Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: f.simons who wrote (120741)	7/23/2000 8:34:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572946

Frank You can slice these numbers any way you want, but the fact remains that sequential revenue growth was tepid. Tepid only because it was coming off a very strong first quarter. I am not saying AMD did not have a good quarter. However, I do believe that a lot of you are underestimating the importance of slowed revenue growth. I don't believe the street perceives that revenue growth has slowed at AMD. Most analyses that I have seen have not commented on slowed revenue growth. Rather, the concerns raised are those I mentioned earlier.....a reemergent Intel and the semi cycle peaking. Even Intel's stock has floundered since earnings.....the SOX index is down and many semi's have gotten haircuts the past two weeks. Most attribute these recent events to the concerns raised by the sell side analyst at SSB a couple of weeks ago. Personally my concern is Willamette and its impact, and the national/world economy....in that order. ted

To: f.simons who wrote (120741)	7/23/2000 10:00:34 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572946

Frank, <However, I do believe that a lot of you are underestimating the importance of slowed revenue growth.> Kind of refreshing to hear you (or anyone else) say something about revenue growth. For a while I thought you were in the camp where investment gains and stock buybacks makeup for any sins on the revenue/operating profits side. Glad to hear that is not the case. I do agree with you that AMD's slowed revenue growth is not good. If you saw this thread for the last few months this event has been widely considered a possibility because of the motherboard fiasco. Lately you can see the results of the problems discussed here if you see the ads in newspapers. AMD has almost completely disappeared from the low-end retail market (over the last several years, this market is kind of like AMD birth-right). In my estimate, there are about a million Durons sitting around and waiting for some motherboards to show up. AMD screwed up BIG time on the infrastructure side. If you had your eyes on the relative performance and pricing of Duron, you would see that there is no reason AMD couldn't have done a little better this quarter at the low-end. (and when I say little I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-1000k units at about 70 bucks a pop) Thanks to VIA-s bungles and AMD's mishandling of the infrastructure strategy, what could have been a May launch has effectively become a late-July/early-August launch. On a slightly different topic: Having read Intel thread around Intel's earnings and having found nary a bit of analysis on this kind of issues, I am surprised at the investor sentiment that let's these kind of growth rules not apply to some companies. Can you tell me why that is? Why is that Frank Simmons and other Intel longs are not concerned about the same issues when it comes to Intel and why it makes sense to have an expanding PE in light of low growth? I would also like to here if you or anyone else dissected Intel's processor biz revenue growth for the quarter. Would love to hear some educated views on that subject. (especially, if there is someone who thinks IABG revenues were actually up for the quarter) And, I don't mean to ask these questions flippantly or rhetorically, I seriously would like to understand the investor sentiment on this issue. Chuck