I don't agree with Russ on some of his possible schemes either, but I was surprised to see the impact of capex and depreciation on the bottom line. If his numbers are correct, EPS can expand very rapidly if depreciation stabilizes or drops.
As for the extra fab space, I think that the only extra fab is the fab42 shell. Intel did something similar for the Rio Rancho fab11 building. Intel built out the entire fab11 building shell and then only occupied 1 quadrant. IMO, fab42 was not stupidity but a decision to have the long lead time permitting and construction completed so the building could be fired up with "copy exact" 14nm process quickly. Intel could not accept any large customer business IF it negatively impacted existing customers. I think that may be what TSMC has done.
"You think stocks trade on some math formula?"
Hmmmm. Then why did you chose "$40 .... $45 ... and $50 by Christmas targets" instead of "$50 .... $60 ... and $70" .... or "$140 .... $145 ... and $150". I asked how you chose your numbers.
"I am NOT interested in trying to point out to your kind that PEs go up and down based upon how growth is seen in a company."
I noticed. I didn't get the answer I expected, but it is not surprising.
"If you do not think so just go short and quit your crying."
I am long and plan to stay long. I did sell a portion of my holding at $33.33 because I was expecting INTC to bounce off $30 a couple times. Ooops. I was just interested in your analysis as part of my due diligence.
8-) thanks for your explanation.
Can you show your math on the short issue and how you reach your numbers ?
How many shares short do you think would be a "normal" number for Intel?
I was interested to see how you arrived at your $40 .... $45 ... and $50 buy Christmas targets.
If Intel buys back $4bil of shares, the number of shares depends on the price of the shares but it is somewhere in the area of 1.5m shares per trading day (if my calculations are correct). When Intel dropped from $29 to $20 the last time, the short interest increased by 1 mil shares per trading day at the highest rate and many times was in the 500,000 shares per day.
The price might be affected by the $4bil share buyback.
"You referred him to a wild Intel pumper as if that's all he needed to do to satisy his concern."
Your opinion. I expected williamdavis960 to perform due diligence, keep what makes sense and discard the rest.
"Your daily hpocrisy is just flat disgusting, but hey, you are who you are."
Hypocrisy .... again just your opinion.
"You are who you are" ... I could not agree more.
"You act like Russ is an authority?"
How so? I simply said there was some information in the article.
Russ Fischer's Seeking Alpha article deals with the topic in detail.
"Intel: Latent Profitability "
Marco connects to the net through a 1200baud modem and only gets 20 minute delay quotes. His taunts are also delayed.
I would expect the Intel BOD to do something by Wednesday evening if they decide to raise the dividend for this quarter.
"Intel has to raise...going on 3 years now."
Intel does not have to raise. The time frame "3 years" is meaningless. The shareholder value returned during the last 1 year has made those betting against Intel stammering.
FROM MY JULY 17th reply ....
No raise in dividend? by genem7169 •Jul 17, 2014 10:40 AM .
alexander • Jul 17, 2014 11:35 AM
I don't expect any dividend action, but Stacy Smith said that Intel priorities were:
1. invest in the business FIRST
2. generate shareholder return through the dividend
3. and then to return cash to shareholders via stock repurchases.
Since the buyback was so aggressive, it might imply the BOD are expected to add to the dividend too.
When Covello asked his question, he used some phrasing that implied that Intel was forecasting a 2-quarter XP upgrade cycle since Intel was not forecasting it to carry over into 2015.
Since there were several questions about the "XP-end-of-life" being the possible source of the Intel good quarter, Brian wanted to remind everyone that he was not forecasting a 2014 only replacement pop. Intel was not making any 2015 forecasts until the November investor meeting.
I got the impression that BK was alert for analysts building misinformation arguments.
BK was saying: Jim, don't try to build your misinformation campaign on a one time pop from XP replacement. Find some other negative story since you "margin" story is now broken.
"Brian M. Krzanich - CEO ... added reply to James Covello
Jim, the only thing I would add is what I said was we believe the XP end-of-life kind of replacement will at least play through the end of the year and that’s as far as we’ve looked at it. It can go beyond that. What I’m not doing is predicting on '15 yet and that was really – I want you to walk away with I think that’s the end of it versus we just haven’t really started to put our predictions and our estimates for '15 together yet."
