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: Charles R who wrote (120758)	7/24/2000 12:03:50 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1573026

Chuckles - Re: "Look above. Q2 1999 was probably the worst quarter in AMD's history. Year-to-year comparison in this case overstates the real-performance." Excellent point. Q299 was the second (and last) quarter in a row where AMD kept issuing negative pre-announcements - due to incredible screw-ups in their Kmart 62 manufacturing.

To: Charles R who wrote (120758)	7/24/2000 12:58:22 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573026

Chuck <I am curious how you came to your conclusion that AMD's revenue growth has slowed? > Because it has on a quarter to quarter basis! It has? Apparently, I am missing something here. Q1,00 revenues were $1.092 billion and Q2's were $1.170. Are my numbers incorrect? <Historically both Intel and AMD experience a decline in revenue or flat revenue from quarter 1 to quarter 2.> Intel units went up slightly this quarter. Historical data is important but may not be that relevant this factor. Your right....an investor can use whatever parameters he/she chooses. Nonetheless in general the PC/PC chip business has been considered cyclical in the past, resulting in both companies usually experiencing a revenue dip in the second quarter of the year. Maybe the seasonality of the PC chip business is evening out but I would have to see more quarters before making that determination. <I agree, of course, that it might have been greater had there not been a motherboard problem.> I think this is the only relevant issue for the time being. I guess.....momentarily anyways. <Nonetheless AMD broke with its historical trend....and appears that revenue growth remains at a high level if not accelerating. > Yes it is but this quarter was the exception. Think of it, even some analysts have said revenues were not what was expected. I have not heard that....I thought most analysts had increased their income estimates and in some cases increased their price targets. When was the last time AMD revenues underperformed analysts' expectations? (Answer: Q2 1999) I expect the revenue growth to dramatically accelerate next couple of quarters. My understanding of the analysts' reaction to the June quarter, '99 was that AMD could do nothing right, including meeting revenue promises. <Why do you think YOY results are so much higher this quarter than last? > Look above. Q2 1999 was probably the worst quarter in AMD's history. Year-to-year comparison in this case overstates the real-performance. Hardly....I would say March, '99 ranks right up there, losing $.88 per share. In fact AMD has had a lot of lousy quarters. However the revenue dip from Q1 to Q2, '99 was not significantly different from the dip in the same period of 1998. And I still contend that the price malaise of the stock has a lot less to do with a bad quarter, slowing revenue growth and mobo problems, and more to do with the advent of Willamette and the general cyclical/peaking concerns begun by Josephantal of SSB a few weeks back. It has become so bad I have vacated most of my positions in the semis and the equipment makers. JMHO. ted