Jump to content

They are not all equal


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is one reason why you need to be very selective in this environment:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/19/technology/intel_mcafee/index.htm

 

Intel a hardware manufacturer is buying a software security company. On the surface, it looks bad. The management probably has interesting ideas on how it fits, but the stock is down over 2% on the news so I am not sure that the Street will buy the argument.

 

Intel has a large net cash position, so they can affort to buy McAfee. This cash earns next to nothing, so even if they buy McAfee for 19 times earnings, the return should still be better.

 

My view is that cash should be returned to shareholders unless management can find better ways to use it. This company is forecasted to grow earnings (EPS) by only 3% from 2010 to 2011. The dividend payout is only 31% and they have quite a bit of cash. They are also a near monopoly.

 

Unless McAfee provides something special to Intel that will really accelerate its organic sales, I think it is a waste of capital. Intel shareholders could have taken Intel's net cash and bought themselves shares of McAfee for 11.5 times earnings or a higher return than Intel will receive.

 

So many of these "high quality" mega caps that many talk about have a big issue: ego and incentives of their managers; can accomplish anything and best to expand the corporate empire. It is especially true today since many of these have grown rapidly in the recent past so they cannot accept the idea of being stuck with slower growth. To them a dividend or share buy-back is just like throwing a bone at the dog (shareholder) who is crying all the time. You increase it a little bit once in a while to keep the dog happy. Because of that, I believe that looking at earnings yield is inadequate since you don't know what rate of return will be made on retained earnings.

 

Things like JNJ are likely better on that standpoint, although we have seen a company like PG, when it was clicking on all cylinders, buying Gillette which has not helped its shareholders any yet. Buffett has been disappointed by Kraft. He also had to get involved to prevent Coke from making silly moves. A big margin of safety remains essential to protect yourself from stupidity no matter how large or how powerful is the corporation that you are looking at.

 

Cardboard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on Intel Cardboard.  SH would be better served with a dividend.  I am not even very fond of share buy backs.  So few companies do them well.  The dividend would keep them focussed better as per Power Corp. 

 

I definitely prefer low ego management.  HD fits that bill these days.  The cult of personality under Nardelli has given way to a dramtically improved operation.  Ironically alot of Nardelli's aggressive measure are paying dividends now. 

 

As for Kraft and Buffett's disappointment I think it was more of personality issue than Buffett would care to admit.  He essentially met his match in terms of stubborness and intellect.  The Cadbury purchase may have been pricey versus Buffett's expectations but a food and confection business buying the same is not a bad fit.  In one fell swoop Ms. Rosenfeld gained a cash flow machine and took out a major competitor.

 

Certainly better than a manufacturer buying a software firm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bronco

There must be a lot of pressure at the top of these companies to grow.  It seems very few businesses will conceed slow growth and payout most of their earnings.  I like Altria as one.  I actually like stable businesses that return cash flow, nothing wrong with that. 

 

I think the Buffett model (conglomerate) works if you get cheap financing (i.e. insurance float) and buy cheap assets. 

 

The flip is if you can buy a business and create synergies - which really equates to cost cutting in many cases but could include increased business under new management.  I would be in the camp that most "synergies" do not come to fruition.  Clearly this Intel deal will suck (using professional terminology).

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the issue of capital allocation - it is interesting to watch Buffett at this point.  You could almost state the following:  find me companies that are over $10B in market cap and will be around in 50 years.  Walmart.  Coke.  Railroads.  Utilities.  Johnson and Johnson.  Kraft.  P&G.  Wells Fargo.

 

All companies that at first glance have the best opportunity of merely "being around in 50 years".  Either 1) the very best brand names (intangibles-Kraft,JNJ,P&G) 2) Lowest cost producers (Wells Fargo, Walmart) or 3) Toll booth industries, gas pipelines, utilities, railroads.

 

Not a very sophisticated strategy anymore - KISS.  Damn is this guy smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually bought a little bit of INTC today because I don't think the Street is right about the acquisition.  I'll lay out my rationale, and I'd like to see whether people think I'm smoking crack. 

 

But please be nice.

