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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chung Lee who wrote (11504)	10/4/2000 11:58:39 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"John, this rant is not directed at you, but I just can't understand why so many among us demand AMD IR to update guidence every time the stock goes down, are not these well known AMD market advantage enough? Sometimes I feel we have the inside track with the analysts not knowing anything going on out there. Chung " Not when the stock goes down, when Intel misses and it doesn't effect AMD... Jim

To: Chung Lee who wrote (11504)	10/5/2000 12:09:09 AM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Chung, AMD will have 1.5 GHz in Q1 It would be very dangerous to assume this. The changes that AMD will be implementing to get to 1.5 GHz will provide many opportunities for production glitches. I am holding my breath and will breathe much easier when I see the first high speed Mustang shipping in volume. Ditto for the mobile Mustangs. Pravin

To: Chung Lee who wrote (11504)	10/5/2000 12:15:09 AM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I just can't understand why so many among us demand AMD IR to update guidence every time the stock goes down, are not these well known AMD market advantage enough? ... you know I'm not in that group. The problem isn't AMD, the problems are biases, LOTS of money already invested needs to be protected. I think most of those analysts aren't as blind as they appear. If they start saying good things on AMD, Intel is directly hit; AMD's succes is taken on the Intel's stake. Start talking too positively about LINUX grabbing some x86 market share, that MSFT is screwed because one can't devellop a new OS in a couple of months and then you see your MSFT portfolio cut by half; it was 40 billions, it is now 20 while your LNUX investment, say 1 billion, which is huge, may at best multiply by 5 for a 20-4 = 16 billions loss... you don't want it so you do your best to prevent the big loss, rather than pumping for the little gain. But some day the reality hit, and some Intel-Dell misses estimates and get flushed hard time while direct competitor blows it out. All the bashing effort is ruined and must be redone harder because the credibility gets weaker. On the long ride, the confidence slowly raise and some day, the Intel guys gets caught playing the old DEC-IBM's market-will-follow game by a guy named sledgehammer and his new friend, Win2000x86-64. Max

To: Chung Lee who wrote (11504)	10/5/2000 2:19:21 AM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Chung, <<ALL the above market data is not new and repeated every week on this thread, I assume the professionals with vast resource would already have known, if they didn't then they should fire all their staffs and just read this thread and volunteer for a pay cut, I guess it is too much to ask to interrupt their golf games, so instead we are asking AMD to call them everyday? John, this rant is not directed at you, but I just can't understand why so many among us demand AMD IR to update guidence every time the stock goes down, are not these well known AMD market advantage enough? Sometimes I feel we have the inside track with the analysts not knowing anything going on out there. Chung>> I understand and share your frustration at the general lack of diligence by many of the analysts. I have said to a friend that if I was as wrong as often as many of these semi analysts, I'd fire myself if my patients didn't do it for me first. But another take on this situation is that as frustrating as it may be, there is nearly no accountability in being an analyst - Look at Elaine Garzarelli - being right once in 13 years appears to qualify you as a lifetime-achievement guru. I'm as prone as the next guy to whine about the unfairness of the situation, so I occupy no high moral ground about this. But from a practical point of view, yes, I think that in the service of self-interest, if analysts are unwilling to do their job diligently enough, then it behooves a company to do their job for them. EMC corp. appears to do just this day-in and day-out - nearly everytime an analyst published FUD, EMC issues a clarifying statement or rebuttal, with the result that analysts are now apparently happy to let EMC do their jobs for them - and one consequence is that the hi- to low- eps estimates between analysts are most always within 2 cents of each other, since they're all accepting the data EMC gives them. The big advantage of doing the analysts' job for them is that the company gets to control the flow and spin of information - and as long as this is done responsibility and accurately, it's a very good thing, I think, and well worth the aggravation of taking on the burden of doing someone else's job.