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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (172922)	2/8/2003 1:47:35 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

And let me just add, the actual FACTS may reveal that the option PRICE may be the price Intel traded at at the time. Let's say, Les has 2.5 Million options. You need to know the exercise price. If that price is 75 or 50 or 1.60, it will make a difference in the analysis. The are other issues of course; the new tests of HT are showing it to be a huge advantage in distributed computing, and intel does call it the architecture for the next twenty years, what if Les came up with some clever plan to tie the next twenty years of PC's to the next twenty years of servers by intel, say wouldn't that be something. And what if Tom made sure the deal was structured such that Intel would not get slapped silly with an Antitrust violation, and what if Craig figured out how to build them en masse. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. And some of these answers can't really be disclosed, even to a shareholder, BUT the exercise price can and should be. I don't know it the new SEC rules require disclosure filings at grant date, or just closer to the exercise date. Don't you agree?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (172922)	2/8/2003 2:12:50 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Duke, Re: "like all the other losers who threw their money away during this bear market" you are really missing the issue. You can not excuse a fraud by blaming the victim of fraud for being so stupid as to fall for it. So by implication, you are saying that the bear market was caused by fraud? If not, then your analogy doesn't work. It's obvious to me that the bear market was caused by the bursting of the Internet .com bubble, and you can hardly blame Intel for that. It's not a pretty situation, but you should watch where you focus your blame. I think the whole industry is technically at fault, but I don't see any reason to dwell on it. People seem to be trying their hardest to claw their way out of the gaping hole they fell in over the past couple years. Intel is doing the same. Sure you can bring up valid points like how Intel expenses options, etc, but what does that have to do with Carl's comments about crooks being in the INTC executive office? I see you still haven't addressed that, so what am I supposed to think? Do you believe INTC has crooks running the show - that they are taking unfair compensation on the order of plain theft? Let's bring the actual point into the open, because I'm still fixated on whether there is something criminal involved, or if you and Carl are just bitter over your losses and are looking for someone to blame.