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: GVTucker who wrote (172101)	12/4/2002 11:58:45 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

"You see impairment charges on unrealized losses all the time." Maybe. The "mark to market" rule which was given to us mainly by situations such as Bell Savings and Loan during the S&L crisis, says to change from cost basis when something significant impairs the value. As you know, Intel treats its "investment" gains and loses as ordinary income, I assume the theory is that they make these investments for strategic business purposes. So long as the relationship with the investee persists, it may be that the purpose and value of the investment is not impaired. This would fit with Intel's habit of dumping stock in companies in the investment portfolio that are no longer strategic to Intel's long term planning. And they take the loss at that time, as I presume an ordinary loss against current income. This treatment would be consistent with the issues of concern in the Bell Savings-type situation. But I really don't know for sure.

To: GVTucker who wrote (172101)	12/4/2002 12:30:50 PM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 186894

I have to agree with GVT on this one. You do have to take impairment charges on investments.

To: GVTucker who wrote (172101)	12/6/2002 4:38:49 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

One parting shot: Notable gaffes by Treasury Secretary O'Neill Friday December 6, 4:03 pm ET WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Following is a list of gaffes by Paul O'Neill, from his appointment as Treasury Secretary in January 2001 to his resignation on Friday: Jan. 2001 - At his confirmation hearing, said it was unlikely President George W. Bush's proposed 10-year $1.3 trillion tax-cut plan would do much to jump-start the economy, contrary to what the incoming administration had promised. Jan. 2001 - Described Wall Street financiers as "not the sort of people you would want to help you think about complex questions," adding he could learn to be a trader "in a couple of weeks." Feb. 2001 - On the way to his first Group of Seven industrial nations meeting in Italy, sent currency markets tumbling with comments raising doubts about the U.S. commitment to a strong dollar. "We are not pursuing, as it is often said, a policy of a strong dollar," he was quoted as saying in a German newspaper. O'Neill said his comments were misinterpreted and that there was no change in the U.S. strong-dollar policy. May 2001 - "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really very good," he said in a speech to a business group. August 2001 - "We're working to find a way to create a sustainable Argentina, not just one that continues to consume the money of the plumbers and carpenters in the United States who make $50,000 a year and wonder what in the world we're doing with their money," he said a week before endorsing an $8 billion IMF package of new loans for Argentina. March 2002 - Told a closed meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations that he disagreed with an administration decision to impose tariffs on imported steel, according to a New York Times report. March 2002 - Told a Senate panel he basically agreed it would make sense to allocate more spending toward battling terror groups and less to enforcing a decades-old travel ban to Cuba, flying in face of official Bush administration policy. June 2002 - Said he opposed fresh IMF loans to Brazil because its problems were "political." The remark spooked the markets, prompting the Treasury to issue a statement expressing confidence in Brazil's economic management. July 2002 - As the stock market slumped, O'Neill was criticized for traveling in Europe. Asked about why he was not in the United States, he replied: "I'm constantly amazed that anyone cares what I do and so when they clear the streets and we have all these militia people around... I really don't understand that very well." Aug. 2002 - Caused a diplomatic furor with Brazil by saying he would oppose any new financial aid unless there were assurances the money would not "go out of the country to Swiss bank accounts." The Brazilian real hit record lows against the dollar. A week later, the IMF unveiled a $30 billion bail-out for Brazil and O'Neill backed the plan. Oct. 2002 - O'Neill told the Greenville Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina he thought markets would parse the early speeches of Brazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, at the time a presidential candidate, carefully "to assure them he is not a crazy person."