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: Road Walker who wrote (37858)	4/30/2001 2:06:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The folks on this thread need to rigorously question each others assumptions, They could lead AMD investors to some wrong conclusions, a potential problem with any moderated (censored) thread. Yeah, right, this thread has really gone down the tubes due to the lack of "we will bury you" posts from Elmer and Paul Engel. What do you assume that Intel will say next quarter, when the year-ago numbers include the Micron capital gains that Intel browbeat the analysts into counting as "recurring income", John?

To: Road Walker who wrote (37858)	4/30/2001 2:23:05 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

John, "Projecting Intel semiconductor cost from their total operating margins is deceptive. That 1$B loss from other businesses has an impact on their 32% operating margin from IAG." Funny, but I agree with you here, it is deceptive. With the only one question: which way ? How do you know that Intel is not writing off many IAG expenses into "other" businesses, to meet public expectations and maintain an image of success in their IAG division?

To: Road Walker who wrote (37858)	4/30/2001 2:38:33 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Respond to of 275872

John, Re: The folks on this thread need to rigorously question each others assumptions, They could lead AMD investors to some wrong conclusions, a potential problem with any moderated (censored) thread. Many people on this thread sold their shares or even shorted AMD in the last few days. So I have agree to agree with you: This could have lead people to the wrong conclusions, so they couldn't profit from the runup in the stock. BTW, did you ever saw a negative posting regarding some decisions by Intel on the INTC thread (except, maybe, the Rambus decision)? We have lots of them here about AMD. Especially in the last few weeks. I never saw that kind of skepticism on the Intel thread. While "we" have some cheerleaders here, overall this thread is far more critical than any other I know on SI. Andreas

To: Road Walker who wrote (37858)	4/30/2001 2:59:21 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

John F, I'm glad you responded to my original analysis of which company AMD or Intel would be hurt more by price cuts. Projecting Intel semiconductor cost from their total operating margins is deceptive. I was wrong, but not deceptive, if we assume that Intel's expenses between CPG and "Other" are done accurately. But, as I pointed out in my other post, this does not affect my conclusion at all, it, in fact, reinforces the conclusion. The only thing incorrect is the "cost per microprocessor" calculation. Intel's cost per microprocessor is less than I calculated, but at 27M in unit sales last quarter, $37 of each CPU's sales price is needed to subsidize the "Intel Other" group. Additionally, SG&A of 17% isn't huge, it's probably a little above normal. Well, its growing because of sales incentives, Rambus rebates, Intel Inside and the like and, I would bet 90% of marketing expense is CPU related. But the biggest albatross around Intel's neck is not MG&A -- on that you are very correct -- it is the huge losses at "Other" that have to be subsidized by CPU sales. The folks on this thread need to rigorously question each others assumptions Thank you for doing that. Now the proof of Intel's greater vulnerability to a 15% price cut is even more obvious. Petz

To: Road Walker who wrote (37858)	4/30/2001 4:14:52 PM
From: Epinephrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:<...moderated (censored) thread.> John, I sincerely cannot believe that you are still on that old page, get over it already! The fact is that many people here challenge each others assumptions on a daily and hourly basis and all of them do so without any fear of repurcussions even when those opinions are very negative towards AMD. Please notice that no one has even remotely hinted that you be "censored" for your challenges to John Petzinger's posts, in fact John himself has welcomed the discussion and censorhip or moderation would never have even come up if you hadn't mentioned it. In fact if you just posted in the civil way that you have done thus far I don't think anyone would ever question your right to post anything you chose and that would free you from having to crusade against the non-existant spectre of censorship on this thread so that you could redirect those efforts to fighting real censorship agendas of the religious right and other radical lobbyist groups such as the ones who are currently pressuring Yahoo into removing all of their adult communities. The moderated thread is a special interest community democratically (however imperfectly) controlling their own content, the Yahoo adult groups issue is one special interest trying to limit not just what they see but rather what EVERYONE can see. Regardless of what you personally feel about adult content that is an example of real censorship, go fight it. As for this thread, keep posting, I think you are a fine poster and I would vote against and vehemently oppose any attempt to have you banned. (unless you did something remarkable untrue to form) Epinephrine