Author Topic: INTC - Intel  (Read 100303 times)

FrankArabia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
INTC - Intel
« on: September 10, 2012, 10:48:18 AM »
your thoughts on this?

I got in at $24.75 and $24.00.

I think we're in for some pain in the near term but overtime they should gain momentum on the mobile side as the PC side takes off from IT refresh.


ItsAValueTrap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • Blog
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2012, 11:49:04 AM »
Long writeup on Sumzero:
http://sumzero.com/news/78

VIC writeups:

INTC
http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/78064
(I don't have access to this yet.)

long AMD
http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/58475
*I disagree with many technical points in the writeup.  The comment on the 'Introduction of C++' is a little misguided because C++ is a relative old language (with zero support for heterogeneous computing / GPGPU / GPU acceleration; 3rd party libraries add that capability).  Right now the leading solution for heterogeneous computing would likely be an Intel CPU with a Nvidia GPU... though it depends on the application.

long AMD
http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/43112
"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. " -Buffett

my blog

ItsAValueTrap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • Blog
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2012, 11:51:56 AM »
I am long Intel and this is my writeup on my blog:

http://glennchan.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/intel-a-cheap-ish-growth-stock/

------------copy and pasted below------------------------

Briefly, Intel may be a good investment due to:

    Cheap.  The P/E is around 10.3.
    In the long run, Intel will be able to consistently grow its revenues as we find more uses for computers (e.g. smartphones, tablets, cloud).  8% revenue growth will likely continue into the near future.
    Its economic moat.  Its dominant market position lets it enjoy economies of scale in R&D and in manufacturing.  On the fabrication side, Intel is almost always a step ahead when it comes to process size and process technology.

Processor design:  Usually Intel will have a better processor design than its archrival AMD, though this is not always the case.  Intel and AMD were going neck to neck in terms of performance around 2003-2006.  Intelís Prescott processors for example were disappointing since heat and power consumption was a much bigger problem than anticipated.  In the short run, there is some variation in how well Intelís processor designs turn out.  In the long run Intelís size will be an advantage when it comes to outspending competitors on R&D.

Process size:  Process size refers to how small processor parts can be made.  Being a node ahead in process size means that a semiconductor manufacturer can cram twice as many transistors onto the same area of silicon.  Usually the extra transistors can be used to double performance.

see http://www.10stripe.com/articles/what-does-process-size-mean.php

Process technology:  Intel was ahead of its competition in implementing high-K dielectrics and finFET technology (Intel refers to their finFET variation as ďTri-GateĒ).  What this boils down to is that these technologies make processors better in performance and/or power consumption.

My tech background is mostly in programming programming Photoshop plug-ins.  I am not an expert in semiconductor technology by any means (I just Google this stuff).  However, it seems obvious to me that Intel has an Ďunfairí advantage when competing against its competitors.  Historically, it has almost always been a step ahead in terms of process size and process technology.  Currently, Intel is shipping 22nm parts (with Tri-Gate and high-k dieletrics) while competitors are shipping 32nm (no Tri-Gate/finFET, some fabs have high-k dielectrics).  Some companies are shipping 28nm parts, which are a half-node between 22nm and 32nm.  Intel may be 3-4 years ahead in implementing finFET technology.

Here is a chart showing Intelís share price versus AMDísÖ this is Intelís moat at work:



Where Intel may experience growth (or lose market share)

Desktop/laptop/netbook:  Right now, Intel has a historically higher market share against AMD than in the past.  Reversion to the mean could occur.  In the long run, I would expect that the trend in the chart above will continue.

Servers, high performance computing:  This market is a little different than the desktop market since servers tend to be single purpose.  This means that the x86 instruction set (which only Intel and AMD control) is not that important.  Unlike the desktop market, the x86 instruction set does not protect Intel and AMD in these specialized markets.

Intel management should be congratulated as it has taken away a lot of market share from RISC-based processors (IBMís Power, SGI, Sunís SPARC, etc.).  In the past, the RISC technology/approach to processor design was superior since it led to increased performance.  (As I understand it) Intelís processors actually implement RISC internally and have to waste transistors on converting x86 instructions to RISC(-like) instructions.  Nowadays this overhead is no longer an issue since transistor counts are so high that the overhead is negligible.

