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.
ahhhhh opportunity cost.....you certainly aren't suggesting that Intel management would do someting other than minimize are you?:)
Your notes indicate delivery of woodcrest in Aug with Conroe delivery for early July. Isn't this contrary to the reports from the Inq about Intel attacking the sever market first, then DT and finally mobile? I wonder if it has anything to do with FB DIMM availability?
So you were talking about a revenue number and not an EPS number as WBMW suggested?
Does Intel give guidance on EPS?
Are you suggesting a 10% rev miss wouldn't be material?
Assuming they hit the stated GM, if they missed the mid point of their revenue number by 10% that could send them pretty close to an operating loss. If they miss the low end of their rev number by 10% they could actually suffer an operating loss.
If either of the above happen AND they miss their GM projections there will be blood in the streets (and in the financials) - I would consider that pretty material.
Not trying to be difficult here, but where are you coming up with the 10% figure?
So you're talking about some kind of self imposed quite period specific to the Intel Corp?
What do earnings warnings have to do with the "quiet period"?
The federal securities laws do not define the term "quiet period," which is also referred to as the "waiting period." However, historically, a quiet period extended from the time a company files a registration statement with the SEC until SEC staff declared the registration statement "effective." During that period, the federal securities laws limited what information a company and related parties can release to the public.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/quiet.htm
AMD doesn't have to shift 90% of their low end production to high end production to obtain a richer mix. In fact, they may not have to shift any of their low end production. In fab 36, by the end of the third Q, AMD will be getting 5 x the number of x2 die candidates per wafer vs what has been achievable in fab 30. Why won't the addition of these parts help to enrich the mix considering they will be competing (favorably) against pentium d and low end conroe? So what if pricing gets cut in half (particulalry when the result is an increase over current ASP) if they increase unit sales 4-5x. Couple that with more big gains in the fastest growing part of AMD's product line up (800 series opteron) and the mix just keeps on getting richer.
It will be the downward compressive effect on prices
of the high volume parts well below the $1k/$300 SKU
that will have AMD singing falsetto in Q3 and beyond.
So what does that do to the 90% of Intel's product line that is NOT core 2 in Q3??
AMD has a 1GHz Geode at 6W or 1.4GHz at 14W
from the Intel CC:
Ambrish Srivastava - Harris Nesbitt
Hi, Andy. Just a clarification. I don’t get it, so please help me understand this. Your customers have excess inventory, you build inventory again. You are alluding to some minimal reserves next quarter, but yet you’re going to be building inventory. What areas do you think you’ll be building inventory in and what is the risk that there won’t be another larger write down in the second quarter? Thanks.
Andy Bryant
There is some risk. I don’t want to tell you there’s none. Remember what Paul said, though, about the way we’re using our factory right now. The 65 nanometer is building the new microprocessors that are going to be shipped in the back half. I don’t want to slow those down. I think that’s our future. The 90 nanometers transitioning into the chipsets, the Broadwater chipsets, are being used heavily there when again is our future. So we’re building the products, we’re certain are going to be there for the future.
Some of the stuff in the line today is some of the older products that have to be there in case you have a product slip or something happens and you need to ship product. So there is some risk that in a transition, you build a bit of a bubble and you don’t need to ship that stuff. It’s a small risk. There are lots of places in this world you ship some product — essentially as good as most people’s in the world. So there’s, the task for us is to find places to put those.
As I said earlier, we did take modest reserves — and by modest, it’s believe me, it’s not a big number — in the first quarter because there were some products I looked at and said it’s likely these won’t be shippable. If demand slowed down and we had a choice between still shipping the old or the new, we’ll ship the new. So if you saw another step down in demand it might become an issue. If demand, if the market grows in the high single digits, you won’t see much change to the reserve portion.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820134046
$237 for 2GB of DDR2 667Mhz
vs
280GBP for 2 GB fb dimm 533Mhz (1GBP costs approx $1.8X currently)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30739
Do you have info that tells a different story? If FB dimm is 2x the price of DDR2 system costs will be significantly higher, no?
It will be interesting to see which is wrong - my guess is both ;)
The voices from the Far East are claiming that by the end of 2006, AMD will have 65 nanometre cores running at 3.0, 3.2 and 3.4 GHz, which are set to be clocked faster than any Intel product at that time
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31729
I would say one of the biggest factors in building out a big data centre would be scalability. NGA is not going to help there.
