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 (183111)	1/17/2006 11:11:23 PM
From: willowy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Duke, I agree with everything you said, but this is Andy's second miss in three months. When WS is so edgy, you can not do it. On December 8th he told us something, which did not materialize. Enough is enough. Mr O. has to change CFO asap. Intel needs a guy who is less casual with WS. Mr O. has many talented VPs to choose from, who can do much better work. Time for change is up. New logo is fine but now new CFO is needed IMO as I said before. willowy

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (183111)	1/18/2006 12:41:27 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

re: True, I am biased, but Intel missed its own estimate of revs by about 2 or 3%. You try estimating 10 billion +/- in sales and get back to my people on how easy this is. Since are hard to predict on occasions but how is it relevant to the comments about stock option grants? re: JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CHANCES ARE OF THIS last alternative? well, still not exactly relevant to the discussion but since you brought it up - I am sure that chances are significantly higher than you think and almost guaranteed that they are higher than what AMD used to charge. Do keep in mind that top of the line AMD chips had moved from double digit prices to triple digit and, please, do keep in mind that Intel's top of the line moved other way. OTOH, unlike you who was always celebrating AMD's problems more than Intel's success, I do not celebrate Intel's shortfall. -AK

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (183111)	1/18/2006 9:33:13 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Duke of URL, RE: True, I am biased, but Intel missed its own estimate of revs by about 2 or 3%. You try estimating 10 billion +/- in sales and get back to my people on how easy this is. Just note that 2/3 of the quarter's revenues were in the book when Intel gave their estimate of the potential range of the quarter's revenues back in early December. Given that Intel's revenues fell below that range, obviously something happened that management had not anticipated. This isn't necessarily reflective of poor management, of course, but it is an indication that fundamentals aren't as good as management thought they were.