Niceguy, Re: "$10 BILLION negative change in net income is HUGE no matter how you attempt to mask it..."
I know, and I do not pretend to gloss over this fact. You, however, do your best to ignore your own large stake investment.
You *do* own a large stake in AMD, don't you? This *is* an AMD investor forum, is it not? Yet what are 100% of your posts about? INTC, that's what!
Intel is in a bad position right now, and one reason is tough competition. That's right! AMD has participated in a price war, and has hurt Intel's bottom line. If this were a game of who can hurt who the most, then AMD would certainly get honorable mention, and I'll admit that.
But besides AMD's part in this, there is also a huge economic down turn, with many tech businesses taking huge losses. Lucent and CSCO both had to have huge write-offs, CSCO with a $2 billion write-off earlier this year, and Lucent with a recent $8 billion write-off. These are significant numbers, Niceguy!
Additionally, terrorist attacks have plunged many retail markets into slowdowns that have compounded the already bad economy. Businesses, too, have had to consolidate and slow down their purchases. It is these effects that hurt Intel much more than AMD.
So, yes, Intel is $10 billion smaller than they were last year, and eventually, their balance sheet needs to take into account the $7.5 billion in manufacturing, and the $4 billion in R&D that they have spent this year, but fortunately, they have the cash reserves to afford such copious spending on a harsh environment. Of course, they can't continue much longer, and have already admitted that.
On the other hand, since you are an AMD investor, I find it hard to believe that you can be ignorant of AMD's current situation. As usual, you find them to be a terrific buy, despite the fact that they are heading back into debt, and have several more quarters of loss to go before analysts even estimate that they will break even again.
Meanwhile, Jerry Sanders has bet the company once again, and this time on Hammer, Hammer, Hammer, and obviously you have fallen for the bait. AMD says to invest now and wait for the future, and you say, how much? You should have learned by now that you can't depend on products and promises that are supposed to happen so far in the future. Hammer will probably not launch until 2003, and that is too late to market to be a savior for AMD. They are hoping for another miracle like the K7, but those don't come along every processor generation.
Fundementally, AMD is in far worse shape than Intel, yet you spend 100% of the time trying to downplay AMD's only competitor, since you know very well that AMD's only hope is more execution failures from their "only competition". Instead of hoping for things like that, why don't you concentrate on AMD's current situation, and the likelihood that miracles just to come along every time you think you need them.
Realize what Paul is saying, because even though he has a harsh way of putting things, he has a point, yet you shut it out completely. You are not entirely wrong with your point of view, either, but instead of trying to understand your investments, you've decided to participate in a cheerleading match, in order egg your verbal opponent.
If you base your investments on such petty squabbles, you're bound to lose in the long run. Wizen up, and take some advice from people that are obviously far more experienced than you. You may not like Paul, but he's been around the block a few times, and he knows a hell of a lot more than you.
wanna_bmw |