EE Times: Semi News
Updated: Is Intel spinning off NOR flash unit?
Mark LaPedus
EE Times
(05/08/2006 12:45 PM EDT)
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Is Intel Corp. planning to sell or spin-off its loss-ridden NOR flash-memory unit?
In a major reorganization, Intel said Friday (May 5) that it will bring its NOR flash memory fabs and memory process technology development effort within the company’s flash memory group.
The move prompted analysts to wonder about the unit. “The company recently separated NOR flash production from core Intel operations, likely signaling the IPO or sale of the business,” said Doug Freedman, an analyst with American Technology Research Corp., in a report on Monday (May 8).
Intel denied the speculation by the analyst. “Intel is not planning to sell or spin out our NOR flash business,” according to a spokeswoman for Intel.
“We have aligned our NOR flash memory product development, technology development, marketing, manufacturing and logistics support operations under the Flash Memory Group (FMG), managed by Intel Vice President Brian Harrison,” the spokeswoman explained.
“The goal of this change is to create closer synergy among all the organizations involved in developing, manufacturing and delivering NOR flash memory products to customers worldwide,” she said. “We expect this alignment will create greater efficiency and productivity for the NOR flash memory business. Our NAND flash business is also part of the Flash Memory Group (as it has been). Our NAND flash is manufacturing though IMFT, our joint mfg venture with Micron.”
Still, many believe that Intel is putting more resources in rival NAND flash, which is growing much faster than NOR. The chip giant also has a joint NAND flash memory venture with Micron Technology Inc., dubbed IM Flash Technologies LLC.
And at the same time, hit hard by the PC slowdown and stiff competition, Intel last month said that it plans to restructure the company. Paul Otellini, chief executive of Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.), told analysts he plans an overhaul that will impact "every part" of the company within the next 90 days.
If Intel spins out the NOR unit, the move would mirror a similar step taken by processor rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD). Last year, AMD spun-out its NOR unit, Spansion LLC, into a new and independent company.
Many NOR flash vendors have been scrambling to provide a NAND offering due to dwindling sales for NOR.
Meanwhile, besides NOR flash, which is losing money for Intel, the microprocessor giant has other nagging issues as well. “Intel's platform strategy back fires, adding cost to platforms and accelerating share loss to AMD,” Freedman said, referring to Intel’s strategy to provide a “platform solution” for PC OEMs.
“We believe that vPro is not being well received by the PC channel partners as it adds undue cost and complexity to the enterprise market,” Freedman said, referring to Intel’s newly branded corporate desktop processor strategy.
“Intel believes that platforms are the solution to many issues given the success of Centrino,” he said. “We think Centrino had outside factors that drove increased adoption. vPro and Viiv do not have the same outside investment benefits and are likely to be far less successful.”
There are other troubling issues for Intel as well. “Management is beginning to see that the R&D expense load they have been carrying throughout their history is no longer necessary,” according to the analyst.
“There is no longer a great difference between processors in the notebook, server, and desktop segments, and the company can now begin to leverage this fact in its R&D budget. This has also allowed Intel to move to its recently announced two-year plan,” he said. “It now plans on moving architectures every two years, as opposed to its previous every four years. We believe that this shift is the right decision for a dominant player attempting to protect a monopoly....
Dell Updates Q1 Earnings Guidance
Monday May 8, 4:07 pm ET
ROUND ROCK, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 8, 2006--Dell (NASDAQ:DELL - News) said today it expects to achieve GAAP earnings per share of approximately 33 cents for its fiscal 2007 first quarter and expects revenue of approximately $14.2 billion versus its original guidance of $14.2 to $14.6 billion and earnings per share of 36 to 38 cents, including an estimated three cents of stock-based compensation. The shortfall in earnings versus previous guidance was driven primarily by pricing decisions in the second half of the quarter that the company expects will accelerate revenue growth in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT
"During Q1 we continued to execute on our strategy to reinvigorate growth by making investments in our support infrastructure and product quality and by accelerating pricing adjustments," said Kevin Rollins, Dell's Chief Executive Officer. "We are committed to delivering industry leading value to our customers, which ultimately results in industry leading growth for the company."
Dell will announce financial results for fiscal 2007 first quarter on May 18.
