Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Cincinnatus' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Intel: Perception Vs. Reality [View article]
    Too bad you didn't retire those talking points at least six months ago.

    Intel's LTE Cat 6 baseband is shipping now. Qualcomm issued a press release last November that they'd be sampling their LTE Cat 6 modem in the 1st half and shipping in the 2nd half, but all they'll say now is they expect to launch later this year. Qualcomm didn't even bother to mention it by name in the Q1 conf call. Like everything else waiting for TSMC's 20nm don't expect any volume until 2015.

    Intel has 64-bit Windows tablets now. Where is Qualcomm/ARM?

    Intel has 64-bit Android available on the market now in some geographies, and in the US by next month. Qualcomm hopes to have 64-bit devices out later this year, but that's off-the-shelf ARM Cortex A53, not Qualcomm's in-house Krait microarchitecture, and on 28nm LP, not 20nm. You won't see 20nm Snapdragons until well into 2015, and that's assuming TSMC gets 20nm working. Even the Snapdragon 808/810 of 2015 will still be Cortex A53, not Krait.

    SoFIA is on 28nm for the same reason everyone else is on 28nm. It would make no sense to port SoFIA onto Intel's 32nm planar process. Intel will have 14nm FinFET baseband way before anyone else, if they even get there.
    Jun 18 06:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Perception Vs. Reality [View article]
    Keep in mind these are the same Intel/Microsoft is doomed arguments you've been presenting since early 2013 with INTC 10 points lower, and MSFT 15+ points lower.

    I'm convinced the day you, Maurer, and Bofah turn positive on Intel is the day before the World ends.

    There are literally a 100+ comments that make for even better comedy now than when first written.

    The one thing that seems common to all is Intel PR gets mentioned with much fondness. I think the Intel PR guys must be whooping it up now.
    Jun 18 01:59 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Bill, I thought you were done? How about a little discipline and follow through?

    Short candidate means short candidate. Yes it means short Intel for those that take the advice. And again, you gave the criteria there that would need to be met to exit the short.
    Jun 17 01:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    "Never did I say investors should outright short Intel, as I said I wouldn't be crazy about it and that shorts should take profits."

    Not true. You advised for those sitting on nice gains to consider taking profits, but at the same time you advised holding was an option, and that it remained a short candidate. In English something can only be a short candidate if one is not already short. That's what "candidate" means, and why you separately stated holding was an option. As we've discussed for those that held or initiated a short following your exit criteria they were still holding at least as of last week.
    Jun 17 01:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    "But that's also why I included the table starting at 4.00% so investors could think for themselves."

    The table isn't advice, it's data. Here's your advice from that article.

    Quote #1: "I always recommend that investors wait for a pullback, and I'll surely do that with Intel."

    Quote #2: "With Intel yielding 4.26% as of Monday's close, my initial recommendation would be to wait for another roughly 10 basis points in yield."

    Intel closed at $21.18 that day, so a pullback would not have it at $22.50. It would have to be lower than $21.18 to be a pullback. Secondly, waiting for a pullback that yields another 10 basis points from 4.26% would be 4.36%, not 4.00%. And what other quote can we pull from your article? How about this quote:

    Quote #3: "I like to use zeros and fives, so my first entry point would be at 4.35% (roughly $20.69)."

    So your entry point of 4.35% is pretty close to the 4.36% pullback you advised waiting for. Amazingly if we put all the quotes together we get a clear picture of your advice, which is not a 4.00% entry, but a 4.35% entry.

    So Bill, who is taking your quotes out of context?
    Jun 17 01:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Go back years if you want.

    I would say if we go back to 2012 and work forward that's a pretty good indicator of your success, or lack thereof.
    <<You claim it's a fact you've been right, and you even point to 2012. Yet a review of your articles reveals you called Intel your top value pick for 2012, and reiterated that in a May article, after the stock had already peaked for that year. You then in late August said that time was a "great opportunity to get into this name." It seems to me looking at both your calls in 2012 and 2013 as well as so far in 2014 you've been a pretty good contrarian indicator.>>

    Since that time in March, you've continued to call tops that Intel has blown through, including your Intel is expensive at $28 and short it on a push towards $29 call of last week.
    Jun 17 12:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    <<You also ignored the statement that "investors could structure it however they want" and that I included a large table so that they could do just that.>>

    Bill, it's obvious that investors could have ignored your advice and structured their buys however they want. However the targets you advised were never met. And even if we go back and re-write your article to include the 4.30% yield level, that still doesn't build a position. Do you understand what building a position means? It's not apparent at this point that you do.
    Jun 17 12:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    I did. You claimed you won't short Intel, but I showed you would. Your story changes to cover your behind.

