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: brushwud who wrote (155629)	1/15/2002 11:59:38 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Long-term holders of Intel haven't observed that cap ex has decreased as wafer size has increased from 2" to 8", and the transition from 8" to 12" certainly doesn't herald a new millennium. And whenever was the cost of a fab mostly for bricks & mortar, rather than equipment? If you listen to Intel's CCs, they'll tell you it's great when they increase cap ex & then six months later let you know how great it is to reduce cap ex. Meanwhile everyone knows it's a leading indicator of future growth. But FUD is your name, and your game. You're arguing with Andy Bryant and then accusing me of spreading what amounts to Bryant's Fud. Just where is the Fear, the Uncertainty, and the Doubt? What are you afraid of here? As for Rock's law, maybe it's wrong? What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that expanding wafer size is a waste of time? If so how about presenting a case whereby a 12" fab costs 2.4X the cost of a 8" fab. After all, it produces 2.4X an 8" fab and if you're right, Intel is just plain stupid because there's no cost savings, right? What was the cost of 100million transistors 10 years ago? What was the cost of 100million bits of memory 10 years ago? How does that compare to today's cost? It seems that according to you it's a waste and we should still be on 2" wafers. Maybe this is just the price of competing in today's semiconductor market? EP

To: brushwud who wrote (155629)	1/16/2002 12:39:32 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

brushwud, If you listen to Intel's CCs, they'll tell you it's great when they increase cap ex & then six months later let you know how great it is to reduce cap ex. LOL. We got a lot of that from Teletubbies on this thread. On the other hand, the Droids will say that it was a huge mistake to increase cap. ex (at the time of the increase), and it was a huge mistake to cut it (at the time of the cut of the cap ex). Joe

To: brushwud who wrote (155629)	1/16/2002 1:21:26 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Brushwud, Intel's pulling in 300 mm development, probably because of large die sized chips, is what caused the anomaly of what was seemingly too much capex in 2001, and not enough in 2002. Andy Bryant said as much when he said 2002 would have been 6.5 billion, if 300 mm had been done in 2002. That would have left 6.3 billion in 2001, and everyone would have been happy. Look at it this way though, a lot of the spending and the work is out of the way, and Intel needs to just crank'em out and roll in the dough now. That is of course a simplification, but they did get something done early that the competition didn't. Tony

To: brushwud who wrote (155629)	1/16/2002 2:07:50 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Brushwud, Re: "Meanwhile everyone knows it's a leading indicator of future growth." Outside of the FUD spewing yourself, you do manage to bring up one very good point. CapEx is a leading indicator, so you won't be seeing the fruits of Intel's 2001 labors until later this year. It won't be until then that Intel gets some very nice returns on their investment, thus helping to increase manufacturing, lower costs, and improve yields. At that point, they should have little problem brute forcing their way into any market that they want, and that's when the competition will start to feel a lot more pressure. wbmw