Dell Updates Q1 Earnings Guidance
Monday May 8, 4:07 pm ET
ROUND ROCK, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 8, 2006--Dell (NASDAQ:DELL - News) said today it expects to achieve GAAP earnings per share of approximately 33 cents for its fiscal 2007 first quarter and expects revenue of approximately $14.2 billion versus its original guidance of $14.2 to $14.6 billion and earnings per share of 36 to 38 cents, including an estimated three cents of stock-based compensation. The shortfall in earnings versus previous guidance was driven primarily by pricing decisions in the second half of the quarter that the company expects will accelerate revenue growth in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT
"During Q1 we continued to execute on our strategy to reinvigorate growth by making investments in our support infrastructure and product quality and by accelerating pricing adjustments," said Kevin Rollins, Dell's Chief Executive Officer. "We are committed to delivering industry leading value to our customers, which ultimately results in industry leading growth for the company."
Dell will announce financial results for fiscal 2007 first quarter on May 18.
Believe it or not, Smooth, some people actually choose not to have cable.....
The 2002 film Death to Smoochy reminds us that "friends come in all sizes." AMD executives must embrace this observation on a daily basis, especially when a company such as DRC Computer appears.
The tiny DRC works out of a no frills Santa Clara office, producing technology that has the potential to give servers based on AMD's Opteron chip a real edge over competing Xeon-based boxes. DRC has developed a type of reprogrammable co-processor that can slot straight into Opteron sockets. Customers can then offload a wide variety of software jobs to the co-processor running in a standard server, instead of buying unique, more expensive types of accelerators from third parties as they have in the past.
SPONSORED LINKS
Search the latest IT jobs - Jobsite
At Rackpace Managed Hosting we're passionate about the hosting business and we're here to stay - Click Here
Learn Effective Management Skills in The Register's training library
You're good, You're very good - Jobsite, The best people for the job
"Current accelerators costs about $15,000 each and deliver little performance improvements beyond what you could achieve by buying more blade servers for that same price," Larry Laurich, the CEO of DRC, told us in an interview. "We have taken the approach that we must deliver three times the price-performance of a standard blade."
Neither standalone server accelerators nor FPGAs (field-programmable gate arrays), which is what the DRC modules are, stand as novel concepts in the hardware industry. Server customers, however, have largely shied from buying pricey, specialized co-processors even when such devices demonstrated dramatic performance improvements on certain workloads. The high costs of accelerators, a lack of supporting software and a large amount of custom design work needed to make the devices work well have made them not worth the trouble to most customers.
It's this tradition of disdain for accelerators that DRC will have to fight.
"People have tried a lot of special purpose processing devices over the years and, with the exceptions of graphics units and arguably floating point units, general purpose processors have always won out in the end," said Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata.
DRC thinks it has solved the price and performance problems by playing off AMD's open Hypertransport specification.
"DRC's flagship product is the DRC Coprocessor Module that plugs directly into an open processor socket in a multi-way Opteron system," the company notes on its web site. "This provides direct access to DDR memory and any adjacent Opteron processor at full Hypertransport bandwidth [12.8 GBps] and ±75 nanosecond latency."
AMD's decision to open Hypertransport could end up being a key factor in Opteron's future success. Intel looks set to compete better with AMD later this year when it releases a revamped line of Xeon processors. AMD, however, can now turn to third parties such as DRC for performance boosts unavailable with Intel's chip line.
DRC appears to be making the most of its AMD ties by sliding right into Opteron sockets. That means that customers can outfit an Opteron motherboard with any combination of Opteron chips and DRC modules. Illuminata's Haff sees the DRC implementation as one way of overcoming past aversions to accelerators.
"It is true that one of the issues around PCI-based FPGA products and really anything specialized is that by the time you transfer the calculation over the special purpose board, you have often lost much of the benefit you had," Haff said. "So, putting the product within the CPU fabric certainly does help address this particular problem."
The notion of offloading certain routines to an FPGA should prove attractive to a wide variety of industries, stretching from the oil and gas sector to high performance computing buffs and possibly even mainstream server customers.
Today, for example, companies like Boeing that need specialized, embedded devices will buy a PCI board with an FPGA and do custom work designing software and a hardware unit for their system. "Those products could end up in something the size of a telephone or a bread box," said Laurich. "It may take them about six months to lay out that type of custom design."
With the DRC module, customers can pick from standard hardware ranging from blade servers on up to Opteron-based SMPs instead of building their own breadboxes.
