Seeking Alpha

uls2

uls2
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View uls2's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • History Suggests Intel Will Succeed In Mobile [View article]
    @hansrx7,

    I bet that some SA readers feel sorry for you about your wasting your time. But a lot more, I bet, will pity you for being unable to distinguish between a sensible article filled with useful facts & figures, and with projections that possess some probability of turning out correct, AND an article that is truly worthless, like so many others.

    Thanks for your article, Michael Blair.

    In any case I am glad for you, Hans, that you feel so confident about going down in history for your balderdash.
    Feb 17 06:46 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Upside Potential Remains [View article]
    Shiv Kapoor,

    I like INTC myself, and I am hanging on to their stock because I expect them to do well in the long-term, because of everything they have to offer.

    But I am unable to see how a PV of only ~7% above today's price can look to you like "lots of value" as you say. And only at a return expectation of 9%; if you plug 10% return expectation into your equation, you'll get a PV of $19.88. Even if you don't assume a dividend drop to 75 Cents, a 10% return expectation gets you a PV of $23.85.

    Can you explian?
    Jan 27 01:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Understanding Intel [View article]
    Russ,

    Thanks for your Options tutorial. I printed it out and will read it when I have some spare time.

    You see, SA did not just publish your comment once but twice!
    Jan 17 10:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Understanding Intel [View article]
    @markitos,

    Congratulations on your success, markitos. Even if you figure in 3% inflation per year, I calculate your REAL dividend yield to be 17.1%, not a bad yield either. And then your real yield is even lower, when you figure in all the dividends you did NOT collect for 19 years, because you reinvested them. Anyway, my rough guess is that your total real return on your 1995 IBM purchase is around 10% per annum, dividends and cap gains combined. So congratulations again!

    I did the same in 1995, but unfortunately I sold my IBM shares too soon (for supposedly better opportunities), after making a lot less money than you did.

    You could be right about INTC's prospects.
    Jan 17 09:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Earnings Post Mortem [View article]
    @clandy44, @G H,

    Are you really trying to tell us that NOT REVEALING to the public a project INTC may be undertaking, that has not totally firmed up in the minds of management, that may be even lacking an essential component or two right now, to make it realizeable or profitable, is a punishable offense?

    You can't be serious, can you?
    Jan 17 09:09 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Earnings Post Mortem [View article]
    If I remember correctly, Intel did collect some government subsidies and/or tax advantages for their AZ fab.
    Jan 17 08:51 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Thinking Beyond Mobile [View article]
    Thank you very much, Vivek; a fine article!

    Finally we have someone writing an Intel-related article here who manages to write something sensible and useful about INTC without wasting time on subjects like (14nm vs. 22nm vs. 28nm), benchmarks, processor speed, or how Intel will become successful in mobile in a year or two, or to which levels its stock price will rise how quickly; the favorite subjects of you-know-who.
    Jan 14 08:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel's Merrifield Looks Dead On Arrival [View article]
    @Ashraf,

    Could it be that Intel's management has finally come to realize what has been obvious to most everybody else for a long time already:
    (1) selling the kind of chips for mobile phones which are available from several sources, i.e. application processors, possibly combined with modems, is a business where good profitability is hard to come by, for competitive reasons.
    (2) even if you achieve that, in absolute terms the money you can earn here is limited, especially if you are a late-comer.
    (3) the only way good profitability could be achieved here, would be to acquire expertise similar to that of QCOM or better, and even that might not work, since QCOM's profits rest on licensing income to a large extent.
    (4) a factor we could call "leadership scale" in mobile phones applies to QCOM and does not apply to INTC.
    (5) the idea of buying a team that is at best semi-successful from a third-rate company (IFX) to catch up to a clear leader (QCOM) is ludicrous. Something like that has never worked and won't work for Intel either, even if they continue to throw additional billions into this effort.
    (6) #2 above dictates that you'll never be able to recoup your investments into such an effort.
    (7) as a result, capital allocation theory dictates, that the only reasonable thing for Intel to do is to get out of this game they'll never be able to win.

    Now as terrible as #7 sounds, it will be a better proposition than to continue mulling along on a path that can never lead to success. The things that BK talked about in his keynote are all biz opportunities where Intel has realistic possibilities to achieve a leadership position.

    Tell me, Ashraf, if you had to decide where and how to spend Intel's resources, would you try to catch up to QCOM or would you look for opportunities with better potential of success?

