I am retired and need income,intc gives me both income and a good chance of growth:do the math growth of 6 percent and a 4 percent gives a 10 percent yield.
Thanks Sylmill,I am trying to build a portfolio towards income but still get some growth before retiring (about 6 years more of work and contribution for me). Doing a bit of the Dividend Dogs strategy I bought INTC in April(+ 4 other Dogs), using the Foolish 2,2,3,4 strategy. The short sell folks got me a little worried and the price has lessened since June. Then I found myself using your simple formula the other day. I'm up 3.6 + 4% is 7.6 and I'm ok with that knowing the company (people) will be working to get themselves into mobile computing in a big way.Joe
If you could see the cranes at Intel's Ronler Acres site in Hillsboro, OR you might have a bit more confidence. The next generation of chips gets launched in the coming year or two, at least one maybe two years ahead of the competition, Mobile devices will need a leap in computing to keep up with the addition of features and capability. Intel will have it and nobody else. Its been their mo for decades now. No I don't work for Intel, but I observe them closely and after decades of watching, I decided $19/sh and 10 P/E and over 3% yields on div, it was way too good to pass up so I became long INTC
They've also been expanding their Ocotillo campus over the past couple of years. The new building is massive. I drive by it occasionally.Obama even gave a speech there a year or so ago.1poorguy
Thanks skepik,In addition to dividends and market cap, my buy thesis included market power, and manufacturing capability (margins). Good to have eyes on the ground showing their commitment.Joe 2/3 long INTC
http://cms.fool.com/dashboard/view/58611/ if it will come up on your view might interest you. MF would not syndicate, but I may do some more work on it to make it succinct.Bottom line - Intel year after year improves and creates the most capable, cheapest per "terraflop" and flat out best computing devices on the planet. Those who think "Death of PC = RIP Intel" are lunatics....
SkepÀccess denied but appreciate the effort. I read a lot from a Seeking Alpha guy, Ashraf Eassa. He is bullish INTC. I've read some bear opinions also as I indicated. I DO wonder if INTC is too late in but also know the market changes with new devices, upgrades, etc. thereby creating opportunity for entry. Bottom line for me, I think the market is impatient. JoeIf you get your article brushed up I am interested
When mobile devices were very dumb and low capability and flexibility was at a premium you could argue Intel was late to the party..or not depending on your view of their business. As mobile devices escalate and capability and computing power become really important, Intel is going to be 1-2 years ahead of everyone else. They will just have to break into the mobile device market and customers like they are right now. A lot of people can build 20 nanometer devices for mobile right now. NOBODY can mass produce 11 nanometer devices yet and Intel will be the first with a 1 or 2 year lead. This is what they are good at. AND they continue to make money while engaged in one of the largest construction projects ever for them.. quite a management magic trick
Intel year after year improves and creates the most capable, cheapest per "terraflop" Seriously?Both Nvidia and AMD GPUs win on cheapest per teraflop by a wide margin.Mike
AND they continue to make money while engaged in one of the largest construction projects ever for them.. quite a management magic trickMagic? This is what Intel has been doing for 40+ years. It is SOP (standard operating procedure). Yes, it is amazing...but building the newest generation of FABs is what Intel does, constantly.The question is are they building fewer of them or delaying them more than in the past due to the slow down in PC chip sales?Mike
The question is are they building fewer of them or delaying them more than in the past From what I can tell they're building more fab capacity than in the past.$11B in capital spending in 2012. $13B in 2013$2B of that 13 is for development for doing larger wafers (450mm(18 inch) instead of 300mm (12 inch))due to the slow down in PC chip sales?If you mean PC as in desktop - sure it's slowed down. (but not something that would drive capital investments in fabs)If you mean PC chip sales to be all the silicon that Intel sells - Is there a slow down? I thought Intel was hitting new revenue highs
Always? Was this true when Intel started this generation of chips? Will it be so when the next gen goes to production? I dont know for sure, so I am really interested. I am thinking Intel leads the way and AMD at least spends a year or two back-engineering the lead to produce cheaper. But isnt there always a period at the front end when Intel leads the pack?
If you mean PC as in desktop - sure it's slowed downDesktop and notebook. Did you miss the news?http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/07/18/intel-sales-forecast-...Intel (INTC) is hoping that sales of processors for servers, tablets and smartphones will compensate for the drop-off in PC sales. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu-processor-intel-arm,204...Market researchers do not believe that the market conditions for microprocessor makers will improve anytime soon.http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24065413PC Shipments Post the Steepest Decline Ever in a Single Quarter, According to IDC Mike
AlwaysThe IBM PC was introduced in 1981. A couple of years later (amid an industry wide slump in memory chips) Intel decided to drop its initial business (memory chips) and focus on CPUs for the PC market. They managed some financial deal with IBM to get the 80386 to market in 1985. Ever since then I think you can count as "always."Always led the industry in process technology, always led in sales, marketing, etc for the PC market. (Didn't always lead in performance until all the RISC competitors got overrun 10+ years ago)Mike
Did you miss the news?I often have - and those are good articles - thank you.I'd call the projection of sales being flat as no growth, not a slow down - but that's quibbling.
But isnt there always a period at the front end when Intel leads the pack?Sigh! Once upon a time, x86 CPUs were underpowered compared to what Windows needed. Of course, you were usually better off getting enough memory rather than a faster CPU--but if you could afford both, go for it.That was a decade ago. Today, even fairly anemic x64 (x86 chips are all 64 bit now), can do just about anything you want a CPU to do, and in real time. The few chores for desktop or laptop machines where speed still matters tend to involve 3d graphics, 3d games, and video transcoding. Buying the extra memory is still a good idea, but now the trade-offs, if you do need 3d capabilities, are between number of CPUs, discrete GPU power, etc.For everyone else, weight, power, and for laptops/tablets, battery life--as well as price--all matter. Yes, Intel chips are often the best available by those criteria, but the fast, high-priced power hogs often don't make the cut. For graphics systems, including workstations, Intel CPUs are almost always used with AMD or nVidia graphics cards. When it comes to integrated graphics, Intel is still way behind.Incidently, I think that right now, AMD sells the highest clock speed chips, and Intel sells the chips that perform best with single-threaded loads. When you get into (server) loads that can spread over many CPU cores, AMD and Intel offer different sized mixes. Which is better? Contact me with your requirements and I'll quote a price to run benchmarks for you. (Just kidding. I'm retired now, and still end up with more commitments than time.)
I'd call the projection of sales being flat as no growth, not a slow down - but that's quibbling.In the semiconductor FAB business, flat = death spiral due to Moore's Law.Or maybe not.Imagine 3-5 years of flat sales. How would that change the whole process node change every 2 years strategy?Mike
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |