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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (183072)	1/15/2006 12:13:54 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

well of course if you stock never moves, the option problem sort of solves itself.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (183072)	1/15/2006 9:13:40 AM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

To all the Intellackeys saying that Intel wouldn't irritate its customers by serving them with subpoenas: theinquirer.net "AMD has served, and Intel anticipates serving, subpoenas duces tecum on computer industry customers, retailers and other third parties," said the filing.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (183072)	1/16/2006 3:36:34 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tench, "Options as pct. of 2004 profits" "To all of the AMDroid hypocrites saying that stock option expensing would kill Intel's profits" To all dumbs, this is a transitional period. Also, this is according to a theoretical BS schema, and this is a going forward schema, with virtual expenses spread over a period of several years. I am not sure how it really is meant to work, but I assume the next year "option expenses" for new options will add to the current number. So, given current trend, expect in 5 years x 19%/year = 95% of profits, give or take, which matches my estimations based on stock buyback. For the historical retrospective, you may want to examine the following piece of analysis first: yahoo.businessweek.com Cheers, - Ali