"Anyways, do you have any thoughts, since all of these potential buys seem quite pricey."
[I don't see any of them being worth the premium they would command with with exception of MU. Hard to say on MU, but it's possible. I don't see Intel buying any ARM capabilities.
Like you suggested, on MU it might be possible to structure a cooperative deal and cost a lot less. Intel has a fairly large pile of cash. I'm sure the MU relationship is getting a lot of scrutiny at the moment. I guess it mostly hinges on MU's new technology and what that might be worth going forward. MU with a market cap of $24 billion would be a lot to swallow.]
"It's not just XLP. It's all of the other processors/components in the datacenter that Broadcom currently supplies (knowledge based processors, the world's best switches, etc.) that could be really crazy good if built on an Intel process."
[Ashraf starts out with saying they can help Intel with SOC development. But Broadcom is struggling mightily with applications processor and SOC development and doesn't have any LTE solutions brought to market (only Qualcomm and Intel do). So now he is switching to all of these other areas which are not even close to adding up to a buy decision. It would be way to much money for way too little benefit.
As wbmw said:
"At $16.5B market cap, NFW."
As I've said previously, Ash needs a Next Inning subscription to keep him out of trouble.]
"Agreed although it was worth $3.7bn to Broadcom because that is how much they paid for Netlogic who had the chip originally."
[$4 billion sounds about right to me as a valuation for Broadcom. LOL]
Can we implement the Volcker Rule now instead of July??? The manipulation boys are hard at it.
"I do hope that reverses."
[Well any green looks good now that Wall Street has decided to beat tech like red-headed stepchildren.]
Humpty even got new coverage from FBR Capital at Outperform today. Otherwise it would be worse.
Wall Street choosing to ignore all good US, Chinese, European and world economic news to beat tech down since they missed the run up doing their stupid shorting routine all year.
It's all about the economy, stupid!
Just say no to these cretins and their artificially induced correction.
"The only real reason Intel would buy Broadcom is not the obvious ones espoused by many. It would be a negative one, to take out their MIPS XLP network chip and prevent it being migrated to ARM where it could do more damage in a healthier software ecosystem. Other than that Broadcom has nothing Intel needs."
[Impossible to see that being worth $17 billion.]
Humpty seems to have drawn a large crowd of hecklers today, all wearing Wall Street firm sweatshirts and throwing rocks. They are also pelting his friends further down the wall with TSMC, Qualcomm and Broadcom sweatshirts.
Pretty strange as the Wall Street guys had been buying Humpty lunch, dinner and sending him presents just recently.
ARM down 73 cents.
TSMC down 33 cents.
QCOM down 24 cents.
BRCM down 65 cents.
Put a helmet on, Humpty! Put a helmet on!!!
"They stole my idea..."
[Let them keep it. Intel is ahead of Broadcom in every area.]
[Why he would conclude this I have no idea because Broadcom is struggling with its application processor development, with its SOC development, and still doesn't have LTE going either. Broadcom needs help in all these areas so I don't see why he thinks that they could help anyone, much less Intel. Here are some of the responses he got on iHub to his idea of Intel acquiring Broadcom:
At $16.5B market cap, NFW. Even if they were to be given a McAfee "do-over", it still wouldn't be feasible.
Intel can't afford it. If they could, Mediatek has more share and is in the same valuation ballpark, so that would make more sense.
Furthermore, the clash of cultures and design methodologies would cause a net destruction of value as it would take forever to integrate the teams.
What would happen is that key people would just leave.
Look at AMD + ATI for example.
Intel is currently planning on crushing companies like Broadcom, why would it want to spend money on something it hopes to destroy or at least subjugate?]
1.) We have FinFET. You don't. You won't for a very long time. If ever. Talk is cheap - volume shipping of product to customers is the only metric you get credit for.
2.) We didn't have leadership in density. We didn't need it at the time. We do now and we are taking control of density and aren't going to give it back. Ever.
3.) We can continue to stay on the Moore's Law curve. You can't.
4.) We continue to enjoy economic improvements at each new node. You don't.
5.) We aren't going to wait any longer in mobility. We are coming to take major market share starting with tablets. It's a new world. Get used to it.
6.) Intel's earnings are projected as being flat in 2014 for one reason and one reason only: We are investing a billion dollars in taking ARM market share. You may think of it as an expense but it's not. It's an investment that will pay for itself many times over.
It looks like analysts found something to be optimistic about on Investor's Day. A shame so many others haven't.
I can't tell the difference between Jim Covello and Stacy Rasgon, your favorite analysis. He has worked with Covello for years to beat Intel down.
Have you ever read the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics?
Here is one section:
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
"LOL, are you kidding me? Do I need to disclose what stocks I own in EVERY POST? You, sir, are now just looking to prove that I don't have "integrity". I bet you were taken aback that I even did disclose that I owned BRCM. Also, it's in a bunch of my articles. I'm not trying to hide my positions."
[No, not in every post - just in every post where you discuss a stock you own. It's just considered a common ethical practice. There isn't really any difference in doing it in your articles and doing it in your posts. People follow you in message boards just like they read your articles. It's extremely strange that you accept the need for it in articles but think you can skip it in your posts on message boards. It's not unreasonable to expect someone who does both articles and message board posts to disclose positions in both.
I wasn't surprised by the times that you did disclose it - I was just surprised that you decided to skip it in a post where you recommended that Intel buy a company in which you had a position. That is a really obvious time to let readers know that you have a conflict of interest at least in appearance if not in substance. You tell them so they can draw their own conclusions.
I get e-mails from people who do stock recommendations. Even though the e-mails are not public, they disclose their positions in every one and would never think of doing otherwise. It seems that there is a lot about the ethical expectations and practices of the profession that you have chosen that you don't know.
And how much trouble would it have been to have simply added:
"Note to readers: I own Broadcom."
Oh, wow - back in October. I guess you expect everyone who reads your posts to go back a couple of months looking for disclosures?
"I will talk at GREAT LENGTHS about Qualcomm's fabrication problems if you list just THREE things that Intel has problems with today."
[Yeah the guy who just did another puff piece on TSMC wants me to follow standards that he does not observe. You need to start following the standards that you profess to follow before you go around trying to hold other people to these standards. Besides, I have previously explained why I will never present the downside on Intel until such time as I feel like it is fairly valued. But I'm not a journalist, Ashraf. I'm a message board poster. You apparently don't think a journalist has to have standards higher than the common message board poster. You have an obligation to your readers. You're getting paid for god's sake. You are not even close to objective on Qualcomm, TSMC, ARM and now Broadcom. And you keep assaulting my character for pointing it out. Well, that's just the way it is. If you don't like it then you need to work on your standards and objectivity.]
"Yikes, you are vicious wallis. You'll attack the character of anybody who disagrees with you."
[That's funny because you already admitted that you have a separate standard for companies you own versus companies you don't own.
You don't seem to understand that you should disclose ownership when making recommendations on a company buying one in which you own stock. This is just plain journalistic integrity.
This does say something about your character, doesn't it? If you don't follow the standards that most journalists consider normal and customary, then you shouldn't get upset with me pointing it out. It's not my failure, it's yours.]
"Of course, Intel's stock price stagnation is due to "manipulation" and not due to "revenues and profits aren't growing" as far as you're concerned, so whatever."
[You sound more like Nenni every day. Where's your "I have to provide both side of the picture" on Qualcomm??? Have you ever discussed Qualcomm's fabrication problems? ]