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: wanna_bmw who wrote (162280)	3/15/2002 5:10:59 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

bmw re: Do you have reason to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with this outside of the current global economy? you did not need to ask that because you know the answer. Let's talk about few problems (among many): * recurring investment expenses: yes, I know that they are not recurring any more and everyone, including John Hull, think that it was a bad idea. For some reason it became a bad idea only when it stopped been in favor of intel. When I brought the subject of recurring investment gains and suggested two choices 1) intel would count them as recurring and but it would have to change it's overall business attitude and be accountable by far more rigorous standards 2) it would leave investment gains alone and possibly even direct the investment toward hedging rather than treating it as a profit source in my view anything else would be less than wise. Let's disregard that I was attacked for that and called so many thing that I do not care to repeat but concentrate on 2). With a proper hedging in place, intel would not be hurting as bad as it is now. And because intel chose nether 1) nor 2) more people pay attention to investment side of Intel. Let me see, that was a free advice that, if taken seriously, would save Intel billions. * Now about price war, price war was hurting amd shareholders (me included) but if it would be gaining results then it would be justified. After all, business is business. But there were no signs that price war was gaining any significant market share gains and it did not make competition any weaker. Right opposite, in order to justify expenses at lower prices amd started to look at larger market share that it was originally targeted at. Intel also started capacity build up that added inertia to price-war strategy. Instead of limiting spending intel went on spending spree. Economy goes in cycles and the concept of buying the way out of recession is somewhat naive at best. * Now we are at next topic, my favorite, capacity or rather overcapacity. Intel started capacity "cold war" with amd. Now both companies are increasing their production capacity without reasonable consideration for actual demand. What is the result of overcapacity? Now, shall I continue or the point is clear? Regards -Albert

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162280)	3/15/2002 5:38:16 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ref < Intel's US Loss and Overseas Profit > The geographic allocation of profit and loss for a multinational operation is almost an academic accounting exercise. If Intel ships a microprocessor wafer from a U.S. based Semiconductor Fab to Malaysia, where the wafer is diced, packaged and tested, and then shipped by Malaysia to customers all over the world, how do you allocate the profit to US and Malaysia ? If the wafer is "sold" at cost to Malaysia by the US operation, US pays for all the R & D and other overhead expenses, and makes a huge loss, and Malaysia makes a huge profit. So the critical issue is the transfer price of wafers between US and Malaysia. This transfer price can be quite arbitrary, and the multinational can set it to minimize its taxes by showing a high profit in the country where the tax rate is low, and show minimal profit in the country with a high tax rate. In reality transfer price is Wafer Cost plus an arbitrary profit allocation of 10-20%. The important issue to focus on is the overall profit of the company. The geographical location of the profit with multinational manufacturing is not very meaningful.