Each DRC module will cost around $4,500 this year and likely drop to around $3,000 next year, Laurich said. That compares to products from companies such as SGI that cost well over $10,000.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/21/drc_fpga_module/
did you read the 4 part digitimes interview? do they even do that in Kanata?
Bob is a reasonable person, I think he would have gone along with something that made sense. Netburst and Itanium don't make sense (unless you live in Ottawa of course;).
He's looking quite smart for leaving though isn't he. I wonder what Intel would look like now had management heeded his advice?
Are you suggesting Mr. Colwell is an arm chair QB? Do you even know who he is?
are you still holding SGID.OB? I can't remember if you gave your reasoning, but I would be interested in hearing what compelled you to invest in them. It looks like their chances of survival are in serious doubt, but if they pull through it sure looks cheap.
SGI warns quarterly revenues far below forecasts
Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:44 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO, April 25 (Reuters) - Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGID.OB: Quote, Profile, Research), the struggling maker of high-performance computers, warned on Tuesday that its quarterly revenue would fall 23 to 33 percent below its prior forecasts to around $108 million.
The Mountain View, California company said results for the third fiscal quarter ended in March would drop beneath its prior outlook for revenue of $140 million to $160 million.
FACT BOX
SGID.OB (Silicon Graphics Inc)
Last: $0.31
Change: -0.06
Up/Down: -16.22%
MayAugNovFeb
Quote
Full Chart
Company Profile
Analyst Research
News for SGID.OB
SGI warns quarterly revenues far below forecasts
The company reports third-quarter results on May 9.
SGI blamed the revenue shortfall on delays in winning final customer acceptance of some computers and a decline in revenue from computer visualization products following the company's announcement in March that it was ending further development.
"The company's cost reduction initiatives continue to be on track, although there continue to be significant restructuring and professional advisory fees associated with the turnaround efforts," SGI said in a statement announcing the shortfall.
SGI also blamed uncertainty after board member Dennis McKenna, previously a semiconductor industry executive, was named in January as SGI's new chairman, president and chief executive. He replaced 20-year SGI veteran Robert Bishop, who remains on the company's board and became vice chairman.
"The revenue results are clearly unacceptable," McKenna said. He said moves to reposition the company should begin to produce benefits by the quarter ending in September 2006.
Cash and marketable securities remained relatively flat at about $65 million, the company said.
SGI's computers are best known for their use in creating Hollywood movie special-effects. The machines are also used for pharmaceutical research, petroleum exploration and in the financial industry.
Founder Jim Clark went on to found seminal Silicon Valley company Netscape Communications Corp. SGI's old offices now serve as the headquarters of Google Inc. (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research).
SGI's stock is traded on the Nasdaq bulletin board under ticker symbol "SGID."
you don't have to pay patents
Actually I didn't assume that. I just don't have data on ASPs for chipset/mb and lets face it, they are a CPU company at the core (their biggest mistake by far was failing to remember/accept this). The other crap they produce (flash/wireless/....) isn't profitable; as long as Intel remains in those businesses they will remain less efficient.
obscure AND common????
first consider that Intel and AMD's ASPs are converging. If you don't understand why having a higher rev/employee number is better then there is truely no hope for you. EFFICIENCY
Here's another number to consider - CPUs per employee:
if we assume $95 ASPs for AMD and $145 for Intel, we end up with:
approx 420 chips per Intel employee
approx 1335 chips per AMD employee
Here is another interesting thought:
$ of PPE per chip produced in the latest q:
Intel $409
AMD $209
Again, in a world of converging ASPs, these figures point to AMD being a vastly more efficient enterprise. Which company fairs best in a duopoly? The lean low cost producer, or the bloated smelly sick whale?
You're talking to a .......not your talking to a guy....
get a clue you jackass
They still believe in the Intel story. They are buying up the stock all the way down to its present $19 per share thinking a big 2nd half rally is upon the horizon - if that doesn't happen you will see selling of Intel stock like it was 2001. This company is being mismanaged into the ground - the flash JV with micron is the latest example. Intel is getting into the NAND business - WTF are these guys smoking in Santa Clara? Toshiba, Samsung and the Korean taxpayers are going to kick Intel a new a-hole before the dust settles.
Here are a few numbers to think about while you're rolling around on the floor laughing like a mental patient
Intel currently generates $345k in revenue per employee per year
AMD currently generates $507K in revenue per employee per year
As Intel Slips,Smaller AMD Makes Strides By DON CLARK
April 21, 2006; Page B1
Since the early 1990s, computer makers' profits have paled compared with those of two suppliers -- Microsoft Corp., for software, and Intel Corp., for chips that provide the calculating power in personal computers.
