view? IMO Osha, Peck, and Edelstone will take a wait and see attitude. Peck will issues some mea culpa about not understanding this market when the numbers start creeping into earnings. Osha will be in complete denial. His first acknowledgement will be something about his estimate that Intel will be losing market share after AMD announcement that they will build it and major OEMs will all be evaluating very elegant and super powerful AMD 3GAA64 spec code named "Jack Hummer". Edelstone will make a pronouncement about overbuilding in the IT sector and forsees a 50 year moratorium on any further global IT spending. Anyhow, I think Ashok Kumar's estimates are on the conservative side and few other analysts, if any, have included these estimates into Intel valuation. Mary

To: GVTucker who wrote (136426)	6/2/2001 12:27:27 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Kumar... estimates the Itanium family will generate revenues in excess of $6 billion annually by 2004. By 2004, 64 bit processors, chipsets, and motherboards will likely account for half the units and 3/4 of the revenue in the computer / CPU sector. Given that Intel's operating costs and expenses were running at $24 Billion per year in the most recent quarter, Intel's revenues from the Itanium family had better be a heck of a lot more than $6 Billion by then. Dan

To: GVTucker who wrote (136426)	6/6/2001 7:03:34 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, His estimate sounds too low. What do you think is up with the stock market? Economic data recently released, showed renewed signs of inflation and yet the market goes up (because several companies had reported indicators that showed the bottom is near). An economy approaching a bottom in the face of increasing inflation doesn't exactly sound like something to get too excited about. At what point do you feel the inflationary indicators will get under control? When the energy costs are under control? What are the other ways to control inflation besides interest rates? About your post re: 5% costs on insurance as a result of legislation, where did you learn this was due to legislative changes? Our broker had said the changes were only a fraction of a percent. I think the 5% is not related to the changes required by legislature, but due to increases in salary. Inflation you know. On a different note, it almost seems like 50% of the startups went out of business in the last 4 weeks. I guess anyone left standing at this point wins. Not sure if that says much though. But it almost seems like the number of startups is about back to pre-boom era, which to a certain extent is good since many shouldn't have been there in the first place, of course, exceptions to any potential technology gaps this may have created. This isn't from a research report, just a general look-and-see. Some of the complementary chip startups seem desperate to drum up business. If it gets any worse out there, companies may start buying inventory again just to ensure they get the technology they need before some of these manufacturers start going out of business and create industry technology gaps. Not sure if this is even good for Intel, since complementary products, if they go away, simply slows down the market for a bit until new solutions have a chance to enter. I can almost see how a bust turns into a boom. Players get pushed out, industry product gaps start getting created, demand starts to pent up, then folks scramble to fill it. This cycle is weird. While build-and-destroy method of capitalism creates long-term efficiencies, short-term it's a headache and a drag on innovation. Regards, Amy J