Smartphones:  Intel has practically no market share in smartphones right now.  This market is dominated by products based on the ARM instruction set.  I donít believe that the instruction set will be a big problem for Intel as it is not impossible for handset manufacturers to switch to Intelís x86 instruction set.  (In the past, Apple switched from powerPC processors to Intel processors.  The technical barriers are minor and easy to overcome.  The switch went smoothly, though some Mac users had to wait a few months for updated software.)  The Xolo smartphone demonstrates that it is not difficult for Android phones to use an Intel x86 processor.  There are a few games where the Intel processor is slower due to the emulation of the ARM instruction set.  However, I donít believe that this will be an issue in the future as developers will compile a version of their games for x86/Intel (very easy to do).

There is a misconception that Intel processors are inferior to ARM-based products due to power consumption.  This review of the Xolo smartphone shows that Intelís Medfield chip has around the same power consumption (and also performance) as its competition.  I believe that Intel will dominate this field as its chips will have advantages in power/price/performance due to Intelís advantages in fabrication.  Intelís lead in process size and in implementing finFET will allow its processors to have lower power consumption.  The Medfield chip was manufactured on a 32nm process without finFET.  Intel will gain ground once its moves production to its best fabs.

However, the smartphone market might only turn out to be a $10B market*.  In the year ended 2011 Intel made $54B.  Smartphones may not add substantially to Intelís profits.  (*This Strategy Analytics blog post states that the smartphone processor market was $7.9B in 2011.  I believe that it is reasonable for the smartphone market to grow to $10B in the future.)

Intel may have some difficulty getting Apple to adopt its smartphone processors.  Appleís strategy has been to restrict the variety of hardware in Apple smartphones.  This makes it much easier for developers to make smartphone apps.  (Some game manufacturers no longer make games for Android as it costs more to develop for, Android users buy less games, and Android users require more technical support.)

Tablets:  This will likely be a similar situation to smartphones.

Graphics, GPGPU:  In budget applications, Intel competes with AMD as they both sell processors with integrated graphics.  Intelís products tilt towards lower cost and/or faster CPU performance at the expense of inferior graphics (e.g. worse at playing 3D games).  Intel may have difficulty doing higher-end graphics as it is not so easy to make good software drivers to go along with the hardware.

In the past, Intel had an experimental Larrabee project (Wikipedia) which tried to make a high-end graphics chip/GPU that could also be used for GPGPU purposes (Wikipedia).  This project was mostly a failure.  The outcome of the Larrabee project has morphed into the Knights Corner / Xeon Phi coprocessor (which I donít think will be a huge market for Intel) and will not be a GPU.

Intel may have difficulty breaking into the high-end graphics market, which is the traditional bread and butter of ATI/AMD and Nvidia.

FPGAs:  This is a market dominated by Xilinx and Altera (89% market share combined).  Intel has tried to enter this market in the past and failed.  It will not be easy for Intel to break into as Intel would have to develop really good FPGA design software (this is Xilinx and Alteraís moat).  GPGPUs will eat away at the FPGA market though as GPGPUs are better at some applications than FPGAs.

Back to the bigger picture

Historically, Intel has grown revenues at a rate of several percent a year.  Gurufocus shows Intelís growth to be 8.6%/yr per share over the past 10 years.  Going forward, I expect revenues to grow alongside the growth of the computing industry.  On top of that, Intel will likely slowly expand into new markets.  Historically, it has taken Intel a while to expand into new markets.  Keep in mind that it had to focus on fighting AMD for dominance of the desktop PC market and faced very strong competition in the server market.  Intel has failed in the FPGA and high-end graphics markets.

I donít think that one can be too accurate in predicting Intelís future growth.  However, my best guess would be that Intel will continue its historical rate of growth.  To me, it is reasonable to assume that Intel will slowly encroach onto new markets.  A lot of these markets exist in the first place because they serve a niche that the x86 desktop does not fill; thatís why Intel/AMD havenít wiped out these markets in the first place.  Intelís existing markets will also grow due to developing countries increasing the penetration of computers (desktops, laptops, servers, etc.).  It will also grow as people figure out new applications for computer hardware as it becomes more powerful, the Internet gets faster and more pervasive, and software tools continue to lower development costs.

Smartphones, tablets, and cloud computing are hot new areas but they may not be large markets for Intel.  If I am wrong, then Intel shares will have additional upside.

Mooreís Law reaching its limits

Mooreís law predicts that transistor counts will double every 18 to 24 months.  Historically, this has meant that performance doubles around every 2 years.  However, processors will not get faster at their historical rate.