    -ULS
    Jan 9 08:41 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel IDF Announcements Show It Is Executing Well [View article]
    I agree with you, Michael. BTW, are you at IDF, like I had assumed?
    Sep 11 07:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel IDF Announcements Show It Is Executing Well [View article]
    Sorry, Michael, I had confused whose article I was reading when I wrote my comment above. But if you agree with my assessment of Quark, and with my perceived need for "infrastructure preparation", can I ask you to check into this topic as well?

    Thanks, Ulrich
    Sep 11 07:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • IDF 2013, Day 1: Intel Kicks It Off In Style [View article]
    Ashraf, Sorry, I posted this comment errouneosly to Michael Blair first.

    Thanks for your report. Personally I consider the Quark announcement the most significant piece of BK's keynote. Can you try to find out more on what "infrastructure preparation" (like tools development) INTC has undertaken so far, to ease design-in of Quark into customer projects? And/or what and how much they plan to do here in the future. Perhaps the many engineers who are supposedly available for talks to IDF visitors might be a suitable source.

    Thanks again. Ulrich
    Sep 11 07:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel IDF Announcements Show It Is Executing Well [View article]
    Ashraf, Thanks for your report. Personally I consider the Quark announcement the most significant piece of BK's keynote. Can you try to find out more on what "infrastructure preparation" (like tools development) INTC has undertaken so far, to ease design-in of Quark into customer projects? And/or what and how much they plan to do here in the future. Perhaps the many engineers who are supposedly available for talks to IDF visitors might be a suitable source.

    Thanks again. Ulrich
    Sep 11 07:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Whither Big Tech... Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco And Microsoft? [View article]
    @John Mason,

    If you want to write an article for SA which mainly regurgitates the content of another article; one that someone else wrote, you'll face a huge handicap when the article you pick has been written by a dumbo. As I see it, Quentin Handy does not seem to know what he is talking about, and as a result any of the theses he presents are (necessarily) highly questionable. Throwing into one pot HPQ + CSCO + INTC, and claiming their problems to be due to similar causes, is such an absurd notion, that I am very surprised a former faculty member of the Wharton School can consider this plausible.

    It may be possible of course, that I totally misunderstood you (and Quentin Hardy), in which case I ask you to set me straight.

    My trouble is that I find your review of Dr. McGrath's book (your earlier article) not much better. Neither was I able to learn from your review WHY she believes sustainability of competitive advantages is impossible today (or much much harder), except for the fact that everything has become faster. But that is not a sufficient explanation, because items like economies of scale and lowest-cost production do not depend all that much on the speed of changes.

    In addition I cannot figure out for the life of me, why you believe hers is such a valuable book; I cannot see that you explained that to us. Only the use of great-sounding terms (like you cite them in your article) does not yet make a book great and useful. They could be just a lot of speech balloons. Does her book really contain useable recipes for distinguishing the "positive outliers" you mentioned from pretenders, which are only mediocre companies? I have not been able to find any indication, much less any proof, of this in your article.

    Did I miss something? Let me know if I did.
    Aug 23 04:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Whither Big Tech... Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco And Microsoft? [View article]
    @tider-rider,

    I liked your comment a lot. Even though it is significantly shorter than the article itself, its intellectual content is far greater, that's the way I see it. I appreciate the effort you made to comment here; fortunately contributions like yours give readers like me some justified hope that even mediocre articles published on Seeking Alpha are worth reading, because of what can sometimes follow "below the line".
    Aug 23 02:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: This Is Your Last Chance To Buy [View article]
    @flux8:

    I don't like what you wrote in your comment, especially the part about changing spending habits. But I'm afraid your view of the current PC vs tablet situation may be quite correct.

    That is not to say that I believe INTC's future will be doomed; only that biz for the next several years will most likely turn out tougher and tougher. But I trust in their ability to continue to figure out how to master the challenges ahead of them in the long term; especially with a new CEO at the helm.

    They have reinvented themselves a few times already and I am confident they can and will do it again. Semiconductors or ICs are not going to fade away, and just because QCOM and ARMH had a few good ideas does not prove that Intel is a worthless C
    company.

    @Ashraf:

    As a part-owner of INTC, I wish you were correct in your assessment, but I am afraid you are dead wrong in predicting any urgency for buying one of my most favorite stocks. The turn-around will come, so I am convinced, but BK and the Intel folks will have to do a lot more homework until it happens.

    My own prediction for a turn-around of the stock price: no sooner than the next generous dividend increase. With that I include the possibility of a small increase to start with and more increases following, ideally quarter by quarter, as their µPs begin capturing the sockets they could not capture before.
    Aug 5 01:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
27 Comments
24 Likes