It seems like this is the same argument that says that "Intel costs are increasing" and is some extent bogus isn't it?
Doesn't the "die per wafer" go up faster?
Assuming equal "good die" PERCENTAGE, wouldn't the good die per wafer go up faster making the cost per good die go down?
Example calculation WITH chance errors in it. .... since I am not a wafer guy.
I searched for "die sites per wafer estimator" and used the Silicon Edge die estimator.
Using their 200mm wafer default.
A 10x10mm, 100mm2, 28nm die will have 248 die sites per wafer.
If the process reduction to 20nm leads to generally linear scaling, the 10x10 shrinks about 8/28 or about 28% in size in each direction. The 10mm x 10mm die becomes an equal 7.2mm x 7.2 mm die or about 52mm2.
That would increase the number of die SITES on the wafer from 248 to 488.
A 96% increase in the number of sites while the cost of the wafer increased by 23%.
You expect to get twice as many smaller, faster, lower power devices for 23% in cost.
The most important assumption would be GOOD die per wafer yield.
Today is the 4th Friday.The Jan monthly options expired last week.
Weekly options expire this today BUT that is not the big driver behind the options activity.
My "THEORY" is that there is large money posturing for dividend arbitraging. Not manipulation. Not buying. Not selling. They are penny shaving arbitragers that drive the share price to the option strike price because that is where the option market maker can best defend himself.
There is share and option positioning for the Feb 5th market close ex-dividend pricing discontinuity.
"Intel RUPTURES below 25 like a wounded duck"
How colorful. 8-)
There is quite a lot of gravity at the option strike of $25. There has also been more than usual trading of $26 options that I have not seen before. My "model" is down at the gym but she said that INTC should finish in the $25.00 range. I predict $24.98.
"Dear Jesus, how much longer must I suffer with stupid fools line alexander, huh?"
I guess, as long as you want to play.
I am just trying to learn how to be as successful as you are ..... and then avoid it. $99 profit 8-)
Its "KAREN", not "SHARON". No wonder her dad doesn't like you and won't loan you any money. You can't even remember her name.
My "model" ( 8-) says that dividend arbitraging is in full effect and the $25 strike is nice because it exists for every month options are trading. $25 will exert substantial gravity and INTC will orbit $25.
My guess would be that it closes at $25.03 .... $25.00 plus a little strength after several says of sell off.
You have to be careful to understand what is being discussed. dnenni only talks about SoC products and schedules so there is potential for confusion about what is being discussed. I remember dnenni saying that he used the SoC products to determine process milestones and in the case of Altera Stratix10 FPGA, do not apply.
Altera announce 2 Stratix 10 14nm products. They announce a 14nm FPGA and they announced a 14nm SoC with the 64-bit ARM cores. They have also announce similar 20nm Arria 10 products. An Arria FPGA and SoC. Altera calls these 4 products their Generation 10 products.
It appears to me that the FPGA Gen10 products can be compared and the Gen10 SoC products could be compared.
Altera reports earnings TODAY after the close and their conference call is scheduled for 1:45PT. They should get queried on the Drexel comment, foundry status and schedules.
"I'm selling both Puts & Calls, & collecting a nice dividend on a huge number of shares i own."
Great! No problem if your investment is matching or exceeding your expectations. Don't be afraid.
"I criticize Intel's senior leadership because I find it almost inexcusable on how they are treating shareholders, running the business, horrible acquisitions, etc."
Oh, recreational criticizing. As long as your investment goals are being met then don't let your feelings be hurt. If you can sleep, you are OK. If you can't sleep, fix it.
.... but, it is rather silly to sell put options when the price is dropping to $23.02. You want to sell put options near the bottom when they are priced at their peak.
There is nothing other than the single comment from Richard Whittington that "Intel may be in danger of losing its foundry customer Altera". How long to you think before that comment morphs into "certainty". My guess, in one week, the "may" will disappear and the "fact" will be published by Reuters.
Interestingly, Intel can say nothing that could pesuade anyone. Altera, much the same. This rumor could linger until Altera ships and beyond.
downgrade to "hold" from "buy" by Drexel Hamilton.
"Analyst Richard Whittington also cut the price target for the chipmaker to $26 from $30. Whittington wrote that Intel's server chip business is losing ground to cloud solutions which have "visibly slowed high margin data center CPUs." He also noted that Intel may be in danger of losing its foundry customer Altera."
Yes, you are, but WHY?