 

Okay, so Intel clearly paid more than a fair price for McAfee when you consider McAfee as a standalone company.  But while Intel is getting McAfee's revenue stream at a very high price, I believe that the strategic rationale for the acquisition is really to increase the durability of their business, which is to sell computer processing hardware.  In other words, I think the acquisition must be viewed much the same way as one would view "maintenance capex" for a low tech business. 

 

Intel has dominated in the PC sphere for a while now, but they are facing attacks on many fronts.  ARM chips threaten to cut into Intel's CPU market share.  Nvidia is trying to have the GPU replace the CPU.  Apple and other hardware manufacturers could cut Intel out of the mobile, Internet-connected device space.  Cloud computing threatens to make ever increasing processing power for computing devices less necessary, which means that Intel could see dramatically less profit on an absolute basis for each processor sold over time. 

 

The only way that Intel can hope to keep its current owner earnings power stable is to try to defend its current market share and expand substantially into other places that will need chips that Intel could produce.  If Intel wants to have its chips everywhere -- in appliances, TVs, mobile devices, ATMs, cars, smart grid devices, and in any other objects connected to (or part of) the "Internet of Things" -- it will need a way to keep its processors differentiated from the multitude of competitors that could emerge over the coming years.  Buying a security software company that integrates security software and a security service into its chips and embedded software could be a way to do this.

 

That is, if Intel can somehow attach a security service to every chip they sell that is connected to the telecommunications network in a way that makes the associated device vulnerable to threat, that could be a pretty good way of keeping their business from evaporating over the long run. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many of these "high quality" mega caps that many talk about have a big issue: ego and incentives of their managers; can accomplish anything and best to expand the corporate empire. It is especially true today since many of these have grown rapidly in the recent past so they cannot accept the idea of being stuck with slower growth. To them a dividend or share buy-back is just like throwing a bone at the dog (shareholder) who is crying all the time. You increase it a little bit once in a while to keep the dog happy. Because of that, I believe that looking at earnings yield is inadequate since you don't know what rate of return will be made on retained earnings.

 

Smart man Cardboard.  Very accurate observation.  These managers have egos the size of Texas and are dumb as a box of rocks re creating sustainable shareholder value.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Txlaw,

 

Based on what you are saying are you not worried that Intel could be entering a race to the bottom, a secular decline? Increased competition, change in technology, leading it eventually to make less and less profits and declining sales? IMO, buying McAfee won't be enough to stop such trend. Valuation for companies experiencing this is always low as you know.

 

History has shown that very few Dow Jones companies remain over time. I think that people should be very careful to place MSFT, CSCO, INTC, GOOG (not a Dow yet!) in the same category of "high quality" companies as JNJ, KO, PG and others. People have grown comfortable with them since they are so big, are everywhere and appear stable. They remain high tech companies with an industry that is rapidly changing.

 

Cardboard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Txlaw,

 

Based on what you are saying are you not worried that Intel could be entering a race to the bottom, a secular decline? Increased competition, change in technology, leading it eventually to make less and less profits and declining sales? IMO, buying McAfee won't be enough to stop such trend. Valuation for companies experiencing this is always low as you know.

 

 

Cardboard,

 

I am always worried about a secular decline in a company's core business.  We see a secular decline with Dell.  We see it with MSFT.  We see it with the telcos.  I believe we will see it with cable companies like CMCSK in a few years. 

 

I do think that Intel will make less and less profits per CPU sold at an accelerated rate going forward, which will lead to decreased revenues -- or at least I am worried about that.  However, I think that the acquisitions that Intel has completed over the last few years -- for example, Wind River and McAfee -- sets Intel up for a future where their chips (and bundled software/services) will continue to be wanted by device manufacturers due to their being best in class. 

 

More importantly -- and central to my thesis on Intel -- is that because of these acquisitions, Intel will be able to greatly expand into new markets that will results out of ubiquitous connectivity, low cost sensors, and low cost computing power, i.e., the Internet of Things.  This expansion into new markets, I hope, will allow Intel to mitigate declining revenue in their core business.

 

Andy Grove and the Intel guys are famous for their motto, "Only the paranoid survive."  This is an acknowledgement by Grove of the ease with which a high technology company can be destroyed by new technologies and competitive dynamics in their industries.  Intel has been a survivor in the tech world because they have been paranoid.  Grove talks about "strategic inflection points" where the "old strategic picture dissolves and gives way to the new."  We are at strategic inflection point in the high-tech world, and I believe that Intel is executing properly. 

