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: Dan3 who wrote (158728)	2/14/2002 9:56:15 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 186894

Dan, You are comparing "cash outflows" to "earnings". We've discussed this previously. As I have posted previously, when a company posts "earnings" in a Quarter, that doesn't mean that they collected that much cash. So, assuming your next question is: Why? The answer is that there are many "non-cash" expenses recorded within an Income Statement. For example, Depreciation and Amortization are both non-cash expenses and add to it, stock compensation expense. While share repurchases are not reflected w/i the Income Statement, share repurchases are reflected w/i the Statement of Cash Flows. In order to ascertain a "relative" value of a publicly traded company, one can come up with a "rough" valuation based on their estimated EPS times a multiple. Another way to value a publicly traded company, one can discount their estimated future cash flows back to present. Sometime, people discount Free Cash Flow, which is the theoretical cash available to investors, after all expenses are incurred. FCF can be considered Operating Cash Flow less Capital Expenditures and, of course, if one chooses, one could even model FCF as OCF less CapEx and Stock Repurchases, if one wishes. However, it is my belief that companies that continually repurchase their stock view that stock as a good investment and, IMO, it is better than issuing a cash dividend issued to shareholders. Remember, what is bad for Intel is also bad for Advanced Micro Devices.

To: Dan3 who wrote (158728)	2/14/2002 11:46:34 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

The Pentium 4's SDRAM Advantage Contrast this with AMD -- who wears its DDR blinders faithfully, and has its vendors doing the same. It's certainly a good business model to set DDR as the high-performance option for new Athlon XP processors, but the entry-level Duron is starting to feel the platform pinch. The vast majority of Duron SDRAM systems use the KT133A or KM133 chipsets, both of which are old designs and lack the latest enhancements. Although older Socket A chipsets had at least theoretical support for SDRAM, neither the SiS745 nor VIA KT266A lists it as an option. In short, there's a wide gulf in feature sets between current AMD SDRAM and DDR options, which gives the Pentium 4 a huge advantage for lower-cost, feature-rich systems. Even with PC133 leveling the playing field, pitting the SiS645 against the decrepit KT133A is simply no contest. For example, the KT133A doesn't even have the upgraded 266MB/sec V-Link bus of newer VIA chipsets, while the SiS645 rides along on an expansive 533MB/sec data bus. How a Duron or even Athlon XP SDRAM system is supposed to match the price/performance of a Pentium 4/SiS645 configuration is beyond me, especially with the AMD box powered by an over-the-hill chipset like the KT133A or KM133. While AMD seems to be hitting the lowest common denominator, many buyers want not only an inexpensive SDRAM-based desktop, but also a robust feature set, a fast system bus, and a ton of integrated options. In a market where memory prices change at the drop of a hat, AMD and its partners are just painting themselves tighter into the DDR corner. hardware.earthweb.com