    Heat limitations mean that we have hit a wall in terms of clock speed.  This is forcing processor manufacturers to use multiple cores to increase performance.  Unfortunately, doubling the number of cores does not always double performance.  One of the problems is Amdahlís Law.  It is likely that Amdahlís Law will kick into place for commercial software.  Making programs completely parallel will often be too costly (parallelism is hard).
    Eventually, we will not be able to double the number of transistors every 2 years.  Historically, we have only been able to see a decade out and people always predict the imminent end of Mooreís Law.  Yet Mooreís Law keeps on continuing.  However, there are some very real limitations to the current approach.  We cannot have processor parts that are smaller than one molecule.  Before that, there are other technical challenges imposed by the laws of physics (e.g. electron tunneling).  Mooreís Law may end as early as 2022.

I believe that the rate of performance increase will start to slow down in the future.  If that rate slows down to a trickle, Intel will have a problem as its competitors will start to catch up in terms of performance.  Eventually, the business will likely morph into a commodity business where the lowest-cost players have an advantage.  (The x86 license will give Intel and AMD a very minor advantage in the desktop market.)  This will be terrible for Intel as its 20%+ profit margins will become a fraction of what it is.

Financial management at Intel may be merely average

During the tech bubble, Intel was spending cash on buying back shares at astronomical prices under Craig Barrettís tenure.  (Barrett named Paul Otellini, who is the current CEO.)

Intel has a defined benefit pension plan.  Iím not a fan of these types of pensions as the liability can push companies into bankruptcy (and even the pensioners get screwed, e.g. Nortel).

Intelís acquisition of McAfee was arguably a bad one.  The main reason for the acquisition is McAfeeís Deep Defender product (review/overview), which works alongside Intel processors to detect rootkit viruses (these viruses are very difficult to detect with a virus scan).  Intel bought McAfee not knowing if there is merit to Deep Defenderís approach (it wasnít tried on a commercial scale when Intel made the purchase and there are other methods of detecting rootkits).  Another caveat is that Deep Defender ties users to purchasing Intel chips with the premium VPro feature.  IT departments may not want to be tied to a single vendor.

On the good side, Intel is using its excess cash to buy back shares and pay dividends.  Considering Intelís current P/E, the share buybacks make a lot of sense.  Also, Intel has conservative levels of debt and I like that it has taken on lower risk debt that is due far in the future with reasonable interest rates (e.g. some of Intelís debt is in 30 year bonds).

Intelís P/E may be slightly inflated

The cost of Intelís cross-licensing agreement with Nvidia will be amortized over 17 years even though the cross-licensing agreement expires in 6 years.  From the 10-K for YE2011:

    In January 2011, we entered into a long-term patent cross-license agreement with NVIDIA. Under the agreement, we received a license to all of NVIDIAís patents with a capture period that runs through March 2017 while NVIDIA products are licensed to our patents, subject to exclusions for x86 products, certain chipsets, and certain flash memory technology products. The agreement also included settlement of the existing litigation between the companies as well as broad mutual general releases. We agreed to make payments totaling $1.5 billion to NVIDIA over six years ($300 million in each of January 2011, 2012, and 2013; and $200 million in each of January 2014, 2015, and 2016), which

    resulted in a liability totaling approximately $1.4 billion, on a discounted basis. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we recognized an expense of $100 million related to the litigation settlement. In the first quarter of 2011, we recognized the remaining amount of $1.3 billion as licensed technology, which will be amortized into cost of sales over its estimated useful life of 17 years.

(*I am no lawyer and may have read this incorrectly.  The patent cross license agreement is also on Intelís website.)

Berkshire Hathaway buying IBM and selling Intel

I donít know why Berkshire did this.  I do not consider IBM to be in my circle of competence as I donít understand the IT business.  (In the processor business, I can tell you that IBM lost the Mac business and some of its server and supercomputer business to Intel.)  Warren explains his IBM purchase in this CNBC transcript.  At ~$10B, Warrenís position in IBM is rather sizable.

Maybe the smarter move is to buy IBM instead of Intel.  I do not know.

What I plan on doing

I will hold onto Intel on the expectation that its share price goes up on gaining market share in smartphones and tablets.  I donít want to deal with Mooreís Law coming to an end so I donít see myself holding onto Intel for the really long term.

