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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: whortso who wrote (66348)	12/27/2001 2:44:03 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 275872

Whort, "I think your claim is nonsense. Elmer has made a valid point. The shares bought back this year are not the same shares that are sold this year. Your idea falls apart. Too bad. Now go find another way to do your bashing." First, it is not my idea. It is the Forbes-1998 magazine idea. Second, Elmer's excuse is irrelevant. I could not care less which shares they were. What is important is money, how much it cost to maintain the pool of shares. Have you heard about quarterly balance? You sell something, you bought something, you end up with the difference. In our case, Intel sells stock at exercise price, $3-$6/share, those shares go to market, and Intel buys the _same_ (effectively) stock back at $30/share. What is the end result? Too bad you cannot understand simple things like that. To calm yourself down you can invent any excuses, but they do not change the fact of negative net result of stock buy-backs on the company pockets. This is simply ridiculous to dispute. The actual question is whether these undisputed expenses are part of operating expenses or not. Some people agree that stock options are just a supplimentary form of labor compensation, and therefore it must be considered as operating expense, and properly reported to investing public. You and your buddies disagree, for obvious deceptive reasons. - Ali

To: whortso who wrote (66348)	12/27/2001 5:40:48 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

whortso, Ali, I think your claim is nonsense. Elmer has made a valid point. I thought you were gathering information on how Intel repurchased all the shares that were granted and exercised so far and options granted in prior years eligible to be exercised. Whichever you look at the timing of purchases / sales, the profit Intel made is some 100 million, the cost of repurchases is around 1 billion, which makes it next to impossible to come up with a scenario of how Intel has not lost money, using this particular yardstick. Not that it is a disaster to at or slightly below breakeven during a major downturn of technology related purchases, economic slowdown and a war. But I understand it takes a bit out of the Teletubie pride. Joe