21–30 of 80 posts
Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of them.
Letting 80% go seems to have worked for X.
Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of them.
76k+26k=102k
Intel has been atrociously managed. If you invested $1 in Intel in 1998, your investment would still be worth $1. Less than that if you adjust for inflation.
You can't just look at the stock price. INTC has split and had dividends since 1998. If you bought $10,000 of INTC in Sept 19th, 1998 and held it to today the stock would be worth $17,000 and you would've collected almost $12,000 in dividends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Letting 80% go seems to have worked for X.
If by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?
Intel has been atrociously managed. If you invested $1 in Intel in 1998, your investment would still be worth $1. Less than that if you adjust for inflation.
If you bought one shared near the end of 1998, you would have paid around $30. That share would be worth around $22 now. So, you would have gained around $9 not accounting for reinvestment of dividends.
Not a good return on investment, in comparison, but you picked 1998 in the middle of the dot com boom. If you picked the end of 1995, you'd have paid $7 and have around $40 today, which isn't too much worse of a return than the S&P 500.
This isn't to say Intel hasn't been poorly managed, by the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Letting 80% go seems to have worked for X.
Let go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.
Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of them.
ex. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amd-laptop-oems-decry-poor-16...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.
Aren't the two disconnected? The revenue lost is a result of advertisers not wanting to be connected to Musk's politics. Downsizing isn't what caused that.