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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (53092)	3/21/1999 4:06:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583503

Re: "Not surprisingly you make no mention of profits, but you don't need to now do you? Profits would only matter to shareholders. As long as AMD can hurt Intel the business plan is working." It's pretty clear that your gripe comes from the fact that AMD IS hurting Intel. AMD didn't hurt Intel with the K5. AMD didn't make any profits. AMD did hurt Intel with the K6. AMD didn't make any profits. Will AMD fill in the rest of the pattern with the K7? I don't care about the last 15 years of AMD's chart. That's ancient history. And as most of us are aware, the value of a company isn't based on history--it's based on expectations of future profits. That's why these internet stocks have huge valuations even though they run in the red--it's not exactly an uncommon phenomenon. I can't figure out why so many people take AMD so personally. It's just a company. Just a stock. Re: "However if this company beloned to the shareholders, the sign of a successful CEO would be one who makes decisions based on enhancing shareholder value." I don't believe that you've made any kind of convincing argument that AMD would have been better off if the CPU business had been dropped. As I pointed out earlier, the market doesn't reward low growth, low margin, commodity businesses with high valuations. Kevin

To: Elmer who wrote (53092)	3/21/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583503

Elmer - Re: " Jerry should be more forthright. Instead of saying "We're Baaaaaack", and "the yield problems have been fixed" (how many times now?) and "profits are coming", he should have been straight forward and said "we're in the toilet and we're going deeper. Yields suck, we're just about out a money and I need a new Limo. That's why we're laying off 100's of you suckers and about to restructure. I gotta keep this ponzi scheme afloat long enough to do another public offering so find me a K7 we can keep running for a few minutes and do some kind of a demo. That'll keep those dummies happy till I can think up some excuse why it's gonna be delayed." I am shocked and dismayed at you. How dare you bug Sanders' office and post his private comments on this public forum. Paul