Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 10:15 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

marsavian 254 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Jun 15, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • marsavian marsavian Jul 17, 2014 8:51 AM Flag

    The potential to unleash so much more revenue/profit/less losses from this hugely growing mobile TAM starting from this very low base of ~zero revenue mobile quarter is incredible and all that is to come incrementally every quarter starting from this very good PC/Server/Embedded quarter. It bodes well for an ever increasing upwardly spiraling revenue/profit/share price increase as more Intel tablets/phones/modems become the norm. I said before that INTC will eventually surpass its Y2K peak and it is now well and truly started its journey there having left the range bound decade long shackles of the 20s well behind now.

  • Reply to

    Slow bleed, no press!

    by gebenhoeh Jul 16, 2014 12:50 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 3:33 PM Flag

    I believe on low volume days in this stock, market makers will accentuate any pattern until natural support or resistance is found. We are at such a natural support point now and I believe the stock will start rising again from tomorrow. Earnings should be about another 3 weeks.

  • Reply to

    Gap needs to be filled at $28.40

    by backbay_bstn Jun 13, 2014 8:14 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 8:28 AM Flag

    Your broken model will need another gap added to it at $32 ;-)

  • Reply to

    Did Anyone Check with AE?

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:34 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 8:23 AM Flag

    'So, what's the breakeven point?

    With fixed annual operating expenses of roughly $3.3 billion, the division needs to generate about $6.6 billion at 50% gross margin to break even. If you relax the assumption on gross margin to more along the lines of 60% (this should be achievable once Intel has moved all of these products to in-house manufacturing), then the division needs to do about $5.54 billion in sales to break even.'

    Does not seem so outlandish to me.

  • Reply to

    Did Anyone Check with AE?

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:34 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 8:20 AM Flag

    foolDOTcom/investing/general/2014/07/15/finding-intel-corporations-true-mobile-breakeven-p.aspx

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 7:56 AM Flag

    Quite some doomsday scenarios you paint there. Just for some historical perspective though Earth's temperature peaked about 50 million years ago when it was 14 degree Celsius hotter then yet the human race's ancestors still managed to survive that so we could live now. Just in the last thousand years or so there have been hotter periods on Earth even though air CO2 was half what it is now yet no great ecological disasters were reported then, Greenland was green with plants, there were vineyards in Britain and Scandinavia and the Alps were snowless so Hannibal and his Elephants could traverse them etc etc.

    You need to stop reading from the script and start thinking for yourself about this looking at Earth's climate and temperature throughout out its whole history to get some better non-alarmist perspective on this.

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 3:10 AM Flag

    The Server/Embedded divisions also had an outstanding quarter (+19/+24%) revenue which also show the stupidity of crassly labeling Intel as just a PC company. Intel is a multi-headed Hydrant and all the strands have the capability to bite hard at any one time.

    Mobile revenue was just $51m with a $1.12B net loss. So in effect Intel gave away its mobile chips to gain marketshare with contra-revenue. This may be considered a bad thing but look at it from the potential revenue/profit gain when contra-revenue disappears and more desirable 14nm products with higher asp arrive. This is a lot of future money in the bank being stored up and compressed like a spring now.

    Finally let me also say that all those who said INTC will always be a range-bound stock have also been proved totally wrong. INTC can be a range-bound stock but only under $26 and I identified the 15-year old moving averages, that encompass the very high Y2K boom, that were causing that. However I argued that once over $26 INTC would move freely like other stocks and so it has come to pass with one dollar stock jumps being quite normal now.

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 2:46 AM Flag

    'Civilization as we know it may be destroyed '

    The alarmist force is strong with you ;-). Even under the worst case scenarios (5-10 degrees) civilization will not be destroyed. You may lose some land mass due to sea level rises but billions of people will still happily exist on this planet in a kind of warm prehistoric leafy Eden as existed during the dinosaur periods. These 'worst case' scenarios are just not going to happen though and unfortunately in the long term we will need such a temperature increase to ward off the next Ice Age due any time between now and next tens of thousands of years.

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 2:37 AM Flag

    Science is about hypothesis and theories being validated by experimental/real-world facts. So far NONE of these climate models have delivered any predictions which have turned out to be true and in fact the standard response from the alarmists is to change the model each year and deliver some feeble excuse why it did not happen again. Basically the way these climate models 'work' is by assuming that anything that is not known about temperature increase is automatically assumed to be AGW. That is not science but educated guessing at best and foolish guessing at worst and is not empirical theory/experimental science as has been understood as best practice over millennia. The fact that no discernible temperature increase has happened in the 21st Century really should make objective viewers stop and think about the validity of the (pseudo)science that is purported to be excessive AGW.

