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: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66447)	12/27/2001 10:17:50 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

tejek You wrote due to INTC's well documented, ongoing problems with getting product out the door.... You and pgerassi need to huddle up - he thinks Intel can't sell the Pentium 4's they make and you claim Intel can't make the Pentium 4's that their customers want to buy. One of you must be wrong. I don't have to huddle with anyone. Samsung isn't talking to AMD because it has too many P4's in its channels. There has been talk since Intel began to ramp the P4 that it has been plagued with production problems beyond the norm. Here it is, 12/01, and there are still shortages. All that money that Intel is not making. And__BTW don't you think its time for Barrett to go? Go where? Intel has been profitable evey quarter since Barrett has been running the company. Its true that Intel has been profitable but much of that profit has not come from its core businesses. Further, a lot of profits and revenues have been lost due to Intel's screwups over the past 4 years. Just because the dinner is somewhat edible, do you keep the chef in place, or do you look for a better chef? Maybe you can tell me how well Jerry Sanders has done with profits over the same time frame? Thanks to Intel and Barrett, AMD's and Sander's profit record has improved immensely. Just 4 short years ago, the bells were tolling for AMD; AMD was supposed to be on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead, AMD has gained more ground in the last 4 years than it has in 20. That's why you all spend so much time over on this thread. Don't you think it's time for Sanders to leave? Then again, only four months for him to leave - no? Sanders isn't like Barrett......an employee. He leaves when he wants to leave. You need to ask him. So much for diverting the real question here...when is Intel's board going to grow some cäjones and make some mgmt changes? ted

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66447)	12/28/2001 2:15:33 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Monica: The only difference is that you ignore the obvious using different viewpoints. A P4 that cannot be sold means that it is not saleable given the market. Thus, it is one that the customers do not want at the price set by Intel. Now what typically happens is that the price drops until Intel can sell it. But all of the CPUs in that bin are lowered. So perhaps the prices Intel set are those that maximize the profits for each or promulgates some other policy. If the former, those higher bin parts in shortage should rise in price to shrink demand until they match. Since this is not what is happening, the policy can not be maximizing the profits. Thus, the policy is to deny AMD a higher price for its parts. Thus AMD gains in market share at the limit of their production and reduces, as much as possible, down binning. So the result is that AMD is short in the lower speed bins. Just what is occurring! So either way you look at it, Intel has a shortage and is not making enough money and they cannot price NWs any higher or AMD will be profitable. And with the situation as it is, AMD gains market share by leaps and bounds. Q1 will be better for AMD than the analysts think. Either their ASPs rise or their units or the best of both worlds, both happen. If Intel continues this policy, all NW does is hurry it along (make AMD profitable in Q1 as well as Q2). Pete