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: pgerassi who wrote (141105)	8/8/2001 8:56:38 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pete, let me put it this way. Intel not only has $7.5B to spend on new fabs for this year alone, they also have the money to spend on acquiring new companies AND STILL emerge with a healthy profit. Meanwhile, AMD does not even have the money to build a single fab on their own. Your constant rants over Intel's acquisition costs are futile, just like your attempts to look smarter than all of the accountants and investment experts out there who obviously do not share your view. Tenchusatsu

To: pgerassi who wrote (141105)	8/8/2001 11:52:09 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "This is totally wrong when Intel gets to define what are acquisition costs and what gets into the cost side of the Pro Forma earnings." Excuse me Pea. Acquisition costs, including goodwill, are determined by the tax code.

To: pgerassi who wrote (141105)	8/9/2001 11:44:49 AM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Pea: I, too, will join others in ignoring your posts (not responding) as it becomes tiresome correcting your obvious attempts to 'mis-understand' and continue to post bizarre musings. It appears only you are totally confused by different accounting presentations. You are fully convinced investors of all ilks can be easily sandbagged by GAPP and/or Pro Forma game playing. The concepts involved are simply not that complicated. It's not that hard for huge firms with massive resources to model future cash flow regardless of what you think are accounting gimmicks. SEC rules ensure investors see enough to make decent decisions. Seems like you are the only one confused and maybe other tiny investors. Big boys will be happy to cherry pick your 100 shares (in a $mil. buy) as you flee your position based on say negative earnings that were fully the result of say R&D. Wake up and Good luck!