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: dougSF30 who wrote (15498)	10/22/2000 8:19:11 PM
From: jeff_boyd___	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Agree with your points. In particular, comparing market cap and the fact that a successful PIV doesn't mean AMD is dead. The only way to justify Intel's market cap relative to AMD's is it maintaining total dominance in PCs and/or Itanium being successful. Both are certainly possible and we both know who the market is placing its bets with. The cash is a nice insurance policy in my mind for AMD. When Intel crashed prices at the low end, there was talk about bankruptcy for AMD on this board and the other x86 vendors got out of the business. Granted, the bankruptcy talk was mostly from those who don't like AMD, but bankruptcy was possible. They were losing lots of money, the K7 wasn't out and flash wasn't yet booming. The cash gives AMD the ability to absorb losses for a fairly long period of time. This means they can make the investments that they think are needed even if they are losing money and means that Intel is less likely to engage in another price war. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats my take. Legally Intel is o.k. in terms of anti-trust, but that doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly. Right now, AMD shareholders are hoping that the PIV remains too expensive and that Sledgehammer will allow it to become competitive again. There is some talk of PIV being an underperformer clock for clock, but no one is arguing that it won't ramp up Mhz quite well. I guess I'm convinced that AMD will do o.k. through the first half of 2001, but the general consensus seems to be that toward the end of 2001 they have problems. Would like to hear Scumbria argue otherwise. Jeff P.S. I'm a long term lurker and don't claim to have much to add to the discussion. Things seem pretty slow around here and I'm hoping to get some of my concerns addressed. I'll be gone before long.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (15498)	10/23/2000 10:22:40 AM
From: that_crazy_doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<< AMD is terribly undervalued. The P4 doesn't have to be a complete failure for AMD to do just fine... Hint: Intel's market cap is 290B. AMD's is 7B. AMD has between 15 and 20% of the market. >> I'm surprised AMD hasn't commanded a larger multiple, but the fact that it hasn't should be obvious to everyone here. We don't have to start losing money for the multiple to go down, hitting numbers which show no growth, or slight decline could kill the stock, and that's a real possibility over the next year.