 

When I handicap how Intel will fare going forward, I am willing to purchase Intel at current price levels.  I like the risk/reward here.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but only time will tell.

 

 

 

History has shown that very few Dow Jones companies remain over time. I think that people should be very careful to place MSFT, CSCO, INTC, GOOG (not a Dow yet!) in the same category of "high quality" companies as JNJ, KO, PG and others. People have grown comfortable with them since they are so big, are everywhere and appear stable. They remain high tech companies with an industry that is rapidly changing.

 

Cardboard

 

I agree with you here.  I define a "high quality" company as a well run businesses that has a business model that will continue to generate cash even if management is not stellar.  Management merely has to be decent for a "high quality" company to thrive.  JNJ, KO, and PG are good examples of such companies.

 

With MSFT, CSCO, and INTC, you have to have management that is excellent in order for their business to survive, so they are not "high quality" companies. 

 

GOOG is a bit of an outlier because what people think of as the core business -- web-based search -- has a very large moat around it and has huge growth potential with very little capital investments.  There is a virtuous cycle aspect to it too because the more business they get, they better and more far ahead they get.  Furthermore, they are executing on their goal to be a search company, regardless of platform.  That business will continue to throw off lots of cash and will be hard to attack in their existing markets (though Facebook is probably a big threat). 

 

The other revenue streams that will come online from their forays into content distribution, their attempt to be an Internet infrastructure/platform provider, and their best in class team of computer scientists, are gravy and present lots of optionality for the investor who is satisfied with paying a reasonable price for a great business.  Furthermore, their nascent information acquisition-focused businesses are what make Google unique among the high tech companies (it also makes GOOG a bit scary if you care about privacy).

 

So I might actually consider GOOG a high quality company.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOOG may not be invincible.  I like BING or WOLFRAM ALPHA much better for serious or scientific searches because the results are often more relevant without all the social garbage.

 

Haha, Wolfram Alpha!  Twacowfca, you must be a geek!  :D (That's a compliment.)

 

True, GOOG is not invincible.  They are far ahead but not invincible.  Actually, imagine how formidable a competitor a MSFT/Facebook combo would be against Google?  That combo would gain ground very quickly.

 

Nevertheless, even if Google loses market share, the market size is so enormous over the long run that the companies in this space -- which I think is a natural oligopoly market -- will do very well over time.  Perhaps GOOG will be Coke, Bing or Facebook will be Pepsi, and Wolfram Alpha will be . . . Dr. Pepper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree about making less profit per CPU.  Where is the competition from? AMD - the always second ran becasue of the tremendous scale Intel has versus them.  I understood the Wind River acqusition (processors) but I am having a hard time understanding McAfee.  If they wanted to integragte security with McAfee why not do a JV and utilize McAfee's technology.  There is alot more to McAfee (consumer and SMB) than security technology that can bundeled with processors.  This only way this makes sense is a use for excess cash which will yield in excess of the 10% FCF yield the firm is currently trading for and given the price they paid I am not sure.

 

Packer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree about making less profit per CPU.  Where is the competition from? AMD - the always second ran becasue of the tremendous scale Intel has versus them.  I understood the Wind River acqusition (processors) but I am having a hard time understanding McAfee.  If they wanted to integragte security with McAfee why not do a JV and utilize McAfee's technology.  There is alot more to McAfee (consumer and SMB) than security technology that can bundeled with processors.  This only way this makes sense is a use for excess cash which will yield in excess of the 10% FCF yield the firm is currently trading for and given the price they paid I am not sure.

 

Packer 

 

The competition comes from AMD, Nvidia, TXN, new ARM processor manufacturers, and hardware companies that decide to use their own processors (like Apple with its iPad). 

 

But the real story is that there is a paradigm shift happening right now -- over the next decade or two, cloud computing will become more and more important, and the quality of our Internet connection will become the paramount concern for most consumers, not the performance specs on our personal machines. 

 

What this means is that the "PC is a truck," as Steve Jobs would say.  That is, the engine driving the hardware is way more powerful than most people actually need.  Simpler hardware with much better interfaces connected to a world of applications through the Internet is the future.

