SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill Jackson who wrote (36177)8/18/1998 9:20:00 AM
From: d[-_-]b  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1570481
 
Bill, I thought the market followed the usual supply demand rules. Hence, removing some shares from the market when the demand/price is low and selling/splitting the stock during demand periods seems to me the way things should and are done in a free market system.

Manipulation is a pretty strong accusation, and pretty ludicrous in this case as the money is right there on the balance sheet in Intel's case. It's not like something was manufactured, i.e. false earnings, or hiding losses from investors. Besides stock buybacks are announced long in advance so as to nullify manipulation as are insider transactions.

There are also rules governing what and how much money can be invested outside. Sometimes there just aren't compelling companies to invest in, or haven't you had this same problem - and just sit on some cash for a while waiting for a good opportunity.

If Intel or any company for that matter just continued to throw free cash at other companies, wouldn't they essentially become a "mutual fund". Somewhat like Berkshire Hathaway? Not that I wouldn't mind owning Berk, but I picked Intel - not some mutual fund run by Intel. Strategic alliances/investments is one thing but wholesale buying is another. What you suggest could lead to a Korean like Chaebol, where a few companies control 90% of all businesses - not a pretty situation.