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: Paul Fiondella who wrote (37070)	10/21/1997 12:10:00 AM
From: Pancho Villa	Respond to of 186894

Paul: RE: >>If all you can manage are personal insults then get a life. I'm not here to put down Intel, I'm here to get something out of this thread besides the I'm okay You're okay balony that Engel and the rest of you post.<< Fiondella, I am behind you. However, except for a few exceptions, I found such nasty welcome to any comment that deviates from 100% praise of INTC that I will no longer post here (bet you even this message will generate its share of nastiness). It is a pity because it is precisely contrarian opinions that one needs when long on a stock. Too bad, we won't learn much from padding each other in the back... Pancho

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (37070)	10/21/1997 1:00:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Paul - Re: "If you've got the facts post the facts, its saves everybody time" Here's a fact: I'm OK. You're not. Paul

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (37070)	10/21/1997 3:29:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: I'm here for information not to have my ego inflated Paul, That's good, because one of the great advantages of this thread is everyone gets his ego deflated at no additional charge. Oh, and because you're just looking for the facts, I'll include one free: during the past decade Intel generated the greatest increase in market value added of any corporation in the history of the world, perhaps in the history of the known universe.

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (37070)	10/21/1997 3:36:00 PM
From: Larry Loeb	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul F. If you want facts, you might want to stop spouting uninformed rhetoric and simply ask questions. It would be somewhat less controvertial and generate fewer flames, but it might better serve your stated purpose: I'm not here to put down Intel, I'm here to get something out of this thread In response to your earlier question to me re: variable pricing and cost: The lowest stated price on Intel's price list (for volume customers) is $95 for the August price list. According to the conference call, I understand that this will probably stay the lowest price, but the chips will change. The $70 cost per die is based on some calculations I made with some professionals in the industry. If you don't believe those, you might want to consider that AMD priced their K-6 at approx. $75 per chip. They expected to make a profit at this price (although they expected better yields). While AMD's variable cost per die (as opposed to cost per good die) is lower than Intel's (because their die are smaller due to the 5 metal layer process), it isn't so much lower that they could expect to cover both their fixed and variable expenses at $75 (to generate a profit), unless their costs were significantly below $75. This leaves plenty of room for Intel's costs to still be below $70 (although even at $75, they would make a variable profit). I hope you find this useful. You might even find Paul Engel to be a valuable source if you ask him nicely. He used to work at Intel and is responsible for at least one of their patents. You should note that, while he may burst some of the unrealistic expectations of AMD and CYRX holders, he also holds shares of each (at least until recently). Good luck in your investments. Larry