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: gnuman who wrote (43609)	1/2/1998 3:03:00 PM
From: Pierre-X	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: AMD You said: The problem as I see it, AMD's not going out of business. I think I read where Sanders warned the investors to expect big losses for the next Qtr or so. He appears clearly ready to buy market share. In microeconomic theory, the continued existense of marginal products--AMD and Cyrix, in this case--are living proof of economic rents (the term for excess profits) at the market leader--in this case Intel. Intel investors should get worried when AMD and Cyrix go out of business, not vice versa. PX

To: gnuman who wrote (43609)	1/2/1998 6:32:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gene, >>>If AMD doesn't go away, and if they keep responding to Intel with lower prices, where is it all going to end up? <<< They would just have to deal with it. AMD was included in the NVL project upon Andy Grove's insistence. So, I guess Intel is ready to deal with competition. And, why not? Who doesn't have competiton? Coke? Gillette? Boeing? Duracell? Mc Donalds? Compaq? Dell? AT&T? Merck? Goldman Sachs? American Express? General Motors? CitiBank? Sony? Mercedes? CBS? Playboy? Time Warner? Yahoo? Amazon.com? America Online? Why is it that we think Intel can't compete? And, can only succeed without competition? Mary

To: gnuman who wrote (43609)	1/2/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: mauser96	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Maybe I'm missing something, but a high cost producer (AMD) can't buy market share from a low cost producer (INTC) for long. Increased volume doesn't help if you lose money on each item you sell. Without it's attempts to outspend Intel, AMD would be a very profitable company.AMD leadership probably has a finite time period to start making profits on it's microprocessors. Eventually, the board of directors will insist that AMD drop this drag on earnings if it becomes apparent that there is little hope that it can be made profitable. Of course there is always the chance that AMD can sell enough to make money on them, but the window of opportunity is getting smaller as time passes.

To: gnuman who wrote (43609)	1/2/1998 10:32:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gene - Re: "if they keep responding to Intel with lower prices, where is it all going to end up?" Look at AMD's balance sheet and Cash Flow - then do the same for Intel. Intel can drive down CPU prices until even Intel loses money - and Intel has >$8 billion in the bank. What many people seem to ignore is the fact that it is not how cheap they can sell computers - or even if they are given away for free. The goal in business is to make money - for the company, employees and shareholders. Market share isn't helpful when you have convinced customers that there is no value in the product that you sell them - they will expect that product to be essentially free. If the vendor selling that product goes out of business - then who cares? Paul