But the hardware half of that picture is suddenly looking fuzzy. That is partly because Hector Ruiz, chief executive of Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc., has pushed his company to treat customers like partners.
AMD, once an unreliable also-ran in the microprocessor market, has exploited computer makers' suggestions to gain advantages that Intel is struggling to match. AMD's technology is even starting to find converts among corporate computer buyers who long favored the "Intel Inside" brand.
[hector ruiz]
"The biggest thing that has happened," says John Dayan, an AMD customer as vice president in Hewlett-Packard Co.'s PC business, "is the market acceptance of AMD as a viable solution, and now very much so in the commercial space."
The chip makers' contrasting fortunes became glaringly obvious this week. Intel, though it has more than six times AMD's revenue, posted lower sales and said conditions would get worse in the second period. Its closely watched gross profit margin was 55.1% -- below its prediction in January of 59% -- and the company said it could sink to 49% in the current period. At AMD, meanwhile, microprocessor sales surged and its profit margin topped Intel's, at 58.5% -- a rarity in the companies' 25-year rivalry.
Most surprising, perhaps, is a growing belief among once-skeptical analysts that AMD could win a quarter or a third of the chip market even if Intel counterattacks, as expected, with price cuts and improved products. "The genie is out of the bottle, and the genie is not going back in," says Mark Edelstone, who tracks the company for Morgan Stanley.
AMD's Aladdin is Mr. Ruiz, a Mexican-born engineer who worked for 22 years at Motorola Inc. before joining AMD in 2000. He succeeded Jerry Sanders, one of Silicon Valley's most flamboyant executives, and brought a more understated, methodical style to the company. Mr. Ruiz, 60 years old, replaced most senior managers, improved manufacturing efficiency and, most recently, spun off a memory-chip unit that was holding down profit.
The company, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., was once licensed by Intel to make chips using the design known as x86. But that relationship collapsed in the late 1980s, and AMD gradually evolved from cloning Intel's chips to creating original designs.
AMD had neither the money nor the influence to promote big technology changes. While Intel in the 1990s developed an entirely new 64-bit chip line called Itanium -- seeking performance benefits over earlier 32-bit chips -- AMD executives decided to add 64-bit enhancements to x86 chips, an easier path for computer makers. That distinction became a big selling point of Opteron, a chip AMD introduced in 2003 that has become very popular for midsize machines called servers.
[crossing point]
Mr. Ruiz has stepped up what he calls "customer-centric" innovation -- taking customers' suggestions that have led AMD to scoop Intel with some attractive features. In other cases, AMD has heeded requests to wait for lower prices before adopting new technology. "The reason AMD is being so practical is they can't afford to do it any other way," says John Fowler, an executive vice president at AMD customer Sun Microsystems Inc.
AMD's strategy is tailored to computer makers' desire for a choice of suppliers, to help them differentiate products and pit one supplier against another to lower prices. H-P is an example. Nearly a decade ago, H-P first selected AMD for some consumer PCs after the smaller vendor agreed to tweak its technology to help H-P develop a system that could sell for less than $1,000. Intel declined, H-P executives say.
In 2002, two people familiar with the matter say, some top H-P executives were so bent on reducing their reliance on Intel that they briefly considered buying AMD. Around the same time, at a Houston development lab that was originally part of Compaq Computer Corp., a secret engineering team developed H-P's first servers based on AMD's Opteron. H-P, though still a huge Intel customer and collaborator on Itanium, became one of the most vocal supporters of the chip. H-P is now using AMD chips in several computer lines. Mr. Dayan says it plans to push AMD-powered PCs beyond the consumer market into corporate desktops, a stronghold of Dell Inc., which only uses Intel chips.
Customer suggestions have been particularly important in servers, which Mr. Ruiz targeted first to impress the most demanding technology buyers at corporations. AMD, for example, built one model of its Opteron chips specifically in response to a Sun suggestion, Mr. Fowler says.
The company has also picked the brains of boutique PC makers. Rahul Sood, president and chief technology officer of VoodooPC, recalls meetings where AMD officials agreed to change chips' features and names at the request of his company or other makers of machines for gamers. "One of the products that we suggested to them is going to become a reality, which is unbelievable," Mr. Sood says.
