Existing users please login

 

Home / Markets / Industries / Technology

Three Days in the Valley: Liz Claman Sits Down With Intel CEO

 
FOXBusiness
     

    In his first public comments since the Federal Trade Commission’s subpoena, launching a formal probe into its sales practices, Intel Corp. CEO Paul Otellini told the FOX Business Network’s Liz Claman that he does not think Intel (INTC) is violating federal antitrust laws.

    “At the end of the day, antitrust is about pro-consumer and pro-competition. Intel believes in competition, competition is the heart blood of this industry,” Otellini said.

    Watch: Part 2, Part 3.

    The European Union has already launched its own antitrust allegations against Intel, and the company was fined last week by regulators in South Korea. Intel holds more than 80% of the worldwide market share for semiconductors. Smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) filed an antitrust lawsuit in 2005, but the suit won’t go to trial until 2010.

    Otellini said Intel will cooperate fully with federal regulators; he pointed out that despite the allegations, Intel’s prices have come down about 6% each year, while improving functionality.

    “I think the U.S. competitive law is actually the best in the world,” Otellini said. “It looks at harm to consumers in terms of taking remedies, and I think in this case…when you give consumers lower costs, you’re not harming the consumer.”

    Otellini said the company looks to expand it’s business by investing in WIMAX technology, technology that will help expand broadband wireless internet connectivity.

    “We helped develop the technology…we helped develop the initial property framework around it to make sure that it was very low-cost to consumers, and now we’re building the chips to go into notebooks and handheld devices and we’re building the chips to go into the base stations, the things that run the backbone of the networks.”

    The chip maker is also looking to get into the mobile sphere.

    “I think it’s not too far-fetched to think that over a 10-year period, every phone will connect to the Internet,” Otellini told FOX Business.

     

    Fox Business Video


     

    FOX Translator

    Detach

    No data currently available.

    No data currently available.

    No-Load Funds

    Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.

    The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.

    The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.

    But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.

    Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.