Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
wbmw: You are a TMTA shareholder, right? Don’t say, “Yeah, but it’s only a small position.” If you are even a small TMTA shareholder, you would make more money from TMTA’s gaining a big design win like Dell than you would lose on your admittedly-small INTC holding as a consequence of a Dell “defection” to TMTA. So you might as well root for it to happen.
I’ll be sure to remind you of your “POS” remark after the announcement…
[OT] TMTA:
rv: I just reread your TMTA post (and the one by me you were responding to). I conclude that you are one of the few posters on that message board who really understands what the CMS does and how complex the algorithms are. Regards, Dew
>> I have 4 PCs running on my table, which satisfy everything I need to do. I wouldn't buy a new one, no matter if it costs $2000 or $200. <<
Most Crusoe-based PC’s are bought by corporations. Their purchasing decisions are based on their replacement cycle (typically 3-4 years) and their capital-equipment budget.
>> What's you logic for Dell being the next design win for TMTA? …Why would they want a POS TM5800? <<
wbmw: Careful, with your wording. I didn’t say Dell would be TMTA’s next design win – I said Dell was likely the unnamed customer mentioned in the PR who might be making a large order in late Q1 or early Q2. (Follow the rest of the Yahoo thread for more comments on that.)
Your “POS” comment is simply gratuitous. You should leave those kinds of remarks for the likes of Usuck. Regards, Dew
Steak: to your first question, my best answer is “common sense.” For your second question, you might get more insight from Hseitz, who is the house expert on the semiconductor nuclear winter. Regards, Dew
Bird, re Dell: follow the rest of the Yahoo thread.
I’m not sure I believe Andy Bryant’s comment about price inelasticity. Prices of electronic goods generally become more elastic during an economic downturn – especially the kind of downturn we are having now in which corporate profits are severely squeezed.
In any case, Astro’s ASP should be high enough to get us to the promised land if the chip is as good as we expect it to be. Dew
>> Dew, do you have any comments on TMTA's earnings? <<
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1602585284&tid=tmta&sid=16025852...
>> ..slight price hike suggested by Steak for Astro...would make perfect sense and a perfect move on the chess board, since Steak has proposed that the other men can't move...do you concur? <<
Bird: I used to be a good tournament backgammon player, but I was mediocre at chess. So I’m afraid you’ll have to translate the above into plain English before I can hazard a reply. Regards, Dew
>> Plus the phases of the moon, divided by Hector's astrological sign, minus the hot air Jerry left behind, divided by the both of them sticking their foot in their mouth. <<
There’s more: you take the result from the above calculation and multiply by the square root of AMD’s accounts receivable during the most recent quarter and then divide that result by the base-2 log of the average of AMD’s accrued but unpaid restructuring charges during each of the past eight calendar quarters. Finally, you “normalize” that figure by subtracting the aggregate Black-Schoals value of all of Hector’s out-of-the money stock options.
It’s pretty simple once you get the hang of it…
>> Did anyone else notice, perhaps, a slip in the timetable for the TM8000. Production no longer is "early 2H03" but now "mid 3Q03." <<
We both heard it so it must be true:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1602585284&tid=tmta&sid=16025852...
wsh: I was thinking of you the moment Perry said that (he really emphasized the word “mid”) as I knew you would catch it too. Regards, Dew
>> Looks like [AMD] carefully chose their words. "Consumption" is not the same as sales. <<
That’s right. I think they define “consumption” as the number of CPU units purchased by end users, irrespective of the distribution channel. End-user purchases from dealer inventory acquired in a previous reporting period wouldn’t add to AMD’s current-period sales.
Sun Microsystems Inc. on Thursday reported its largest net loss ever, taking more than $2 billion in charges, chiefly for investment losses.
That’s a pretty big chunk of change. What the heck were they invested in?
IMHO: this story has bigger implications for broadband than anything Yahoo might be doing:
http://news.com.com/2102-1033-980890.html
>> All this broadband competition will hopefully soak up the excess fiber in the near future...<<
I interpret Yahoo’s push as little more than “co-branding” and not likely to generate significant new demand for broadband (or fiber). JMO.
>> What do you consider a large short interest? <<
I generally get concerned when short interest is >5% of the float. If it’s >10%, I ask a lot of questions. If >20%, and not one of the exceptions mentioned in the previous post, I usually stay away.
webx, the company you mentioned, has short interest >50%! Because the webx float is less than half the total outstanding shares, the short interest is artificially high and would be closer to 25% if measured on the total outstanding shares. But even 25% is very high.
BTW: I do not recall your handle on any of the TMTA message boards. Do you go by another name? Regards, Dew
>> I am with Kurlak. He's still the best there is on this subject, and probably will be as long as he wants to be. <<
For the sake of INTC longs, I hope Kurlak is a better analyst than the “premium subscription” guy that TSC has in the telecom sector (Cody Willard). He touted WCOM as strongly undervalued when it was trading in high single digits (dollars – that is). FWIW. Dew
Greg: Just revisited your message and, by gosh, the activity level has picked up! But I forgot to tell Matt about the “category” problem and now Happy Hour has ended. I’ll send a PM on Friday if someone else hasn’t already done so. Regards, Dew
Re: Progress In Optical Chips:
That was an interesting article, but I didn’t see any direct impact for GLW.
>> Is there a good side to having a lot of short interest? <<
Only if the longs are smarter than the shorts
>> Aren't these commitments to buy? <<
Yes, but there is no deadline for covering. As a practical matter, I consider it prudent to view a very large short interest as a warning flag.
The exception is a company which is involved in a stock-swap merger or has issued a convertible or derivative security (as GLW did last summer). In these cases, a large short interest is generally due to arbitrage.