If you believe that INTC is just going to $23.02, sell your shares and buy them back at $23.02 if you want them.
If you believe that INTC is just going to $23.02 and don't want to sell, then just buy some put options and ride it down?
If you believe that INTC is just going to $23.02, take some action to proft from it. Your model is rather worthless if you don't take action when she tells you to do something.
AMD down 12% today.
$3.67 Down 0.50(11.99%)
Seems like the Drexel analyst indicated that Intel "may be in danger of losing foundry customer Altera". Watch how long it takes the blogosphere to transform this into a "done deal" from this one sentence.
"Richard Whittington also cut the price target for the chipmaker to $26 from $30. Whittington wrote that Intel's server chip business is losing ground to cloud solutions which have "visibly slowed high margin data center CPUs." He also noted that Intel may be in danger of losing its foundry customer Altera"
DOH! Long term investors should be added to the list.
With all the indices hitting all time highs, I think the index funds were responsibe for a bulk of the buying. Since I own several of the sector and index ETFs in my 401k, I bet I was an indirect stealth buyer of some of those shares.
Drexel Hamilton downgraded Intel from Buy to Hold with a price target of $26.00 (from $30.00).
For an analyst ratings summary and ratings history on Intel click here. For more ratings news on Intel click here.
Shares of Intel closed at $25.59 yesterday, with a 52 week range of $20.10-$27.12.
They did at the Nov 21st Analysts Day. Stacy Smith gave presentation that had one slide titled "brief update on 14nm status". I think it was slide 23 but I cannot see that slide on the Intel site presentation archive. Slide 22 shows up twice for me. There is a copy of the slide on extremetech in a Nov 22 article titled:
Intel’s 14nm milkshake: It’s better than yours
By Joel Hruska on November 22, 2013 at 9:27 am
There is a chart where the "14nm yield over time" is plotted against the 22nm yield over time at the same point in its life. The chart overlay shows the 14nm just below that of 22nm and expected equal by now.
14nm yields are at the same level as 22nm was at the same point in life and 22nm was "better than expected". It is rather complex logic for analysts and I agree .... Intel should have used sock puppets to convey the information for some of the analysts.
Both at 24? I owned some of both.
ARMH at $50 and INCT at $25? I own INTC and I buy a few put contracts when reaches a new high.
"we have a major new fact: 22nm yields turned out to be much better than expected. That means that the fourth fab was unnecessary and will be empty or under-utilized"
Russ SA article paragraphs 3 and 4.
"Now we are ending 2012 and the four 22nm fabs are online. According to Mark Bohr's comments during multiple interviews at the recent Intel Developers Forum, "22nm yields are excellent," "22nm yields are better than we expected," and "22nm yields are the same as 32nm." Bohr is an Intel Technical Fellow and Chief Process Technologist. Bohr, like many technical professionals, is genetically incapable of lying or even fibbing. Now, if Bohr were a marketing guy, his comments might be suspect.
It appears that we have a major new fact: 22nm yields turned out to be much better than expected. That means that the fourth fab was unnecessary and will be empty or under-utilized. Ottelini's next step could be to go to Apple (AAPL) and offer to build the A6 chip in 22nm Trigate at the cost (yes, the cost) of the A6 chip now being built on Samsung's 32nm process in Austin.
That is the same basic argument that Russ Fischer made in 2012. Intel built an extra 22nm fab as insurance against low yields and could jam wafers through if yields were not good. With high 22nm yield and 14nm progressing along the same curves, the fabs they started building 3 years ago could be postponed.
Intel - How 22nm Yield Changes The Industry
Oct. 1, 2012 5:08 PM ET
"During Intel's (INTC) fourth-quarter 2010 conference call CEO Paul Otellini first told us about the Intel 22nm process. He also told us about "Intel's three fabrication manufacturing model." The surprising thing was that he next said that the company felt the 22nm process would be in such high demand that it planned to build a fourth fab center for 22nm. The combination of the process shrink from 32nm to 22nm and the additional fab center would nearly double the potential chip output.
Back then Intel was placing a wager, betting the company could build these revolutionary 22nm Trigate products in very high volume and with a yield that would continue high profitability for Intel. No one knew what the yield would be, and I think that uncertainty is the real reason Intel built the fourth fab. The extra capacity would provide insurance that if yields on the new 22nm process were low, the company could brute force extra wafers through the factories to insure there would be no shortages of Ivy Bridge processors to end customers.