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: Khris Vogel who wrote (51232)	3/25/1998 1:53:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Kris,>>>Mssrs. Moore, Grove, Barnett, et al, have served shareholder interests extremely well in the past.<<< That is history. What have they done for us lately? >>>What evidence do you have they won't in the future?<<< That is a very passive way to look at. You have to ask what they are going to do for us in the future. >>>Grove's PARANOIA has proved itself to be a good trait, and I don't think he should change now. <<< Maybe he has changed. Maybe he is not paranoid enough. Is Andy grove getting too mellow? Getting your face on the cover of Time Magazine and putting a few hundred million dollars in the bank could do that to you. As responsible Intel stockholders, we should put their (management) feet to the fire at all times. The technology environment (industry) leaves little room for complacency. Being a good cheerleader is not what it is all about. May Cluney

To: Khris Vogel who wrote (51232)	3/25/1998 2:15:00 PM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Khris, Re: ""While this cash might not be "working," one has to believe that these funds are not totally idle, as mgmt. is investing these funds in the highest yield, quality short-term instruments." Well then, mgmt believes they can get more for their money someplace other than in it's own stock going forward. And in a low interest rate environment that is really saying something about their confidence in their own future. Re: "So if they can't spend these funds today in a manner that will result in increased shareholder value (but will tomorrow), what would they do w/ funds from debt?" They don't necessarily have to have debt. I was merely saying if they seem to think they need to have cash in excess of $10bill in a low interest rate environment (long bond that's LONG BOND) below 6%, then they can borrow cheaply going forward stead of saving share holders money for rainy day. Re: " Grove's PARANOIA has proved itself to be a good trait, and I don't think he should change now." I was assuming Grove's paranoia was a business posture not a trait. If it's a trait of his then it will never go away and he has to deal with it. But if I correct in assuming it's a business posture then he should realize it's not the time to be paranoid. He did a good job of making AMD paranoid. Now he should realize -and maybe he does- he has all his ducks lined up. If it is true that Intel is the best possible opportunity going forward. Mr Grove should give us an indication he sees it that way too. And I contend a buy back would show he has more confidence in Intel's future. He doesn't hesitate to announce earnings warnings. I just find that rather cheap when you have in excess of $10bill seemingly just for a rainy day. Let the share holders pay for earning slow downs we'll decide where to spend their money. Smacks of greed to me? TTOSBT