Buying these spin-off IPO’s is usually a losing proposition. Moreover, I avoid becoming a minority shareholder (although I occasionally make an exception). I think I’ll pass…
[OT] ION:
ION looks pretty cheap, but that large short interest is troubling. In my experience, most shorts do their homework. Whenever I have seen a stock with that kind of short interest, something bad has happened in due course. FWIW. Dew
OK. If Enhanced SpeedStep is dynamic, then “battery mode” is a misnomer because the processor will run off the battery on full voltage if the CPU load demands it (unless manually overridden by the user). So “battery mode” should really be called something like “battery-saving mode.”
119: Is it possible to run Windows XP/Tablet while disabling the software that converts handwriting to text? If so, I’m curious as to whether that would lessen the demand on RAM. Perhaps the reason for the Tablet being such a RAM-hog is that XP/Tablet contains a large (memory-resident) database of images used for pattern-matching the user’s scribbles.
[OT] ION:
According to Yahoo, 20% of ION’s float is currently short. Any idea why?
I continue to be puzzled by the way INTC’s PR’s present “Enhanced SpeedStep”:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030114comp.htm?iid=Homepage+Highlight_030114a&
If Enhanced SpeedStep employs dynamic, multi-state voltage regulation, why does the PR mention the clock speed of each processor in “battery mode,” which suggests that the processors have static, two-state voltage regulation like the original SpeedStep?
INTC is not generally known for sloppy marketing and promotion, so perhaps there is another explanation…
Thanks for the reminder. BTW: did you get your RAM boost on the TC1000? Did that do the trick?
>> Ok, I say that's about 100-1 odd's <<
You were the one who predicted “single digits.” Now you ask for 100-1 odds. LOL!
>> Single digits.<<
I’m gonna keep trying to get that free lifetime iHUB membership
I’ll bet you a lifetime membership ($130 value) that INTC does not close in single digits on any trading day in 2003.
The error you are making is to assume that P/E ratios should be low at the bottom of a cycle. That’s the mistake which proved immensely costly to investors who sold in 1982.
Some elementary arithmetic shows the wrong-headedness of that mindset: since “E” is in the denominator of the P/E ratio, the ratio itself should be high when “E” is cyclically depressed.
Let me know about the membership bet…
>> Then the article is Bull. Moore's Law said nothing about a correlation between dropping prices and transistor density. <<
Semi: I’m just the messenger here. FWIW: here is what the article says about pricing:
“Often forgotten is that Moore’s law has three variables [emphasis added]: price, density, and performance, each of which contributes to the 100% improvement the law promises…”
So much for R&D growing exponentially to infinity (see prior post about the Red Herring article):
Andy Bryant just said 2003 R&D will be flat vs 2002.
Another note: INTC bought back 59M shares in Q4 (just under 1% of the diluted share base) at an average cost of about $17/sh.
>> Listening to the CC now. <<
Me too. Thanks for your comments.
>> Q1 is always slower than Q4. <<
Right. But if the semiconductor nuclear winter were really ending, the cyclical upturn might have neutralized the seasonal slowdown. At least that’s what I was hoping to hear…
>> I was referring to the "must sell twice as many chips" and "R&D costs doubling every 2 years". I question both those assertions...<<
The article claims that chip price dropping by half during each 18-month cycle is part of Moore’s “original” law, and that R&D costs doubling each cycle is jokingly called “Moore’s second law.” FWIW. Dew
INTC’s revenue guidance for 1Q03 is 3-10% down relative to 4Q02.
What do people here think about this guidance? Even taking into account seasonal patterns, it seems rather tepid.
>> Did they actually give data / show graphs in the article, or simply throw out exponential functions willy nilly and expect people to just believe them? <<
Yes
They have a graph (furnished by Intel) which shows transistors/chip, (exponentially in powers of 10) on the “y” axis and time (1970->~2006) on the “x” axis. The implication is that the graph continues on the same slope to infinity…
Just took a small amount of my GLW position off the table ~4.70. I’m a little worried about INTC’s forward guidance in today’s CC.
Still holding all of my larger core (non-trading) position in GLW, and I expect to do so for at least 2 years. FWIW. Dew
Red Herring cover story: “Forget Moore’s Law”
[Unfortunately, I have only the print version of the article. It’s basically a fluff piece, but it has some decent quotes]:
“…even Intel is finding itself being slowly crushed by Moore’s law… just to keep its revenue level, Intel must convince its customers to double their power every 18 months or to stick with its current offerings and find twice as many customers.”
“…with Intel’s R&D costs doubling every 18 months (apparently R&D follows Moore’s law as well), in another 20 years the company’s R&D costs will be $31 trillion annually. Something must give long, long before then [emphasis added].”
Red Herring cover story: “Forget Moore’s Law”
[Unfortunately, I have only the print version of the article. It’s basically a fluff piece, but it has some decent quotes]:
“…even Intel is finding itself being slowly crushed by Moore’s law… just to keep its revenue level, Intel must convince its customers to double their power every 18 months or to stick with its current offerings and find twice as many customers.”
“…with Intel’s R&D costs doubling every 18 months (apparently R&D follows Moore’s law as well), in another 20 years the company’s R&D costs will be $31 trillion annually. Something must give long, long before then [emphasis added].”
>> Something to compete with LeGrande, perhaps? <<
wbmw: you seem to have your signals crossed with some of the industry watchers who are saying that LaGrande is a year behind TMTA’s offering. Maybe the difference is just semantics, but you might be too quick to characterize TMTA’s plans in the security area as merely following in INTC’s footsteps. FWIW. Dew
>> You'd rather not mess with [the CMS], but it needs to be updated for every new machine that comes out. <<
Exactly correct. The CMS must be updated with each product cycle. My point is that you want to avoid (if at all possible) any “interim” updates for anything less consequential than a new virtual machine. Dew