But most companies claim to respond to customers. "Customer focused? I think we invented the concept," said Paul Otellini, Intel's CEO, at a recent press briefing.
Where AMD listens hardest to hardware companies, however, Intel tends to focus on end users, hoping to add features that will expand the overall market. In 2003, for example, it began selling a bundle of chips for laptop computers called Centrino that offered consumers longer battery life and wireless Internet access.
Intel now plans to launch new chips for servers, desktop and laptop computers in the third quarter that it believes will take back performance leadership in all three markets. "While AMD is performing well in some segments, we are confident that our investments in new products and manufacturing technology will continue Intel's role as a technology leader into the future," says Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman.
Intel also has ample capability to reduce prices, which could hurt AMD's profit margins. But with the relationships AMD has built, price and performance are no longer everything. Market-research firm Current Analysis estimates that AMD chips were used in 55.4% of PCs sold at the U.S. retailers it tracked in March -- including a majority of H-P laptops, despite the fact that AMD's chips lag behind the performance of Intel's in that market. "The competitive landscape has a new paradigm," concludes Apjit Walia, analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
Now having said that, I am more optimistic that Intel will meet their guidance.
You have to look at it like this. The analysts are trying to model Q3 and Q4 sales with regards to the QoQ growth from Q2. Intel has had consistent seasonality in the second half of the year to the tune of 7-8%, but the analysts are noticing that in order to hit the yearly revenue guidance that Intel is projecting, the growth would have to be more like 15%, which they see as totally unrealistic, especially since they still believe that AMD is in a better competitive position (a fallacy they will begin to realize only after Intel delivers on their promise of market share recovery).
Intel has to Increase rev in the back half of the year by between 15-22% to hit their full year revenue marker - that is a very big ask when you consider what they have done over the last 3 years:
In 2003 we saw a 2nd half increase of 22% which at first glance looks like very promising support for your investment thesis. Do consider though that 2003 was a recovery year for semis and AMD was hardly competitive
In 2004 we saw a 2nd half increase of 12%
In 2005 we saw a 2nd half increase of 8%
It is pretty clear that AMD is doing a very good job of growing their business and at the same time causing real problems for the competition. It looks like the Turion is starting to put real pressure on mobile margins ($400 million dollar decline in operating earnings from a revenue drop of $50 million). The next high margin Intel segment AMD is targeting is the corporate DT PCs (corporate SKUs carry a 60% premium over their consumer counterparts). HP has just announced a big push in AMD based corporate PCs; nvidia is also on board. Intel is obviously concerned as they will be rolling out a new business platform in the near future.
The NGMA product will certainly help to stop the bleeding, but it will also highlight just how bad the current product is. The overall affect on top line growth could actually be negative until Q4/Q1 when volume is sufficient to offset the accelerating decline in netburst revenue.
Do you think that is out of line based on performance?
How is life in the armpit of Ottawa these days Paul??
Well, just for being civil I'm going to share some info I received during a conversation with an analyst at Prudential. FWIW, Pru doesn't do any investment banking so their research is completely independent - I always listen a little more carefully to what they have to say.
As I'm sure you are aware they are very bullish on AMD and very bearish on Intel. They actually wrote in a previous report that when they make the rounds in Boston and Baltimore nobody wants to listen to what they have to say about AMD; The burned once shame on you burned twice shame on me philosophy seems to still be the case here.
From the sound of things during their most recent rounds, Intel is still well loved in boston and baltimore. These guys from PRU have been yelling sell for some time now and nobody seems to want to hear it. I view this as very dangerous situation for Intel shareholders based on managements overly optimistic 2nd half projections. When those get missed, the boys in beantown will be unloading as fast as they can; I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel trade below $10 - in fact I'd be surprised if they didn't.
Until Intel can get 58.5% gross margins on sub $100 ASPs their business will remain very vulnerable to AMD.
S&P Equity Research Downgrades Recommendation on Intel Shares to 'Sell' (2-STARS) from 'Hold' (3-STARS)
12:55 p.m. 04/20/2006
you are quite the master of self delusion. If things are so rosy in santa clara, why were operating earnings from the DE unit more than a $billion higher in the 4th Q of 2004 than the operating results for the entire company (as reported today)? The report today was as ugly as I've ever seen from Intel in a long time. Come to think of it, net earnings were significantly higher two years ago: $1.73 billion net vs $1.34 billion reported today.