 

Intel creates best in class CPUs, but demand for such CPUs is going to be substantially less going forward.  Therefore, they must radically change/expand their business in order to survive. 

 

Packer, you note that Intel should have just done a JV with McAfee.  This is an interesting observation because that's exactly what they've been doing for the past year and a half.  Apparently, what Intel saw from McAfee has impressed them enough to where they want all the value to accrue to Intel shareholders. 

 

You either trust them on the synergies or you do not.  But given the ethos at Intel and their track record, I believe they know what they are doing far better than the finance guys on the Street, who wouldn't know business strategy if it kicked them in the ass. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ValueCarl

Nice subject thread, Cardboard. Here's one closer to yours and my heart where "EGOS the size of TEXAS"(the Munger impostor's quote) remains a CURSE for underlying common owners until  "multiple decades," long term "trends" inure to the advantage of their great, great granchildren. When analyst, Mike McCormick of JPM said to this CEO, sometime ago now, "this is NOT an investable story," wow was he right!

 

Not only do these people purport to have UNLIMITED ACCESS to capital, with assumptions continuing to point to their deep pocketed investors like SEAM, Fairfax, and more than likely, the GREAT BONDHOLDER BUFFETT embedded deep in their belly, they don't give a rat's ass how long they starve common holders through the utter DESTRUCTION, quite frankly, the outright DECIMATION of shareholder equity via abysmal performance relative to quoted opportunities(many tens of billions revenue sources), and persistent POLLUTION in the form of straight DEBT and DILUTION! This continues to occur while shareholders' of various internet "free loaders" grow healthy and rich!

 

As I continue to witness competing entities in their various business spaces being treated much more liberally on a value basis in the public markets, at the same time private equity players utilizing executives from their former ranks in new ventures to "seemingly" compete against them, I am crystal clear who their "patsy" is. Truthfully, this company and their big breasted egotist sitting at the helm for almost thirteen years now, has no business being public! They're an absolute disgrace.

 

Of course, then one has to ask themselves how a laggard like this is featured as the "keynote speaker" for such a dynamic business subset, and how the follow up actor at Verizon, who says that he agrees with everything Jimbo says, isn't a follow up market cap to this "Big 3," a term that this TEXAS EGOTIST has used historically for who they believe they are in the market!

 

Finally, before you think Big Jim has "The Mark of the Beast" carved on his forehead, please note that he had a pituitary operation in the midst of post seven acquisition fumbles due to failed integrations which wreaked further havoc upon Big (3) owners.

 

You couldn't fictionalize a more HORRIFIC financial horror story than this one except to finally put the stake through this Dracula's heart for an ending!

 

Someone should finally tell this SOB, he has to go if he can't create sustainable VALUE from past works in reasonable time frames tied to the Rule of 72! In addition, someone should educate his mentor, Mr. Scott, that "in the LONG TERM, we're all DEAD!" Moreover, there isn't enough money in the UNIVERSE to give you a pass for creating such a destructive entity using and abusing market participants in the public space.

 

With all the AKAM hoopla and foolishness going on(talk about DEAR PRICES by herd LEMMINGS), this May, 2010, presentation is worth something. imo

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid70463528001?bclid=90670357001&bctid=90054674001

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting you point out the JV.  If that is the case then this makes much more sense.  The idea of cloud computing has been around for a long time and has been tried before but for whatever reasons the client with alot of processing power seems to be an acceptable alternative (esp. when folks are willing to pay $1k for a capable client device and do not seem to be too price senstivite).  I don't see the advantage of a lower price point in terms of demand in the developed world but can see this in the emerging markets.  If PC prices were cut by two with less capabilty, would you buy two or rather have one more capable machine?  Either way, the acquistion does not appear to be dilituve and has reduced Intel's price so it has made Intel more of a good buy.

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting you point out the JV.  If that is the case then this makes much more sense.  The idea of cloud computing has been around for a long time and has been tried before but for whatever reasons the client with alot of processing power seems to be an acceptable alternative (esp. when folks are willing to pay $1k for a capable client device and do not seem to be too price senstivite).  I don't see the advantage of a lower price point in terms of demand in the developed world but can see this in the emerging markets.  If PC prices were cut by two with less capabilty, would you buy two or rather have one more capable machine?  Either way, the acquistion does not appear to be dilituve and has reduced Intel's price so it has made Intel more of a good buy.

