SI
SI
discoversearch

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: wanna_bmw who wrote (78684)4/28/2002 9:39:23 PM
From: Ali ChenRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
wbmw, "..I decide to buy a $30[k] car..Your argument is sort of philosophical in nature...It's all academic, and it barely applies to the legality of Intel's accounting."

No, it is not any academic, it is a simple way of
money accounting, a skill most Americans are lacking.
And no one said anything about legality or illegality.

However, both examples are weak: when you buy a car,
it is still an asset, so your total does not change
much unless the car is a total consumable junk. And
again, you are trying to build an "one-time" expense
model, which is clearly incorrect.

The better example would be if you are paying say,
rent for a storage, or something like that, a total
waste of money. The stock buy-backs are expenses,
the money are wasted. That's why the original Forbes
article of 1998 equated those expenses to the cost
of labor. Period.

And again, no one argues whether AMD should be kept at
the same standard or not. It should. The thing which
pisses me off is when presumably intelligent persons
keep repeating the obvious nonsense about Intel making
money.

BTW, the big money apparently are much smarter than
those SI individuals. For proof, just look a 2-year
INTC chart:
bigcharts.marketwatch.com

No matter how Barrett continue to brag about "continuous
profitability", it remains flat. Don't you see some
discrepancy here?

- Ali