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: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/22/2001 7:19:13 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

sky is falling!...sky is falling!...sky is falling!...

To: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/22/2001 7:46:17 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"Gottfried, it appears to me that right now WS is more concerned with profit than market share generally. The markets are in an earnings driven correction, not one driven by market share." You think so. Now... Why WS was not concerned by INTC lower earning? 3¢ for a $30 share... AMD does have a choice...stop the price war. Let Intel get back some of its market share.* Sometimes it's a time to fight; other times it's a time to chill.* Of course, that market share belong to Intel by constitutional right... Intel has more cash resources than AMD. Last time I checked their cash reserves were well over $15 billion. Have you ever see a co. like NT having $19B lost in one quarter. When will Intel start to write-off there numerous old fab .25 plus? AMD did better when its market share was smaller and its ASPs higher Ho ya, ... when? 3 year ago? 5 years strait losing money? Once again its a critical time in AMD's history. You think it's not critical time for Intel? Gottfried PS: It take 2 opponents to make a war, not only one.

To: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/22/2001 11:01:42 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Ted: Did you catch this line in Intel's Q2 2001 report, "Cash and short-term investments $ 9,340 $ 10,058 $ 13,473"? First column is Q2-01, then Q1-01, and last Q4-00. Cash is not "$15 billion" any more and hasn't been for the past three quarters. You should check the financial statements more often. Pete

To: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/23/2001 12:53:15 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

<font color=blue>TMTA:"The company paid $13.6 million to Advanced Micro Devices (Nasdaq: AMD) to license AMD's X-architecture technology. " newsfactor.com Interesting. M.

To: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/23/2001 1:50:27 PM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Ted, I thought your post was a very interesting 'contrarian' view to AMD's present course. Some of the arguments on the opposite side seem rather compelling to me (e.g., it's hard to get decent infrastructure support without market share, which generates interest in producing supportive products). But I'd like to encourage you to continue posting your views on this. Thanks. Jamok

To: tejek who wrote (48659)	7/23/2001 3:02:07 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 275872

Ted, Good post. Taking the long view, it's going to always be hard for AMD to eek out shareholder profits with it's prices 20%-25% below Intel's. If they price the product just below Intel equivalent part, the company would be stronger. It's hard to build a long term value added strategy, and a premium brand name, with that type of profit disparity v. your competition. Imagine you owned a business and had to cut your competitor's price by 25%, it wouldn't make you feel too comfortable. Short term it might cause a market share dip. Long term AMD could build a brand the old fashioned way, with quality product alternatives, decent marketing investments, and fair prices. John