 

Packer

 

Packer, you're right that cloud computing has been around for a while.  In fact, Larry Ellison has pointed out  that it's really a buzz word that is way overused these days. 

 

However, one of the major hangups for "cloud computing" has been the quality of one's network connection.  When we get to a world where everyone can get a hiqh quality network connection with lots of bandwidth and low latency, then computing power can be moved to remote locations.  It's like the mainframe is returning now except that we are going to have really large scale mainframe providers. 

 

This means that the concept of needing a powerful PC to get work or play done will become obsolete for most consumers.

 

For example, I used to use Microsoft Excel to track my investments and for my number crunching.  Now I use Google Docs, which runs through the browser.  I only need a very simple machine that can run my browser (Firefox) to get most of my investing work done.

 

Or think about gaming.  I'm not a gamer, but my understanding is that the latest games usually require the use of high end graphics cards in order to have the best gaming experience possible.  But that could change if our network connections get good enough.  There is a company called OnLive that has made major inroads into the delivery of computationally complex games over the network. 

 

What I think this means is that most consumers, including in the developed world, will no longer be willing to shell out money for a high end processor.  They will buy iPads or Android laptops/tablets instead, both of which can run on less powerful processors than the ones Intel is famous for. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or think about gaming.  I'm not a gamer, but my understanding is that the latest games usually require the use of high end graphics cards in order to have the best gaming experience possible.  But that could change if our network connections get good enough.  There is a company called OnLive that has made major inroads into the delivery of computationally complex games over the network. 

 

Forget about it cloud computing will not get into the gaming world before another 10 years. The amount of bandwidth/latency needed is so high that I just don't see the network improving fast enough for those needs in the mean term. If you believe cloud computing is going into the gamer world then rush on those level 3 shares they are going to make a killing. Talk to your kids and ask them if they would mind their latency going from 10ms to 100ms.

 

BeerBaron

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or think about gaming.  I'm not a gamer, but my understanding is that the latest games usually require the use of high end graphics cards in order to have the best gaming experience possible.  But that could change if our network connections get good enough.  There is a company called OnLive that has made major inroads into the delivery of computationally complex games over the network. 

 

Forget about it cloud computing will not get into the gaming world before another 10 years. The amount of bandwidth/latency needed is so high that I just don't see the network improving fast enough for those needs in the mean term. If you believe cloud computing is going into the gamer world then rush on those level 3 shares they are going to make a killing. Talk to your kids and ask them if they would mind their latency going from 10ms to 100ms.

 

BeerBaron

 

 

Well, there may be an opportunity for the last mile telcos/cable companies to get into the on demand gaming space in order to fill in the gaps of the network.  Latency should go down as these guys -- TWC, CMCSA, T, VZ -- upgrade their networks and set up servers to host games locally.

 

In any case, I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ValueCarl

Not to be snide or condescending, but you may not have listened to the video I provided on CDN presented by, "The Bandwidth King's" fearless leader in May just past.

 

Let's go back to the VIDEO, since that is where "BANDWIDTH" will be consumed while being "intelligently" managed and "ALLOCATED" as part of a CDN, unlike the current "leader" in the space, AKAM, who will never get enough "BANDWIDTH" for the kinds of prices they have "historically" while FAST FORWARDING!

 

The more VIDEO in the CLOUD, or "anywhere," as part of whatever flavor application you want to envision, be it "XBOX games, 3D movies, Telepresence/ conferencing, etc." will make (3) owners wealthy during the next "SEVERAL TEN year periods." Is that enough "LONG TERM INVESTING" for ya!

 

In addition, pointing to those last mile monopolists, be they telecom, cable, or satellite, those who continue "throttling" bandwidth to their important end users, while making the VIDEO EXPERIENCE less than adequate, continue pointing to a different "SOLUTION" for a widespread problem requiring faster solutions, maybe one that includes an END RUN via Wimax, and distributed by a "WALMART," to name one.