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 2:24 AM Flag

    I will first talk in generalities as obviously price discovery has now happened in INTC over the last year and it is good to have a recap. Intel as a company has far too much going for it in terms of leading design and fabrication IP for its INTC stock to ever have been valued as a commodity utility company as it was back in the teens and twenties.

    The bears talk about the death/stagnation of PCs but PCs are a changing breed and what may have been the dynamics between a PC and mobile processor two/three years ago is no longer valid now. PC processors now have the same battery life as fanless mobile processors which obviously will dent some of the latter's desirability. This will will be accentuated even further when fanless Core-M with 2.6 GHz turbo are released so now you can have that same excess PC performance in the mobile slim fanless form factor making the traditional ARM mobile processor look even more ordinary.

    Two other issues were holding PCs back. Firstly MSFT screwed up trying to force Windows 8 down everybody's throat. They have stopped doing this now with Win 7 back as the desktop default and this should be rectified even further with Windows 9 Threshold next year. The other issue has been the relative performance stagnation of the desktop high end since Sandy/Ivy Bridge. I know why it has happened, to concentrate on bringing power down to fanless mobile limits and coincidentally keeping Xeon at optimum performance/power levels you just cannot go mad on clockspeed, execution units, issue width etc. However even that is changing now with 4.4 GHz and 8-core Haswells being released so the high-end is beginning to move again now. Both Deshop volumes (+8%) and desktop ASP (+2%) were up so clearly all the fools who thought PCs were dying need to seriously think again.

    to be continued ...

  • Reply to

    Mas, Come on Back!!!

    by wallisweaver Jul 15, 2014 10:38 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 16, 2014 1:52 AM Flag

    You was not rude to me personally although you was to another originally. I will reply in detail about INTC in another post but I would like to spend this post talking about AGW as it is such an important issue. The fundamental point about alleged excessive AGW I was trying to convey to you was that there are perfectly valid scientific reasons to object to carbon emission restrictions as there are to be for them. The science on this matter is not remotely settled as so far none of the AGW climate model predictions have come true even though they have had years to try and the real science about this won't be settled for decades to come long after we are both gone.

    I just would like you and others who feel strongly the same way to be not so dogmatic and call those who don't agree with you deniers as if it was some religious heresy to dispute the consensus that has been built up. Remember a lot of these same scientists were worrying about global cooling in the 20th century which should add some perspective on the immaturity and imprecision of climate science as a scientific discipline. It also only takes one scientist to be right e.g Galileo who disputed the Flat Earth consensus of his time. From my POV there are much more important issues that mankind has to deal with like World Hunger/Poverty/Health/Peace etc and all the effort and energy and money which is going to 'combat' supposed excessive AGW is I believe misplaced and negligent as arbitrarily expensive energy for what may be little real temperature difference (less than a degree) does no-one any good. Of course the hydrocarbons are going to run out eventually and we will need more sustainable forms of energy but let that happen naturally when it is cost-effective to do so.

  • Reply to

    whales must be really hungry

    by impumpingandicantstoppumping Jul 8, 2014 12:43 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 11, 2014 3:25 PM Flag

    1stDetect sales have already happened which is why Spacetech revenue is consistently non-zero but don't let facts get in the way of your lies.

    ' IDIQ. $20M initial order from the TSA'

    Another figment of Buldoc's very vivid imagination. I realized your CEO was a clown many years ago when he only overestimated a year's revenue threefold ! No serious CEO would do that (e.g. any Pickens) but your Andy Grove wannabee sets no limits to his very vivid imagination. You was supposed to be EBITDA positive by now as well remember ? Where are all the freight forwarders who were supposed to drown you with sales after cargo approval. Just one big fantasy after another with that clown, you and him are well suited, fantasists both.

    'but in the near term IMSC's share price will blow past ASTC's. That day is coming soon, probably before the end of the month, definitely before Sept 1. '

    You have been saying for years, still hasn't happened and it's just not going to happen, DMRJ will make sure IMSC never hits 2 due to option dumping and this stock will never dip below 2 again so never the twain will meet.