    That your short call at $27 worked isn't in question. The problem is that one successful call is the only one you followed up on or tout. It's your four other short calls that lost money. Your short call of January just made some of the losses back for those that followed those calls. And then of course the March 20th 2013 article had a large opportunity cost for those that followed it.

    I'm all for full disclosure of your track record. I think given that you're market timing SA should be requiring you to track and report it. You're the guy that only wants to follow up on your isolated successful calls.
    Jun 17 12:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Which quote do you claim you did not write? I can post the link to it if I did not already do so.

    You've already tried to justify your lack of following your advice by claiming it would be manipulation. It's delusion to think that you're going manipulate INTC's price with your calls. INTC's float is much too large for you to do that. It's not a credible excuse.

    Secondly, you're contradicting yourself. In Feb 5th article you wrote this:
    "My only regret is that I was not able to personally short Intel at that time." As I recall your justification was due to lack of funds.

    In your Jan 8th article you indicated in the disclaimer that you were prepared to short INTC:
    "Author may initiate a short position into earnings if Intel is approaching $27."

    Your stories are too inconsistent for one to be following your advice.
    Jun 17 12:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    And yet Bill you'll dilute the discussion with a series of empty comments asserting that by quoting you I'm twisting your words.

    As I noted back in March when you were trying to claim your readers got a 32 cent gain on a short that they couldn't have made, I noted that looking back a year I saw no article from you that disclosed holding a position. Looking at articles since March I still don't see you disclosing a position. For a guy that writes frequently on Intel, often multiple articles in a month, and who claims by his accounting to not be able to find a case where his INTC market timing calls weren't profitable, it's amazing you're not reaping the gains yourself. One would expect that you'd be willing to take on the risk that you're advising others to assume.
    Jun 17 11:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Bill, I take silence to mean you still haven't taken your own advice. I find it funny that having just failed yet again last week to predict Intel's direction that you're right back at it as if nothing occurred.
    Jun 17 12:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Right Bill. Not much new to say. Computex was a snooze.

    "Computex 2014 wrap-up: Intel and co. usher in the future of computing"

    I think you should continue your fortune telling. That seems a much better use of your time than worrying about design wins that have the potential to move the stock and blow through your short targets.

    And continue to beat on the dividend issue. Foregoing that 900+ penny gain to hold out for a token penny per quarter dividend increase was a good call, as were your short calls of Aug 20th, Dec 2nd, and Dec 9th of last year, and Feb 5th of this year.

    I would definitely wait for those 40 million tablets to appear by the end of the year before you buy in. Or is it still the case that you won't eat your own dog food - long or short?
    Jun 16 11:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    You've not provided any quotes, you've only provided after the fact interpretation, which contradicts what you wrote. I've asked you many times to quote and link to your articles, and you refuse to do so.

    The logic here makes no sense. A penny dividend isn't going to do anything. There are far larger events that are going to drive INTC price. As we saw with your "Intel: Are We Getting Ahead Of Ourselves?" article of last week in which you advised that Intel was expensive at $28 and was a short candidate on "a further push towards $29", the big events are not addressed. There was no mention of Computex there, which was dominated by Intel. There are rumors of the Nexus 8 being announced shortly, perhaps with an Intel SoC, but no mention of it here. To ignore that, but instead to harp on a penny of dividend, completely misses the mark.
    Jun 16 01:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Yes, and the 4.00%, 4.05%, 4.10%, 4.15%, 4.20%, and 4.25% were also hit, but you didn't advise buying those either. Your excuses never end. The English there is quite plain, you're the one twisting your words in hindsight.

    You stated that your initial entry point there was $20.69 and 4.35%. Your next buy point was 4.50% at $20. To build a position you needed it to hit $20 and below.

    It all comes back to the failed thesis that dividend is going to drive this. There's no logic behind saying a penny more in dividend now is going to get INTC going. It's been going and you missed the train by a massive 900+ pennies.
    Jun 16 12:33 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Can You Now Spare A Penny? [View article]
    Yet again revisionist history.

    "I like to use zeros and fives, so my first entry point would be at 4.35% (roughly $20.69). I'd then wait for another 15 basis points, which puts you at 4.50%, or $20.00 a share."

    Your initial entry point wasn't even hit, let alone the $20 and lower points that would have been needed to build a position based on your advice.

    I believe that investors can think for themselves, but they need to know what your call history is to make an informed decision.
    Jun 16 11:34 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment