Seeking Alpha

uls2

uls2
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View uls2's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Intel And Inevitability [View article]
    Russ,
    I always enjoy reading an article you write. Including this one. Because you never fail to provide your readers with new food for thought.
    But sometimes I am afraid your Fischer math produces results that are hard to believe. Like your estimated cost for a 256 Gbit NAND chip. It seems to me that the $1.72 you stated would apply to a 50 sq. mm NAND chip, not to a memory that requires 32 times as much silicon.
    The fact that Intel plans to stack 32 of these chips in one package unfortunately will not reduce the cost of the (total) silicon by a factor of 32. So if all your assumptions prove correct, the silicon costs $55.04, not $1.72. Do you agree?

    Another point you may want to consider: since NAND silicon wears out with time, I wonder if it's really a good idea to combine it – in one package – with µP silicon? Perhaps it can be done, when enough redundancy is built into the NAND storage, which then gets switched in, as worn-out portions of NAND are disabled with time. But with the high latency of NAND storage, can you really obtain sufficient performance improvements that warrant the extra cost of combining µP + storage? I doubt it.
    Power savings because of shorter connections are another matter. But here too the question remains: does what you gain in power savings compensate for the extra cost of integration?
    Nevertheless, thanks for an interesting Russ Fischer thought of the day article. Have a good day. uls2
    Dec 2, 2014. 07:34 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Electric Must Spin Off GE Capital [View article]
    @6608281,

    Thanks a lot for your comment regarding Jack Welsh vs. Jeff Immelt. Even though I started buying GE when Welsh still ran the show, I prefer Immelt by a mile, as he is the more rational of the two, and IMHO seems to have a far better future Vision of the company

    Nov 28, 2014. 05:52 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Reported Mobile Losses (Economically) Overstated By $1.2 - $1.5 Billion [View article]
    @Nick Pappo,

    The analyst who wrote this neutral review (Matthew Ramsay) is ranked #3185 out of 3393 analysts; not exactly a great ranking.
    Nov 24, 2014. 10:25 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel's New Mobile Direction [View article]
    Thank you Mark, for opening my eyes to a more sensible way of looking at Intel's revised strategy for smartphones and traditional tablets. The way I see it now: they are de-emphasizing significantly their own activities in this space. Why? Because these activities are not all that important to them, in the form they pursued them until recently.

    They don't absolutely need the best smartphone solution there is, as long as two other companies are taking away some revenue from QCOM in China, as long as Intel collects some licensing fee (however small it may be), as long as they keep open for themselves the opportunity to bring their own capabilities into the smartphone and tablet space eventually; RealSense and all.

    And if integrated SOFIA (or whatever else it is called) from 14nm Intel fabs never works, or not by 2016, thre will be other alternatives. Connectivity is important for Intel to really exploit the potential of IoT; that's where real profits can be earned. But even if the comms solutions that Intel can offer (as part of larger overall IoT solutions) are not as good as what QCOM could do, even sub-optimal comms capabilities will probably be suficient for Intel, when they are part of a bigger pie (Like IoT).

    I would have preferred to see Intel partner with QCOM in some way for comms IP, because I am still convinced that QCOM is the comms thought leader and may remain this leader forever. But if that does not work (and it probably won't), partnering with the 2 Chinese companies may well turn out to be a workable 2nd-best solution.

    Now all Intel has to do is figure out how to get out of one of their biggest blunders lately, their IFX-Wireless Solutions acquisition. A graceful exit probably won't be possible, and it will be costly because of German Labor laws. But perhaps they can figure out an eventual solution after all, to save most of the money they spend there. Some of the folks in Neubiberg most likely are useful for Intel to keep, I assume.
    Nov 23, 2014. 09:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Shares Overvalued By 15% Due To Disappointing Dividend And Earnings Growth Outlook [View article]
    @Tom Ar.

    I appreciate the link to your instablog, and even more so your thoughts outlined there. You seem to have spent a good amount of effort doing some serious analytical work. I'll get back to you after I have digested more of it.

    As it happened with many mediocre articles that I read here already, I sometimes find surprisingly good insights in or via some of the comments below the line.
    Nov 21, 2014. 12:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Investor Meeting Generates Big News [View article]
    Thanks a lot for your article, Bill. A good summary, and some pleasant news, outlook-wise and dividend growth-wise.

    I want to add, that Kirk Skaugen's presentation impressed me a lot. To me it showed rather vividly, how "un-dead" PCs really are. Listening to Kirk, I got the feeling that Intel had needed the external impetus that arose from Steve Jobs' activities in 2004 + 2007, but that - fortunately - the toys peddled to the world out of Cupertino had been a far cry from what is possible in the mobility space. And that a lot more innovation is coming from Santa Clara instead.

    I was disappointed by the lack of a deeper-diving discussion of the unprofitability of MCG, and of the fix they will implement next year. And by the apparent lack of analysts present, who asked uncomfortable questions last night (the meeting ended at 1am on Friday, where I live). As always I was bothered as well by what I perceive as a lack of realism regarding Intel's really big problems (multi-comms activities, exploding capex, high R&D costs).
    Nov 21, 2014. 06:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Shares Overvalued By 15% Due To Disappointing Dividend And Earnings Growth Outlook [View article]
    @Bruce Campbell,

    Thanks a lot for your comment. Reading it was worth a lot of chaff on the way to it.

    I hope that you and I are not unrealistically optimistic about Intel right now, considering all the things they do poorly. Like comms, where they are hopelessly behind QCOM, I am afraid, and like cost-effective manufacturing of rather powerful ICs, where TSMC still seems to have an edge over Intel now.
    Nov 20, 2014. 10:12 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Shares Overvalued By 15% Due To Disappointing Dividend And Earnings Growth Outlook [View article]
    @Tom Armistead,

    The result your calculation got you proves only one sad truth: using an ancient formula won't get you anywhere. Especially when that formula was invented by a fellow with a rather questionable ability to figure out what a reasonable P/E should be for any one stock at any one time.

    In my former life, when I still believed that "reasonable P/E ratios" could be estimated by looking at a few key metrics (like the projected EPS growth Bejamin Graham used), I found out that the formula he derived for P/E changed from one edition of his book to the next. This was the last proof I needed for telling me how little help Graham's thoughts on stock valuation provided, even during the time he published his books in. For the 21st century, I am afraid, they are absolutely useless.
    Nov 20, 2014. 09:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Semiconductor Stocks Overpriced? [View article]
    Great article, Russ; thank you for your thoughts and opinions.

    I agree with your contention, that the fables biz model has decreased cyclicality in the SC industry a lot. And with your other explanation, that ICs have become "raw material woven deeply into the economy as a whole". Certainly a good reason for less cyclicality.

    One request: can you share your "Fischer formula" with us, please? If you prefer not to, can you give us at least an idea of the main factors that drive your valuation assumption?

    Thanks in advance, Ulrich
    Oct 14, 2014. 10:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors In GE Should Watch Out For This Sub-Industry Peer [View article]
    so what?
    Sep 4, 2014. 06:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Best Dividend Growers, Part 8: Intel [View article]
    @eclipsme,

    I find "lacking substance" a very friendly description of this piece of bean counting. I consider it no more than "rear view mirror driving" ; totally useless for basing an investment decision on.

    So much for a miserable article that'S been spruced up by relatively meaningless graphs, however fancy they may look.

    As far as INTC is concerned, my thinking is much like yours. I hope we will find out within the next year that our (relative) confidence in the company will be rewarded.
    May 15, 2014. 03:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 09:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
38 Comments
41 Likes