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: John Carson who wrote (50624)	3/14/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: Rachel M. Kuecks	Respond to of 186894

Hope you're right as I am betting against GTW for those reasons. I was in WDC last year and got out in June/July (right before the big run-up) when it was obvious to people at WDC that there was a glut of disk drives. I have no idea why the stock made its biggest gains just after the glut was causing prices to collapse but eventually the stock followed prices. There are those that argue that Compaq won't let AMD die because they need competition for Intel but I contend that the results of the Intel/AMD/Cyrix battle is lower margins (percentage as well per unit) for the box makers as well as CPU makers. I believe that box makers have been profitable because the supply has usually been constrained by the supply of some key component whether it was memory or disk drives or CPUs. When all the components are in ample supply, the box makers end up building too many boxes (just like disk drive makers) and then the price wars begin. If Intel was the sole supplier of CPUs, the supply of CPUs as well as boxes would stay closer to equilibrium resulting in fewer price wars. So despite the higher component costs, margins/profits would be higher. I am certain the the profits of the box makers will collapse but unfortunately as witnessed by the disk drive makers the stock price does not always follow (at least not immediately).