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: Mary Cluney who wrote (67338)	10/25/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, The massively inflated pricing of server chips makes them an attractive target for competitors. How long do you think Intel will be able to maintain their monopoly in this arena? Scumbria

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (67338)	10/25/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Respond to of 186894

Mary Cluney. Re: "Finally, the bet is, and always will be, about the future." Thanx for your excellent post. My reaction to reading Joe Arena's piece was that Craig Barrett et al KNOW these same things, and Joe ASSUMES that they cannot AND will not do anything about them. That seems simplistic in the extreme and reflects a lack of knowledge about how this company responds to changes in the marketplace and adversity. I wonder if Joe is seeing the earnings and price of the stock go up and indulging in a bit of cognitive dissonance. Like you, I'm still betting on Intel. HL

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (67338)	10/25/1998 5:27:00 PM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, May I remind you that during last week's Intel earnings conference call, CFO Andy Bryant stated that Intel's ASP's have remained about constant for the last 5 quarters. If anything, I believe, they were slightly higher in 3Q owing to initial shipments of higher priced Xeons. Going forward, I think we will only see increased ASPs as Xeons go into full production and become a larger percentage of Intel's product mix. Looking further out, we have the introduction of the even higher ASP Merced in 2000. Don't let Joe Arena, or Tom Kurlak's mis-information get to you. They're wrong stating that Intel has declining ASPs, as well as forecasting increased competition from AMD or NSM. Selling to the Enterprise commercial market, with educated corporate IT managers making the buying decisions, is going to be a lot more difficult than selling to penny conscious first time buyers. Regards, Jules

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (67338)	10/26/1998 2:24:00 AM
From: James B. Ditsworth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary: Regarding your note: <<<James, Joe Arena in the High Tech Arena newsletter date October 17, that you cite, makes a good case for selling his Intel holdings of five years, in May, from a cost basis of $6. His main points, however, have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread for quite some time now: 1. Increasing competition from AMD, Cyrix, et al. 2. Lower ASP and reduced earnings growth. 3. Future uncertainty in the high end server market due to delays in Merced development. ETC. >>> First of all, thanks for the thoughtful response. I must admit I don't share his conclusion that now's the time to sell INTC. I am holding and buying on dips. I read his article twice and felt that he was having a hard time coming up with reasons to jump ship. On the other hand, perhaps he simply sees easier money somewhere else... I remain quite bullish on INTC's long-term prospects. Regarding your points: #1) Competition from AMD/Cyrix, et al. While AMD has made some inroads at the low end I just can't understand how the company can continue to follow its policy of undercutting Intel by 25% on price. They're simply losing money (most quarters, anyway). AMD is going to need awfully deep pockets if they're just doing this for market share. Hence #1 I discount. #2) This one bothers me a bit but let's suffice to say that I'm watching. I do believe, however, that the volume of CPUs being sold will continue to rise at a fast clip for the forseeable (10 years?) future. And I believe that consumers will continue to buy as much processing power as Intel can provide. New, compelling applications will eat up the cycles. #3) The Merced delay is unfortunate but Intel will really reap the rewards. I think Intel is going to dominate the server market. There was a previous note on SI about a 32-processor server by Sequent (?), I believe. Wow - those machines will sell a few processors for Intel. Anyhow, thanks for your note. Regards.