SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pgerassi who wrote (108495)4/29/2000 3:25:00 AM
From: ptanner  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575424
 
Pete: Re - Price War, ASP @ Break-even

Interesting -- I took the same approach to see how much the ASP could decline for each company earlier today.

The analysis should be adjusted to account for the MPU market segment which Intel does not yet face competition from AMD: server chips. Only data I have is old but it was Xeons being 4% of units and 15% of revenue (I believe this was for 1999?). (I am too lazy to attempt any more numbers today but thought I would share the thought.)

I don't believe there will be any severe price competition while both suppliers remain capacity constrained. In 2001 as Dresden + some new Intel fabs ramp it might be interesting if capacity does increase much more rapidly than demand. With 15-20% growth it would seem these AMD&INTC should be merely keeping up...

Perhaps both suppliers will just enjoy the good times and reduce their production of the low-end chips in favor of the high-end. They cost the same to make and if you can sell all you produce why not change the supply as the K6-2 should be departing rapidly. Let Via sell the low-end chips at poor margins.

PT

ps: Spoke with my mother-in-law's fiance this evening who is a financial advisor. He felt the frequent AMD references on CNBC was a contrarian indicator. Since I don't watch CNBC I don't really have a response to this but it didn't change my perception of the current and potential value of AMD.



To: pgerassi who wrote (108495)4/29/2000 8:27:00 AM
From: boris_a  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575424
 
Dear Pete: Intel ASP, breakeven

I did the same calculation yesterday for myself. You did it way better. Thanks.

In the light of the current MSFT issues, I think Intel generating losses would be a case of dumping practice.
Hopefully Janet Reno would help us to save some AMD money we lost in MSFT. <g>

BTW, I'd like to buy some INTC if your scenario ever happens. Must result in a nice entry point.

Boris



To: pgerassi who wrote (108495)4/30/2000 9:27:00 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575424
 
Pete

Intel's gross margins are irrelevant.

I disagree.

It is their net margin that is at stake. Their Computing Products Group's Gross margin does not take into account the various other groups. All of the other groups lost more than $400 Million last quarter.

The margins I posted earlier were company inclusive for both AMD and Intel, and not broken down by dep't. On every level, including net margins, Intel's margins were superior to AMD's.

Now take their earnings, 2.6 Billion, and divide that by the number of processors they claim to have sold, 32 Million, and you get about $81 in ASP. They claim their current ASP is about 190. Therefore at an ASP of about 100, they will lose about $300 Million a quarter. AMD made 175 Million at an ASP of 87. They would start to lose money at an ASP of 61. When AMD starts to lose money, Intel will lose about 1.5 Billion a quarter. At that rate, Intel will eat up its book value in about 20 quarters. At that rate, Intel would be valued at about 1.3 times book value or $13 dollars. There would be a shareholder revolt at Intel, employees would leave in droves, etc.

First when you are talking ASP's, you are guessing. Intel refuses to give out ASP's; that's why I like looking at margins...those figures are published and are for real.

Having said that, I do not understand how Intel's margins can be so superior to AMD's, and btw margins are a great way of determining a company's efficiency and cost effectiveness in producing their products, and yet, you are able to show us, by massaging your est. ASP's, that AMD can make more money at lower prices than Intel.

That makes no sense and I think it underlines my concern with this whole issue......that this thread may be loosing sight of reality. Once again, Intel is the 1000 ft Chipzilla that AMD has managed to graze with a couple of bullets....surface wounds. If Intel was to truly get focused, I would be afraid, very afraid. Fortunately, they haven't to date and I don't think they will for a while.

Now I know this is very rough, but Intel is at a high evaluation. I believe it to be too high. Someone said that Intel used to never exceed a PE of 22. Given this reference on current earnings, Intel should trade at 69 and AMD at 100. Thus AMD is at 88% of this limit where Intel is at 181%. Thus Intel can not afford to have investors take a hard look at it. A big price war would initiate that.

Like I said to doug, Intel trades at a premium because they are Intel.....its no big secret, its been going on for a long time. Last summer, I was blown away when Intel failed to make its consensus EPS and the analysts rallied around it and the stock went up. Its taken everyone (except this thread) a full year and half to figure out that Intel has problems. Now why do think that is?

My suggestion.....because its Intel.

ted