Website, not mine, updates twice monthly (15th and EOM) from data they get from Nasdaq itself.
IMO 9% is a bit on the optimistic side - especially since a number like that hasn't been seen on Intel in a long time - if ever.
I believe INTC is a buy at current levels
- Thread starter hajimow
- Start date
IMO 9% is a bit on the optimistic side - especially since a number like that hasn't been seen on Intel in a long time - if ever.
It is quite common to see when the knife is falling,
newbie investors go and catch the falling knife with bare hands.
And they justify it by saying
how low the P/E ratio is , and how cheap the stock is,
how great the dividend is.
Years ago, I caught lots of falling knives.
And I had to top up my trading account numerous times.
Anyway, those who have shorted INTC should be
laughing all the way to the bank.
Always press BUY or SELL button in the correct sequence.
Sometimes, you press the BUY button first.
Sometimes, you press the SELL button first.
And you need to know when to press the button.
Don't anyhow press the button.
Last edited:
From the product strategy view, INTC current architecture is like AMD's bulldozer architecture. Bulldozer was a major disaster. It took years for AMD to revamp the architecture and come up with Ryzen. TSM will not be able to improve much on the current INTC lake architecture. Wafer fab hardware suppliers are common.
Depends on how their process technology does. For decades, Intel had the best process technology in the industry. That was never disputed even when AMD gained a temporary advantage back during the Pentium 4 days. AMD's advantage was entirely due to their design since Intel's P4 did not scale in frequency as they expected. Even during that time, Intel had the better process technology. Right now, AMD (entirely due to TSMC) is on 7 nm heading towards 5 nm. Intel just released 10 nm and announced their 7 nm is delayed and won't arrive on market until a while. Although many of the performance characteristics of Intel's 10 nm process are comparable to AMD/TSMC's 7 nm (transistor density being the most notable), Intel really needs to at least catch up to TSMC in order to stay competitive. Otherwise, Intel will lose market share and face pricing pressure to discount their CPUs to stay competitive. That will squeeze margins and lower earnings.
Some have said that Intel should go fabless like AMD did, and in doing so save billions per year in human resources and fab-related costs. Yes, they could. But if they did, what advantage would they have over AMD if they use the same fab? Intel's headcount is about 11x AMDs. So if they go fabless, they would have to do massive headcount reductions in order to bring their cost down. Seems like it would be a completely different company at that point and it would only be another sign of America losing its once powerful manufacturing-based economy. I hope that doesn't happen. Anyhow, Intel's P/E is low for a reason. Too many times, I have bought a low-PE stock only to watch it go lower. XOM had a low P/E a year ago as well as many other oil companies. That didn't help much. I bought HPE towards end of last year for good dividend and low P/E. Now it's a little over half what I paid for it. That didn't work. Anyhow, I think it really comes down to process technology leadership. Intel needs to catch up.
Some have said that Intel should go fabless like AMD did, and in doing so save billions per year in human resources and fab-related costs. Yes, they could. But if they did, what advantage would they have over AMD if they use the same fab? Intel's headcount is about 11x AMDs. So if they go fabless, they would have to do massive headcount reductions in order to bring their cost down. Seems like it would be a completely different company at that point and it would only be another sign of America losing its once powerful manufacturing-based economy. I hope that doesn't happen. Anyhow, Intel's P/E is low for a reason. Too many times, I have bought a low-PE stock only to watch it go lower. XOM had a low P/E a year ago as well as many other oil companies. That didn't help much. I bought HPE towards end of last year for good dividend and low P/E. Now it's a little over half what I paid for it. That didn't work. Anyhow, I think it really comes down to process technology leadership. Intel needs to catch up.
Damn.
There's too many to remember. Stocks.
Got that one right though.
Hmmmm.
Intel's not going away.
Yeah I know... famous last words.
But they're not.
They have service contracts for the next 25 years.
They aren't Xerox.
For real.
Hmmmm.
It goes on the watchlist now after that fall.
It can be a good trading stock.
You won't make that much intra-day long or short.... but you won't lose that much either.
Gotta feel the tide I guess.
Good swing trade potential on a major correction, to the upside that is.
There's too many to remember. Stocks.
Got that one right though.
Hmmmm.
Intel's not going away.
Yeah I know... famous last words.
But they're not.
They have service contracts for the next 25 years.
They aren't Xerox.
For real.
Hmmmm.
It goes on the watchlist now after that fall.
It can be a good trading stock.
You won't make that much intra-day long or short.... but you won't lose that much either.
Gotta feel the tide I guess.
Good swing trade potential on a major correction, to the upside that is.
Intel? You talking about the technology company that has been seriously underperforming the market because they are behind a few generations? One could almost say their processors are obsolete upon release.
I guess “Value” is in the eye of the beholder. No year end institutional window dressing for Intel, I’d imagine.
Maybe next year Intel’s talent pool and large R&D budget will allow them to lose less ground to the competition.
I must say, however, the $43 to $44 area has six points of contact over the last two years and is looking like an impressive base. Someone big seems to like it at those levels.
Actually it is been up since I started this post less than 2 weeks ago. Plus 0.33 dividend on Nov 5.