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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: semiconeng who wrote (156863)	1/25/2002 2:03:41 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

Semi, I would not read too much into AA's auditing of AMD's performance results. All they did was make sure AMD didn't fake the results. It's not like they needed AA, given the plethora of enthusiast web sites out there that can keep AMD accountable. But AMD tried to use the token auditing to sell their "QuantiSpeed" marketing strategy to the average buyer. Now that AA is embroiled in the Shredron scandal (which has now led to at least one suicide, unfortunately), AMD would be wise to remove references to AA from their literature. Tenchusatsu

To: semiconeng who wrote (156863)	1/25/2002 2:15:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

--It sound like you're trying to make the excuse that AA didn't know what they were doing when they verified AMD's numbers, because they're not in the semiconductor business. No. I'm making the point that the most your argument might lead to is that AA's approval of the data is useless. But if AA's approval is useless that doesn't mean the data is false or useless. I brought up the analogy about me checking your work to show an example where the fact that my checks on your work are close to useless doesn't mean that your work is useless or that you are lying about it. Even if AA is universally dishonest that doesn't mean the dishonesty is contagious and that every one who has had a contract with them (for example AMD) is dishonest. And is "Looking The Other Way" a good credibility rating for an Accounting Firm? No but we are talking about AMD's numbers for its chips not AA. If you discovered that a firm that YOUR Company was using, was "Looking The Other Way" on another client, that covered up impending failure, that eventually resulted in Government hearings, wouldn't you want the work they did for you to be reverified? I'de want to take that precaution..... You wouldn't? For corporate accounting sure. For performance figures whose main conclusions have been verified by other sources, and will soon become obsolete (as chips advance data on the old chips becomes less important, I don't see many battles here anymore about which is faster a 600mhz Athlon or a 600mhz P3) , and are used just for marketing purposes then there isn't a huge need to have them reverified. I would have all new verifications (as chips and the software they run change) done by a different firm if I wanted to continue having them "verified" by an accounting/consulting firm. - And also, AA's Lawyers also don't seem to be too honest: Probably true, but probably not very relevant. --So, can I assume that you are rejecting my proposal?? I'm not in position to accept or reject it. If I thought the issue was more important I might support it. If AMD wants to continue with this verification as part of their marketing scheme then whether or not the old data is reverified all new data should be verified by another company. Tim