  • Reply to

    whales must be really hungry

    by impumpingandicantstoppumping Jul 8, 2014 12:43 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 11, 2014 12:15 PM Flag

    The stock has hit 3.07 or more twice in the last three days and on the other day of those three just missed it by 2c. OTOH it went nowhere near 2.75 as you so wrongly promised again and it is still in the 3+ range despite many weeks/months/years of you ill-wishing to go much lower e.g. below 3, below 2, below 1 repeated stupidly time and time again by your tiny pea brain. You are one jealous sad idiot extremely envious of this stock's rise from 50c while your stock went backwards in the same period of time. Your sad stock IMSC will never be allowed to hit 1.40 again, DMRJ won't allow it as they will convert their 60+m options first before your greedy management are ever allowed to at 1.40. who do you think recently crushed your recent spurt ? Get used to it because DMRJ will want to get paid in full long before you sad saps do. You got the $60m to buy their options out ? LOL

  • Reply to

    whales must be really hungry

    by impumpingandicantstoppumping Jul 8, 2014 12:43 PM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 9, 2014 2:39 PM Flag

    'Hey Mars, by saying there was solid support at 3.07 did you mean 2.91? Was that a typo, or were you just wrong again?'

    You mean right again ;-).

  • Reply to

    Mars

    by hopeful200 Jul 9, 2014 12:13 AM
    marsavian marsavian Jul 9, 2014 5:12 AM Flag

    Yes it does support your numerical gap analysis especially as trading gap analysis would have stated there was no gap comparing June 16 and June 17 so that is a clear winner for your interpretation of gap analysis there.

  • marsavian marsavian Jul 8, 2014 1:24 PM Flag

    Technically and publicly reviewed in the link I gave in this thread. Notice a leading spectrometer OEM chose to partner with ASTC which was your other false FUD point

    http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/;_ylt=ArSMftRr6ecPfeNK4bMLFwfeAohG;_ylu=X3oDMTB2NjM5cGFiBHBvcwMzMgRzZWMDTWVkaWFNc2dCb2FyZHNYSFJVbHQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3?&bn=88115bc7-6342-3b1d-8fa0-6190a8eb1341&tid=1403653428111-32567d19-c825-48d4-9ea4-f2086179d121&tls=la%2Cd%2C24%2C3

  • marsavian marsavian Jul 8, 2014 11:25 AM Flag

    1stDetect's burnrate has been consisted for 7 years now, it's not going to suddenly go up 3 times more a year just because you as a Short want it too. The money will outlast your Short. Pickens knows if the money runs out before the profit arrives he's out of a job so he will spend it wisely and prudently and make it last, over many many years.

  • marsavian marsavian Jul 8, 2014 3:03 AM Flag

    After tax and paying off all loans I expect the company to still have around $50m working capital. Spacetech currently is on a $5-6m annual burnrate which gives a lot of years runway to get the sales started.

  • marsavian marsavian Jul 7, 2014 3:47 PM Flag

    Remember the capital gains is only that which is over the nominal book value of ~$32m so only half the sale value roughly is tax liable. The tax liability will be in the single digit millions.

  • marsavian marsavian Jul 6, 2014 1:22 PM Flag

    With respect to my relationship with AE you are just making things up as is your usual troll style. Last thing he said to me was thank you which is not quite the falsehoods you are peddling here

    investorshubDOTadvfnDOTcom/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102007634

    I just wanted him to write less emotional, less repetitive and more original articles as he dipped last year and I knew he could do it and he has delivered. I enjoy reading his articles again as I know I will learn at least one new thing in them and will not see any badly flawed analysis this time around just conclusions with probabilities attached to them which is how it should be. It is true he has disengaged from forums and that is probably better for his peace of mind as he did get a lot of unwarranted abuse and personal attacks. I wish him nothing but future happiness and success.

    p.s. As for the other two posters you mentioned they have trouble accepting the fact that it is ok to constructively criticize Intel the company or INTC the stock without automatically being a basher or troll. One was outright abusive and the other seems to take great delight when AE's investments go down which is very poor form.

INTC
35.17+0.19(+0.54%)Sep 18 4:15 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Oracle Corporation
NYSEThu, Sep 18, 2014 4:04 PM EDT
Concur Technologies, Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Sep 18, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Rite Aid Corporation
NYSEThu, Sep 18, 2014 4:02 PM EDT