*Disclosure: Long Intel.  No position in IBM.
"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. " -Buffett

my blog

rimm_never_sleeps

  • Guest
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2012, 12:10:22 PM »
intel is super dependent on people buying PC and laptops. it has yet to crack the mobile market. that's a huge issue. Also arm has designs on Intel's notebook and small form factor markets. I hated the Mcafee acquisition. It made no sense and still makes no sense. it was expensive. their acquisitions have not been good over the years. they made a number in the late 90s that had to be totally written off. they manage the operations well, but got caught flat footed by the mobile revolution. I would buy it around $20. I think msft has a better business that is about as cheap. btw AMD is even more poorly positioned than Intel. I think a long intel short amd trade might make sense.

Intel was bought by one of the two new guys at Berkshire. I believe he became worried about Intel's mobile position (they were really late getting a decent chip out) and the strength of ARM's grip on mobile devices. Don't know this for a fact. just my guess.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 07:56:20 PM by rimm_never_sleeps »

FrankArabia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2012, 12:19:53 PM »
thanks for the responses.

I think most of us who are long or bullish on INTC have the same reasoning: big company that will eventually come around, PCs are not dying, and Intel is cheap with good dividend yield.

I'm not a technology guy at all, but I think a lot of people are worried that PCs are going into extinction or something. At 10x p/e it doesn't add up.

ItsAValueTrap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • Blog
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2012, 02:04:12 PM »
I think Microsoft will have a *much* harder time in the mobile market.  Microsoft's advantage is:
a- The Microsoft software ecosystem.  Development tools (Visual Studio is so slick), legacy software, games, widest selection of software, etc.
b- Great software is difficult to duplicate.  This is not a problem where you can simply throw a lot of programmers at it... it doesn't work that way.  Otherwise software would be a commodity business unless you were protected by patents.

None of these advantages help Microsoft in smartphones (e.g. Windows CE never really took off, Windows Phone 7 never really took off, etc.) because Microsoft is not the incumbent player.  They also don't help Microsoft in servers, which is also a major market.

-------
In the long run, I see Intel facing problems when processors run into limits with Moore's Law.  Eventually we cannot beat the laws of physics.  15-25 years from now is my guess.

In the long run, Microsoft constantly faces competition.  Shifts in technology can be swift and sudden.  The dominant player can quickly lose its position... look at ICQ and Myspace, companies that benefited from network effects.  Having great software is a moat but not a great one.
There was a time when Microsoft was scared of Java because it might turn out to be a really good cross-platform development tool.  This did not turn out to be the case.  Java is a good tool but does not do cross-platform user interfaces well and Java programs tend to be slow.

Right now Microsoft doesn't have strong competition to its two main cash cows (operating systems and Office).  Ubuntu, Mac OS, Open Office, and Google Docs aren't that strong compared to Microsoft's offerings.  Open Office is interesting though since it does 90% of what Office does and is free.

I see Microsoft as having limited growth compared to Intel but more likely to thrive in the long run.  Intel will one day become a shadow of itself.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 02:05:52 PM by ItsAValueTrap »
"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. " -Buffett

my blog

valueInv

  • Guest
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2012, 04:42:54 PM »
I would check your facts.

 I donít believe that the instruction set will be a big problem for Intel as it is not impossible for handset manufacturers to switch to Intelís x86 instruction set.  (In the past, Apple switched from powerPC processors to Intel processors.  The technical barriers are minor and easy to overcome.  The switch went smoothly, though some Mac users had to wait a few months for updated software.)

Switching a processor architecture is a huge deal. Apple went through a massive effort, they just didn't expose the complexity.



There is a misconception that Intel processors are inferior to ARM-based products due to power consumption. 
That is no misconception. They have been inferior, but the newer processors are getting close. However, ARM has released its next generation architecture that is significantly better.

However, the smartphone market might only turn out to be a $10B market*.  In the year ended 2011 Intel made $54B.  Smartphones may not add substantially to Intelís profits.  (*This Strategy Analytics blog post states that the smartphone processor market was $7.9B in 2011.  I believe that it is reasonable for the smartphone market to grow to $10B in the future.)

Therein lies the rub. As more usage goes to mobile, people buy fewer PCs. The pricing on smartphone processors are lower, so even if Intel wins the smartphone market, its revenue won't replace that of desktop.

Intel may have some difficulty getting Apple to adopt its smartphone processors.Tablets:  This will likely be a similar situation to smartphones. 
Apple is the worlds biggest chip buyer.