I was surprised at how easily Intel plowed through $30. I expected INTC to trade under $30 for awhile and then to oscillate around $30 for an extended period of time. The 2 month jump from $26 to $34 was stunning and I thought too much. I sold 1/4 of my position at $33.33 EXPECTING Intel to test $30. Sigh. When/if Intel drops back, I will start WRITING PUT options.
Since Intel spent much time at $25, one has to be very careful making estimates based on current open interest in option strikes. Many people made their decisions when Intel was at $26.
Intel is mature enough to maintain an ongoing SP-500-type PE ratio. That SP500 PE TTM range over history is 14.5 (mean) and 15.5 (median). Next year, analysts have forecast an average $2.28 EPS with a high of $2.94 and low of $1.57 (Yahoo).
Low EPS and PE ratio give a $22.86 target price.
High EPS and PE ratio give a $45.63 target price.
I think $2.94 is very high (as does everyone except one analyst) and would tend to use the average earnings until Intel shows how they are going to get to that revenue or reduce the share count.
PE 15.52x 14.56x
AVE EPS $2.28 $35.39 $33.20
HIGH EPS 2.94 $45.63 $42.81
LOW EPS 1.57 $24.37 $22.86
Thru 2013 ...
Min: 5.31 (Dec 1917)
Max: 123.79 (May 2009)
"I’m not doing is predicting on '15 yet and that was really – I want you to walk away with I think that’s the end of it versus we just have "
IMO, the VERY KEY adder was when BK anticipated a misconception building in the analyst community. BK pointed out that the XP comments were limited to 2014 ONLY BECAUSE Intel was not commenting on 2015 and NOT BECAUSE the XP upgrade effect ended. BK tried to kill a potential rumor before it could start.
You are half right. Russia would like to restrict both Intel and AMD systems. This rumor surfaced in late June.
Russia wants to make its own processors to replace Intel & AMD
The Russian government is preparing to ditch all computers running x86 microprocessors from leading chip makers AMD and Intel, according to local news reports. In place of current chips, there is speculation that the government will begin using ARM chips — usually used within mobile devices — to power a new fleet of Linux-based computers.
These new chips are reportedly being built by supercomputer manufacturer T-Platform’s Baikal Electronics, while funding is coming from state-owned tech firm Rosnano and defense company Rostec.
While there’s been no official indication for the change in processors, some are speculating that it could have something to do with Russia being concerned about the security of the computers it uses within government facilities. At the same time, this could also be a case of Russia trying to build up its own tech industry rather than relying entirely on outside vendors.
Your original post was about Thomas Sowell.
Your Thomas Sowell statement was wrong.
If you want to point out where my reply was wrong, I will apologize.
Since you don't want to reply, then I will take that as your confession.
passthebuckaroo • 6 minutes ago Flag
0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
Another SMACK for Obomba
Thomas Sowell, African American, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute, Stanford University
"Those people who want Hillary Clinton to be our first female elected Pres, seemed to have learned absolutely nothing from the current disaster of choosing a Pres on the basis of demographics and symbolism"
Liberals who disagree with his honest opinion, must be racists. Checkmate.
Were you bashing? Hmmm. How so? Just "how" were you "bashing"?????
Seemed like you were just making an incorrect political statement.
"Funny how ..." you changed the subject and resorted to angry name calling rather than correct my interpretation of the Thomas Sewell quote. If what I said was factually incorrect, I will apologize to you for my error.
"your opinion is as worthless as "
Thomas Sowell calls himself a conservative libertarian. That is not my opinion. That is his.
Those who disagree with Thomas Sowell must not be a conservative libertarian. That is not my opinion. Those who disagree with a conservative libertarian are not conservative libertarians. It has nothing to do with race.
Your "must be a racist" statement is not only wrong but is silly. Accuracy should be as important to you as insulting others.
Thomas Sowell is a conservative libertarian. Anyone who disagrees with his opinion must not be a conservative libertarian. Not quite checkmate. More of a "distortion".