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: TTOSBT who wrote (51410)	3/27/1998 4:24:00 AM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Does anyone know if Intel ever has or currently does deal in commercial paper? Thanks TTOSBT

To: TTOSBT who wrote (51410)	3/27/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

TTOSBT, Selling Puts in a Buyback strategy to put floor on share prices. Staff Reporter Dan Colarusso, in TSC (the street.com), describes how MSFT sells Puts setting up a Buyback scenario. This is how it works as described in TSC: Selling puts accomplishes two goals for Microsoft. The firm gets to take in premium from the broker and if the options expire worthless, it can walk away happy. If, Microsoft's shares slump the company is forced to repurchase shares via the put sales effectively triggering a stock buyback and providing support for the stock. Sounds like a no brainer to me. If you have the cash hoard that MSFT and INTC has - the rich can get richer fairly easily. Mary

To: TTOSBT who wrote (51410)	3/27/1998 12:24:00 PM
From: Khris Vogel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Sounds to me like you were in disbelief that Intel would, should or could now use their cash (empty its wallet). Well the reality is 100 million share will cost? $7-8 Billion! There's one thing faulty w/ your logic here - you're assuming what they have in their wallet now is all they have (i.e., they have no stream of cash coming in). If you were to look, the co.'s cash flow from operations is over $7 billion! So, wouldn't stand to reason that some of the cash spent on any buyback will be offset by ops? The other thing you're assuming is that mgmt. is going out on the open market and buying the shares right now, which couldn't be further from the truth. If you read the press release, the co. said its authorization to buy back shares was increased by 100 million, not that they would necessarily buy all these back (this is a point made by many others here), nor did it say specifically when this would be accomplished. And seeing you are employing cut and paste to misrepresent my statements, let me paste my statements as they were written, commenting on exactly what I was responding to and clarifying my intent once and for all. In post 51247, I wrote, "If they were to conclude another major buyback or a cash distribution would be in the best interest of the co. and its shareholders, they would be doing them now, right?" Obviously they are. Does that invalidate my statement. NO. In post 51233, I wrote "As far as upping dividend distributions, again one has to be confident that mgmt. will do that when it can not identify any other potential needs for the funds in the future." Again, they feel that the stock is undervalued so they are buying back shares. My point was, and still is, that I have confidence in mgmt. to evaluate the entire picture and use cash correctly. If one goes back and reads my posts vs. your's, one would see I was very clear in my full support for mgmt., while you were questioning long and hard how mgmt. was leveraging its assets. But now, it's quite amusing to see paint yourself as one who never questioned mgmt.'s ability to make the appropriate decision on its cash needs. Bottom line: I never said I was against or for a buyback, increased dividends, or an one-time cash distribution to shareholders. What I said (I...am...typing...this...very...slowly...so...even... you...with...your...limited...reading...comprehension...skills...can.. understand...this), was that I was sure that mgmt. would act as it saw best. Please, oh, please tell me where I did not say this. Re: "In last night's conference call, Microsoft announced that there will be no share buybacks in this next quarter. They also see a slow down in their revenue and earnings growth this year. Let's see, they have $10 billion-plus cash on hand and no debt. They, too, must be a poorly run company. (Those greedy bastards!!)" In this statement your reality suggest Intel will follow Microsoft. There you go again. I was pointing out that other well-run co.'s were sitting on cash, and to do so is not a definitive sin. Again, I never said that Intel would follow (for that matter, I never said MSFT would not buy back shares later in the year either). I simply said that both co.'s didn't have a burning need to have to spend its cash at that moment. As you point out, Intel hours later did announce a major use of its cash. But did I ever say they wourld or would not announce a buyback? I made no such prediction. I was attempting to make light of your assertation that Intel mgmt. was doing a poor job because of their cash horde. Your reality - or lack thereof, was smeared all over this thread just hours before. As you now go forward in fantasy wondering about mine. But I guess I deserve it trying to have a discussion of ideas about investing with someone who seemingly has other issues to resolve. Whatever. I'm not playing your little game. My posts were clear and directly in response to yours at the time. That you have to go around proclaiming, 'See, I was right. I knew that mgmt. would follow my lead. And everyone who disagreed w/ me is a big poop-head', is both pathetic and juvenile. That mgmt. decided to go forward w/ a buyback doesn't validate or invalidate your or my posts. The timing was amazing, but don't wrench your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, as it has little or nothing to do w/ our posts. If I really wanted to stretch a point, I could make the case that mgmt. was more aligned w/ my way of thinking in that they have a firm handle on the future cash needs and were comfortable taking the action they are. Again, this is a stretch on my part, but it's not any more ridiculous than any of your statements.