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: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66516)	12/28/2001 3:26:23 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Monica: You are lying to yourself! You must remove the costs of employee stock compensation of $1 billion a quarter, so IABG made only $328 million, not enough to cover those losses in other (which probably includes more IABG costs that they are willing to admit). I will assume that the other business might lose some money, but not $1.25 billion a quarter, else those acquisitions were an utter disaster. All that is really going on is you want to deny facts! One fact is that Intel lost net worth in Q3 and in each of the quarters before that, this year (and back even more quarters). Calling others liars just because you do not want to acknowledge inconvenient facts is a cop out. And you know it! We (those of us that you claim as liars) have opposing viewpoints but, we are not lying! You have yet to prove your points. Intel's pro forma division of expenses leaves a lot to be desired (they appear to use every loophole they can find (I am amazed at their inventiveness without being called upon by these so called analysts)). When the ESOP costs have to be disclosed, then AMD and Intel will be on a more even footing. ESOPs are bad for shareholders until the practice is either disclosed with all of the costs enumerated or simply stopped (I voted down management grants of stock options to themselves every time it comes up (I am a firm believer of direct compensation partially covered by performance targets)). ESOPs based on market prices are ok and can be run without shareholder approval (does not use company money to pay for the stock, just the administration). Pete

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66516)	12/28/2001 3:40:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

tejek - You wrote Now you really didn't think it came from IABG, did you? I certainly do. And if you don't, it just shows that you have no idea about Intel's business and you didn't even bother to read their most recent earnings statement. No, what it shows YOU is that you believe what Intel wants/manipulates you into believing. As for not doing my homework, the Intel website was the first place I hit last nite.....as a review. And you don't think I missed the operating profit figure for IABG, do you? Intel had revenues of $5,393,000,000 and an operating profit of $1,328,000,000 from their IABG division last quarter. Look it up - do some work - instead of trying to pass of Dan3/pgerassi lies as facts. intel.com; There are different levels of profit. What I look for is net profit, that's two levels down from operating profit. Net profit has all the expenses taken out, including taxes and non-operating expenses, and not just operating expenses. There can be a big difference between the two numbers. In this case, Intel shows that the combination of operating profits and operating loses yields an operating profit of $389 million. However, after taking out non operating expenses and taxes, Intel shows a net profit of $106 million or $.02 EPS [scroll back up the page] like I said last nite. Quite a drop, don't you think? How much, if any of the $106 net profit, is attributable to IABG.....I don't have a clue, and it doesn't sound like you do either. But I bet you IABG made very little if any money last quarter.....not with a price war with AMD and production problems. Again as an investor, the only profit that is truly worth knowing is net profit. The rest is smoke and mirrors as far as I am concerned. ted