Mani, <Are you aware of the market cap each company is getting from the street?>
Yes, I am, and in fact, it reinforces my point. Intel's high market cap is a result of a history of good execution. The inverse holds true for AMD, i.e. AMD's low market cap is a result of a history of poor execution.
Now why do you think Wall Street rewards Intel with a nice market cap, and not AMD? It's simple. The Street's standard of execution holds constant for both companies. With some exceptions, Intel continually meets or beats that standard, while AMD continually falls short. Had the Street used the same dual standard of judgement that the AMD supporters on this thread used, then AMD would continually "meet or beat" the lower standards of judgement applied to it, and its market cap would be much higher. Since that's not happening, it goes to show that the Street doesn't offer any slack to AMD in judging its potential, unlike the shifty AMD supporters on this thread.
And remember, Mani, we're talking about history and fundamentals here, not "potential" to beat expectations based on fantasies.
Heck, I wasn't even talking about that originally. I was responding to Kevin's "INTC underperforming the Naz" statement, which is an excellent example of "speck in brother's eye, plank in your own eye."
Tenchusatsu |