 

For example, I use TWC in California for my "movies on demand" service, and consistently, as well as persistently, I continue to have "LATENCY" via my T.V. and their faulty "CONNECTIONS." Stated differently, the current experience SUCKS and this is NOT acceptable relative to the PRICES they're charging!

 

This will "NOT" last much longer! Bandwidth is significantly MORE SCARCE than the Wall Street liars would make more intuitive minds believe. imo     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They key to the PC market is the business use of the PC.  The individual use is an extension of these machines.  I don't see businesses using cloud computing due to data security issues.  Would you allow a third-party to host your key competitive information?  I wouldn't.  Given that business are not going to go cloud en mass the only market left is consumer.  This market has no margin and only gaming creates a decent amount of cash.  In addition, the last mile provider is going to charge for the use of their bandwidth to use the cloud which may than overcome the cost advantage of a cheaper host.  If you assume a 5-year life for the client computer and a 50% reduction in a $1k machine, then cost savings per month is $8/mo undiscounted.  I think this can be eaten up pretty quick with access charges.  In spite of these issues,  I think the INTL deal makes sense and has created a buy opportunity.

 

Packer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ValueCarl

Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today announced that it has signed an expanded agreement with CoSentry, a provider of business continuity and managed technical services, to provide the company with wavelength and high-speed Internet protocol (HSIP) services that will facilitate broadband connectivity for CoSentry's enterprise customers in the Americas, Australia and Europe.

 

Headquartered in Omaha, Neb., CoSentry provides enterprise with data center, disaster recovery and cloud solutions, and has worked with Level 3 for Ethernet private line (EPL) and Internet protocol (IP) services since 2007. Under the terms of the expanded three-year agreement, Level 3 will provide CoSentry with 10 gigabit (GB) wavelengths and two GB HSIP.

"Today's global business environment demands high-quality communications services," said Dan Cullen, vice president and general manager for CoSentry. "Our common solution service platform (CSSP) for cloud and software as a service (SaaS)-based enterprises require reliable, efficient communications systems to optimize and protect their business architecture. Working with Level 3 has enabled us to meet this demand and provide our customers with a first-class experience."

 

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=927

 

 

 

<I don't see businesses using cloud computing due to data security issues.  Would you allow a third-party to host your key competitive information?  I wouldn't.  Given that business are not going to go cloud en mass the only market left is consumer.> 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Privacy and data security issues are absolutely huge concerns for businesses that they will have to get over before they begin to adopt cloud computing en masse.  However, I believe that the efficiency advantages will be so great that given a certain level of security, businesses will begin to switch to cloud computing.  Large scale, trusted cloud service providers will be the ones that businesses turn to to host their critical business data and applications.  Remember that "cloud computing" is an incredibly broad term that encompasses a number of different types of businesses: SaaS, PaaS, IaaS.  Businesses will mix and match as they see fit.  There will also be differences in the way small businesses utilize the cloud versus large businesses.

 

Even assuming that businesses don't host data and applications outside of their private networks, virtualization technology could make the use of PCs for business obsolete.  Instead, employees will work on dumb screens/interfaces with the actual processing happening on servers managed in-house.  Server processing becomes the new game in town. 

 

Intel can no longer count on selling high priced, high margin processors directly to end users, whether consumer or business.  Even if they maintain their margins per unit, they won't be able to maintain price per unit. 

 

That's why Intel has to expand to all computing devices, not just what we think of as PCs.  They need to be in smart phones, tablets, surface computing devices, TV/cable boxes, appliances, cars, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way Intel is laying the framework to stay the course (the cloud doesn't fly) or expand into other areas (security) if the cloud flies.  The down case is the cloud doesn't fly and the paid a premium for a CF generating business.  If the cloud flies then they will be able to add a value-added aspect to their line-up of chips (security) and prevent price erosion and build another moat for thier chips.  Very smart.

 

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way Intel is laying the framework to stay the course (the cloud doesn't fly) or expand into other areas (security) if the cloud flies.  The down case is the cloud doesn't fly and the paid a premium for a CF generating business.  If the cloud flies then they will be able to add a value-added aspect to their line-up of chips (security) and prevent price erosion and build another moat for thier chips.  Very smart.

 

 

Packer

 

Agreed.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...