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: kash johal who wrote (67228)	10/23/1998 8:32:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 186894

INTC: WASSERSTEIN PER reconfirms the recommendation as Hold on 10/14/98

To: kash johal who wrote (67228)	10/23/1998 1:47:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 186894

RE: Jerry and the x86 mpu business The strategies of other CEO's in the chip business are varied, and many have failed. The x86 mpu business is an exception in that profits in the sector as a whole have been splendid over the entire life of the product family (or at least since 1981), with Intel taking the lion's share in most years and cumulatively. There have been many companies in the sector (or in co-processors) but all but 5 have abandoned the product (e.g. TXN and NEC), merged out (NexGen and Cyrix), or concentrated on other businesses, or gone out of business (e.g. Exponential). Each decision I am sure was wrenching (much as Intel's decision to abandon dram in the '80s). Should these quitters have redoubled their efforts? I suspect there are few regrets in those who quit ( no cries of "I could have been a contenduh!"). When AMD bought NexGen, it had other options than trying to compete in x86 in which it had been successful from time to time in the past, but was currently failing as P5 ramped and K-5 didn't (and didn't work well when it did get produced). Cyrix had some decent pieces, but no non-x86 options, and chose to quit anyway (very wise, I believe). IDTI bought a lottery ticket, but the product was not competitive even on the low end and has not yet caught up (and never will), most costs were sunk (I'll never understand that IBM foundry deal)and they are perhaps covering their incremental costs. RISE looks marginal. No one can blame red-blooded capitalists for gambling a few million on to take a hand or so for rich pots like x86 offers, but only a Sanders would continue year after year to up the ante, put more borrowed money on the table, raise the bets, and draw more cards. Such people are called gamblers -- but to be a gambler you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. If you don't, you are known not as a gambler but as a loser.