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 (166444)	6/16/2002 2:09:04 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

I should make it clear that I don't think that Intel is cheating or practicing explicit fraud in their accounting. But one set of GAAP rules is used to cover every business in the country, and those rules don't work very well for non-standard businesses. For instance, Indianapolis coke had a big capex cost in 1908-1909: Twenty-two acres of land at the Utility's present Prospect Street plant site were purchased and a water gas plant was hurriedly constructed in 1908. Water gas production then commenced at the end of March, 1909. Two coke oven batteries of 25 ovens each were also constructed. In November of that same year coke oven gas production began and has continued at that site to the present indycoke.com Coke gas isn't very important these days, but the metallurgical quality coke produced in these ovens continues to be in high demand from local steel mills. Much of the equipment bought then is still in use (7x24x365, as a matter of fact. It takes a number of days to bring the ovens up to operating temperature, so they are never shut down). GAAP allows only limited differences in the handling of that expense, and Intel's expenses to buy stepper-scanners and polishers that lose most of their economic value in a few years. Admittedly, these are the two extremes of capital investment to be dealt with in GAAP, but that's just my point - Intel, and AMD, (and NT!) are extremes in terms of accounting, and need to handled very carefully. Blindly following GAAP, isn't enough, and NT and Lucent are great examples why. AMD finds ways to expense capex about as fast as it occurs, while Intel blithely accepts that its capex costs are often significantly under-expensed in GAAP, assuming a "not my problem - let the investors try to figure it out" stance. With Intel touting its "profits during the slump" nonsense, it makes AMD's performance appear, by contrast, less spectacular than it has been.

To: Dan3 who wrote (166444)	6/17/2002 12:32:39 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "...The report – damning for both the current bosses at HPQ and at Intel – says that while Itaniums may reduce the cost of computing, it is "still unproven" and may not "flourish" for at least one to two years. The FDA is even considering using AMD Hammer processors, according to the documents we saw." LOL! The report says that the FDA is wary because they consider the Itanium as "unproven", but that they will consider the "unproven" Hammer processor, instead? Only the most delusional of AMDroids will believe this one. wbmw