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: GVTucker who wrote (65073)	9/18/1998 12:16:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 186894

GVTucker, Re: There is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support this statement No there isn't. But the world work this way. When you apply for university(or higher degree), your past result is a factor for consideration. When you applied for a job, you university degree is a factor for consideration. I can go on and on. Gary

To: GVTucker who wrote (65073)	9/18/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

GV, re: "There is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support this statement. For every company that it rings true (e.g. INTC or GE) there are just as many that performed wonderfully for many years, then continually lost shareholders money for many years (e.g. DEC or TAN). Ex ante there is no way to tell the difference." True enough, but I think I can describe a product strategy that DEC followed that had a lot to do with their demise. I know, hindsight is 20 - 20. Can you describe a product strategy you see Intel unfolding which could lead to their demise? Tony

To: GVTucker who wrote (65073)	9/18/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Respond to of 186894

re:There is absolutely no quantitative evidence to support this statement. For every company that it rings true (e.g. INTC or GE) there are just as many that performed wonderfully for many years, then continually lost shareholders money for many years (e.g. DEC or TAN). Ex ante there is no way to tell the difference. It takes a long time for firms to build its capabilities and competencies (can't just buy it in the market place) and it takes a long time for a company to change its long-term strategic plan. Therefore, companies that have been successful in the past, tend to be successful in the future and vice versa. The caveat, however, is when there are sudden changes in the marketplace and the firm cannot adapt its capabilities and competencies fast enough to respond (e.g. IBM/DEC). Intel has proven it can adapt to sudden market conditions with the capabilities it has (e.g. celeron, reduce manaufacturing costs faster than expected via .18m, etc), and that's one of the main reasons I invest in this company. joey