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 (51430)	3/27/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Khris, Re: "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 term wallet came from you! I wasn't assuming anything. I was merely stating that they had $10billion CASH on hand besides any other factors of any other monies. Plain and simple hordes of cash at a time of low interest rates. Then you started with all your assumptions of why I was so disloyal to mgmt. Re: " 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." AYH SHADDAP!!! Re: "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." Here is the entire graph from 51247 (with nothing conveniently left out). Proving it is you who misrepresents: Quote "Again, I guess I have a little more faith in a) future investments needs will require such a war chest to be in place, and b) mgmt. has evaluated use of its funds many times over. 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, this is not currently the case." Unquote Now at that time you had no knowledge of mgmt's buy back plans. But after the fact you come in this response and misrepresent yourself and expect me, (and no doubt everyone else who reads this) to be blind to the facts! Re: " 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. Don't have to go back just read your misrepresentation above. AND I AM WILLING TO STATE RIGHT HERE AND NOW I WAS QUESTIONING MGMT.'S LACK OF DECISION ON THAT CASH MOUNTAIN THEY HAVE. NOW THAT THEY HAVE MADE A DECISION THAT POINT IS MUTE ASIDE FROM YOU HOLDING IT HOSTAGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROOF THAT A SHARE HOLDED MAY HAVE BEEN DISLOYAL! AND IT WASN'TYOU. Re: "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," And what I was doing was questioning if mgmt. was acting in the best interest of it's share holders. OOOHHH! Re: "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." How you could possibly think I am proclaiming mgmt. followed my lead. Msmt. obviously made that decision long before they announced it, and surely long before I ever mentioned it. They probably even made the decision of date and time to announce it long before I was even a member of this thread! The only thing that is pathetic and juvenile is your assumptions! Re: "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." Ok Khris I'll get out of your way so you can pat yourself. Make sure you screw your head on first though! THIS YOU SAID I SAID GOTTA STOP SOMEPLACE SO HAVE YOUR LAST AND WILL CALL A TRUSE! AGREE? TTOSBT