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: henry tan who wrote (38033)	10/28/1997 2:30:00 PM
From: Samorai Ninji	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Anyone think INTC will follow IBM's footsteps (stock buy back) if this market are to head down lower?

To: henry tan who wrote (38033)	10/28/1997 2:37:00 PM
From: Mohan Marette	Respond to of 186894

U.S Labor costs in check! Henry, In case you haven't heard, here is a bit of a good news regarding labor costs in the U.S,another plus for the economy. yahoo.com

To: henry tan who wrote (38033)	10/28/1997 7:59:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Henry - re: Intel/Dec Fab First, it is a little complicated to figure out what Intel is really paying for this FAB. The $700,000,000 may also include WORK_IN_PROGRESS - that is, silicon wafers (Alpha chips, StrongARM chips, PCI chips, etc.). This work in progress will then become Intel's property which they will then SELL back to DEC at a profit with very little cost to Intel. This could amount to $75,000,000 easily - assuming $1,000 per Alpha chip at (300,000)/4 (quarterly production rate of ALPHA) plus incidentals. Also, Intel will be receiving that amount every quarter (more or less) but that will be onging "business". Thus, the FAB may be costing about $625,000,000. Add to this $375,000,000 for equipment to upgrade to Intel's standards and we're talking $1,000,000,000. Then, add in the pay back for getting this FAB quickly (6% cost of money times 12 to 18 months) and perhaps another $60,000,000 saving. This would bring the actual cost to roughly $930,000,000, a 28% cost saving over $1,300,000,000. Paul