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: Wolff who wrote (170738)	9/6/2002 4:48:39 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tenchusatsu: Fair enough, all I would add is a hope that Barrett starts to move over some of the "Marketing/in front of Cameras" work over to Otellini now, he certainly needs the help, and certainly Intel has a long tradition of Two and Three and more in a Box organizational charts. It would save face all the way around. Again, you're making an assertion "...he certainly needs the help..." and presenting it as fact without supporting evidence. I haven't seen a solid discussion of what exactly you feel Barrett has done wrong in light of the counter-arguments here. Granted, the transition period when Barrett first moved up as CEO was rocky. There was the limited P3 "Coppermine" supply and the i820 MTH recall, along with the 1.13GHz P3 pseudo-recall. I would tend to agree that there was a problem there, but I don't think it's a problem with Barrett as CEO as opposed to a problem with the transition plan. Most of the "fall down" at Intel when Barrett stepped up seems to have been in duties Barrett used to perform before he moved up to the "big office." Transition management is one of the hardest jobs to perform in any company, especially at the top levels of management. Rather than blasting Barrett, it seems to me that once the gap was identified, he's done a good job as CEO of backfilling his old position and getting the company on track. The Tualatin and Northwood ramps on 0.13 micron have been essentially flawless, especially as compared to the 0.18 micron ramp. 300mm is up and yielding equivalently to 200mm. That's two major process changes accomplished without a hitch. To maintain long-term growth and valuation, a company must execute well. Putting a pretty face on things will gloss things over in the short-term, but that's it. Results always speak louder than spin-doctoring, and they strengthen the credibility of a company in the process. Based on these observations, I see no factual basis for your thesis...