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 TRADER -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marc Schiler who wrote (3186)	7/8/1998 6:25:00 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Respond to of 11051

I feel like I heard this story before: reminds me very much of the moment when Intel was beaten into dust by dropping DRAM prices and the management was facing the question "what if 1MB DRAM prices fall below 1kUS" (g). We all know the answer. It's called (take your picks): a) lateral thinking b) "let's go paranoid somewhere else" c) 1848 and "where's Motherlode CA"? d) pure unadulerated luck DJ

To: Marc Schiler who wrote (3186)	7/8/1998 7:07:00 AM
From: Jurgen Trautmann	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11051

Marc, I'm happy discussing a bit, so let's continue! Actually MSFT's "Net Profit Margin" (for the latest 12 month) is 31% - not so much more than Intel's 25%. Capital-related numbers are very near to each other: ----------------------------------INTC---MSFT Return On Equity (5-Year Avg.)--31.1--30.9 Return On Assets (5-Year Avg.)--21.3--22.5 Return On Capital (5-Year Avg.)-30.0--30.0 A Intel-"inside"-number: the net-cost of one cpu (the in highest numbers produced type) lays about $ 10 - even this is not so far from a CD-ROM + books in a package. In a very personal sight of things I can bet on Intels rescue 10-times cheaper (mas • menos) than on MSFT's growing - caused by the actual stock-prices. IMO - let's add this because we're guests on a Intel-related thread - the most significant mistake of Intel was missing power. Exactly, first time in their history they broad weaker products than you could BUY IN THE SHOPS from their competition. Even here in SI we used to see discussions about the products - and that's the real thing what counts, nothing else - but during the last year Intel had no "hammer" to offer. Just stupid puppets in tiny TV-spots. This is the same as when our cancellor-candidate Mr. Schr”der would appear in a clown-costume in front of the TV-cameras. This is over now - at least I hope that's over. Intel's acutal 400-MHz-cpu's ARE faster than the competition - even faster than every other CPU you can buy in the shops now. (as always there are some products with better fp-performance, but this is not that important for the broad market - just for a few eggheads.) Since they can supply again 4-cpu-processing, the first stepup-product for PPRO after 2 years (!!!), they are again the only "in"-company for high reliable database-servers - and this is the biggest market of all considering the exploding importance of internet-business. When they would learn from their desaster and stop destructing their own image, stop targeting the wrong part of the market (kids without brain and wallet), they could experience a mood-turn very soon. (12 month are ok to me :) Nothing against joy & jokes - but we all tend to buy the power for the money, nothing else. BWDIK? Jury