If that rate slows down to a trickle, Intel will have a problem as its competitors will start to catch up in terms of performance.  Eventually, the business will likely morph into a commodity business where the lowest-cost players have an advantage.  (The x86 license will give Intel and AMD a very minor advantage in the desktop market.)  This will be terrible for Intel as its 20%+ profit margins will become a fraction of what it is.
I doubt it. There are many ways to increase chip performance other than transistor size such as number of cores, asynchronous techniques etc. The point is performance does not equal clock speed. In fact, performance hasn't even been that critical in many markets, power consumption has been the bigger issue. That is why Intel lost share to ARM.

I donít know why Berkshire did this.  I do not consider IBM to be in my circle of competence as I donít understand the IT business.  (In the processor business, I can tell you that IBM lost the Mac business and some of its server and supercomputer business to Intel.)  Warren explains his IBM purchase in this CNBC transcript.  At ~$10B, Warrenís position in IBM is rather sizable.
IBM is one of the most diversified tech companies. That means that it is not as vulnerable to tech cycles at Intel is. If Intel loses the desktop/server market, pretty much everything is lost. IBM can easily survive the loss of a few of its businesses.

You fail to address two points.
1, The possibility to a shift to lower power, cheaper processors even on the server side. This would mean ARM or Atom. With Atom, the margins are lower. Look at companies like SeaMicro. What is AMD planning to do after buying them and hiring Jim Keller?
2, The shift from PCs to laptops tablets:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/10/apple-ipad-corporate-pc-market-growth/
http://gigaom.com/2012/09/10/the-shift-as-tablets-surge-pcs-lose/

There is no if, its already happening. The key point is the release of Windows 8. This should be driving big sales this quarter with people excited to upgrade. Instead the opposite is happening, Intel guided down. That is a big, big red flag.

ItsAValueTrap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
    • Blog
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2012, 07:06:41 PM »
Quote
There are many ways to increase chip performance other than transistor size such as number of cores
The number of cores is related to transistor count.  If you can't pack transistors more densely, then the only way of increasing the number of cores is to make the die size bigger.

The problem with a bigger die size is:
A- You use more silicon, which raises cost.
B- Yields go down, which raises cost even more. 

There comes a point where it doesn't make sense to use a really large die.  You could instead use 2 (or more) processors working together in some sort of parallel computing solution.

Quote
IBM is one of the most diversified tech companies.
I don't believe that Warren is a fan of diversification for skilled investors.  If you read the CNBC transcript he gives his reasons.

Quote
As more usage goes to mobile, people buy fewer PCs.
That's debatable right?

I see smartphones as being complementary to the desktop/laptop, not as a replacement.  Ditto for tablets.  These devices sacrifice screen size and a real keyboard (and mouse) in exchange for portability and being handy.  They are different markets in my opinion.  Personally I believe that it's a misconception that smartphones and tablets are going to replace the desktop/laptop.  (Personally if all my computing devices were destroyed, I would just buy a desktop and a dumbphone.  Maybe I am a Luddite even though I know C++.  But at least I use email... unlike the highly regarded computer scientist Donald Knuth.)

Let's see how desktop/laptop sales do in the future.
"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. " -Buffett

my blog

FrankArabia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2012, 05:45:31 AM »
What I don't really get is why people are so focused on the immediately future (3-6 months). Management needs time to adjust and so long as they're financially stable, there shouldn't be a huge worry. However, given the current valuations, you figure INTC is on the verge of continual profit declines.

Yes INTC did guide down and I expect their earnings to take a hit even out to 2013. However, the problems they're encountering is what the people who are working at Intel are trying to overcome. They have all of the reasons to win (mostly money, scale, know how, and lets face it, shareholder pressures), but they're a big ship which takes time to turn.

People aren't comfortable unless INTC starts to dominate the mobile market or get their toe in, but when that happens, do you think INTC will trade at 10x cash?

This whole thing about PCs going into extinction? Not so sure about this but I am willing to admit the market will see slower growth over the next few years. I think people will continue to use PCs along with tablets/netbooks/smartphones. We're going to see more usage of technology as has been the case over the last 25+ years.

As to why BRK sold INTC, not so sure and it certainly shouldn't matter. One thing is, IBM is more "stable" and their valuation is not excessively above INTC. There appears to be less risk.


berkshiremystery

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
Re: INTC - Intel
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2012, 07:34:00 AM »
your thoughts on this?

I got in at $24.75 and $24.00.

I think we're in for some pain in the near term but overtime they should gain momentum on the mobile side as the PC side takes off from IT refresh.

You might want to have a free peek into iNTC @ ValueLine:
http://www3.valueline.com/dow30/f4731.pdf

The 30 Dow stocks are free on their site. Cheers!
http://www.valueline.com/dow30/