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: Paul Engel who wrote (65497)	9/27/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Engel re: <Your entire argument - posted several times daily - is that AMD is doing everthing perfectly correct and Intel is doing everything backasswards.> I defy you to show me any post where I have said either that AMD is doing everything perfectly or that Intel is doing everything backasswards. As for the volume of my posts, I believe you post an order of magnitude more often to SI than I, and I know the meaning of the term. ;-) <" While there is no guarantee, we've already seen vast improvements in (sic, AMD), manufacturing .> Do you deny this statement? If so, tell me why, please. <With AMD's history of fcking up more than Bill Clinton, and Intel's record of superb technological, financial and marketing achievements, how can you keep coming to the same bizarre death-wish scenario?.....I say "deathwish" because you continue to claim you are an Intel shareholder while pounding the table, drums, and everything else in sight in praise of the failed AMD and in detriment to Intel, the most successful semiconductor manufacturer in the history of the world.> Considering the hundred's of extremely negative and derogatory posts you've made concerning AMD, what right do you have to attack someone with a contrarion view of Intel's business environment? (With AMD's history of fking up more than Bill Clinton....). Show me a post where I've said anything like that about Intel. I am an Intel shareholder, and I think Intel is a great company. I've posted a number of times I think Intel will be a $50 Billion company in five years. But I've also been saying for the past eighteen months that Intel's environment is changing. I've also tried to show the changes that are taking place. And I think that has impact on future performance. In 1997 Intel had $25B revenues and $7B earnings. Looks like 1998 will be about $25B revenues and <$6B earnings. Consensus for 1999 is for ~$7B earnings. Based on that I've stated I think Intel will show three years of flat revenue/earnings. That's pretty much what I think most analysts are saying. Is this the type of input that you base your statement that I've said Intel is doing everything backasswards? In fact, show me a post where I've pointed out what Intel is doing wrong. I think I've merely pointed out the changing environment and what I think is the impact on Intel. It would be a lot more constructive if you gave an intelligent argument to some of my opinions. Fred and I have a running difference of opinion. When he disagrees with an opinion he presents his reasons. I appreciate that type of response. You, of all people, should understand "constructive confrontation", I think you were trained on it at Intel. And wasn't it Andy who said, "Only the paranoid survive"? I think we're all in agreement that Xeon is a key business for Intel. I've asked the thread if anyone knows the size of this segment and Intel's share for 1999. I think this will probably have the biggest impact on Intel's 1999 performance. Very high ASP's and margins. I would appreciate your input. You tend to dominate a number of threads on SI. You attack the competition visciously and frequently. But if I present a contrarion view, you go off the deep end. I wonder why that is? If you think I'm wrong about something, why not just tell me why? I would like to have a constructive dialogue with you.