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: niceguy767 who wrote (221880)	1/1/2007 11:04:49 AM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Further to previous post, it's most interesting to note that INTC's gross profit was 8 x AMD's in Dec/05 and to 6 x AMD's gross profit in Q3/06. (It's amazing how much GP INTC has sacrificed the past year in its unsuccessful attempt at stem its own eroding CPU Revshare...For example it cost INTC $2B in GP to knock down AMD's GP by $170M.) N.B. It appears that INTC has lost its monopolistic powers (i.e. INTC's GP takes a larger percentage hit than AMD's in INTC's failed attempt at stemming its own CPU Revshare losses.)

To: niceguy767 who wrote (221880)	1/1/2007 8:20:57 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Implied volatility is a function of the average short term view of the price of the underlying shares by current buyers and sellers. Not true - any such views are reflected only in the current stock price and have no bearing at all on the current implied volatility. The "implied volatility" reflects purely the market's prediction of the volatility of the stock going forwards - it is agnostic about whether the movement will be upwards or downwards. This is surprising, but that is partly why Merton and Scholes won a Nobel Prize for their derivation of the formula (Black would have too had he lived long enough to be eligible). Really there is an implied volatility (iv) surface rather than a single number because different strikes and contract lengths typically have different iv's. The reason for this is that Black-Scholes makes an over-simplification about how stocks move - it assumes a lognormal distribution, whereas the actual distribution of returns has much fatter tails. Thus you will almost always see a higher IV for a short-term out-of-the-money option than for a long-term at-the-money one, to reflect the larger chance of a short-term jump than is assumed by the lognormal distribution. Hence the so-called "smirk" or "smile" in the IV surface. Peter