Charles, <We are talking about a miss of something of the around 8% (high single digits was the guidance)...but I would give [Intel] management a much higher rating on being investor friendly. If you noticed, Intel declared their miss before AMD and that was only about a 4% miss (since 4% would have met their original guidance).>
You've blinded yourself with your double standard here. AMD's minimum miss is 4% (2% actual growth vs. "high single digits"=6% prediction) and maximum miss is 9% (0% actual growth vs. 9% predicted growth. Thats a slippage of between 4 and 9 % in 31 days. So the size of the AMD "miss" is 6.5% in the center. I am interpreting AMD's flat to nominally higher revenues as 0 to 2%.
Lets compare what Intel actually said to your Pollyanna interpretation:
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 7, 2000 -- Intel's fourth quarter revenue is anticipated to be below the company's previous expectation, primarily due to a slowing worldwide economy impacting PC demand, the company said today. As a result of recent large cancellations by customers worldwide, the company now expects revenue for the fourth quarter to be flat, plus or minus a couple of percentage points, with third quarter revenue of $8.7 billion. This is lower than the previous expectation that fourth quarter revenue would be up 4 to 8 percent from third quarter revenue.
From 4-8% to +- 2% is a minimum miss of 2% and a maximum miss of 10%. The average miss would be 6%.
The size of the miss is barely any different from AMD's, but CRAIG BARRET REAFFIRMED INTEL'S GUIDANCE IN A EUROPEAN INTERVIEW 3 DAYS BEFORE THE WARNING.
In actuality, Intel warned 27 DAYS LATER than AMD and, worst case, their miss is bigger than AMD's. So please show me the reaction you got on the Intel thread when you called Barrett "not trustworthy."
EDIT - and BTW, AMD never reaffirmed the CPU count in November. In fact, most of the conference call was about flash.
Petz |
