Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sounds to me like brewing different batches of the same award winning beer
http://www.wyeastlab.com/he-brew-qc.cfm
Re [Hector] should go to prison.
And there is a very high probability he will do just that. Most likely he is plea bargaining with the Feds and offering other AMD members of the GloFlo deal team who didn't deliver award winning tapes for the Feds.
Lets return to basics so perhaps you can understand. Your calculation is total utter bullsh*t.
Outstanding shares have no relationship to bonuses paid to employees. You have not shown such a relationship and none exists.
Ma and Pa Kettle make more sense than you do:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/ED4A5EF0-41E5-4DE6-8E2C-152DC8633B97/
The number of shares outstanding is affected by several things but bonus money is not one of those things.
A major factor in the variation of outstanding shares is the movement of vested stock options into or out of the money. Vested stock option shares are counted as outstanding shares if they are in the money or not if they are out of the money.
When in the money shares are exercised they permanently become outstanding shares. Intel receives the strike price for the option shares -- option shares are not delivered for free -- and the funds are entered as increased capital.
Perhaps you are suggesting that stock options are a bonus even though this characterization is not accurate. If you want to misuse the term "bonus" to include the value of stock options your calculation has no relation to the value of a stock option.
The GAAP standard requires companies to expense options using a Black Scholes calculation. Other calculation methods exist but your calculation using stock buyback and outstanding shares is totally off the mark.
You are very confused. Share buyback $$ do not equal bonus $$.
duplicate - delete
something that may or may not amount to anything.
Of course there is the little matter of those wiretap recordings where Hector is dishing inside information on the GloFo deal. Who could have ever imagined that a hedge fund manager would trade on that inside information.
Evidence note: It is very hard to deny something when the DOJ has a wiretap recording with your voice on it catching you in an act of criminal mischief.
Hector is very busy right now plea bargaining and trying to offer up fellow AMD employees who had the good fortune of not starring in the wiretap recordings.
Drink the Kool aid... Eat the pudding...
Truth hurts... just like those AMD losses hurt when the red ink is placed on the AMD accounts where they belong instead of AbuDub Foundry.
FTC to regulate bloggers' reviews
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ap-ftc-blogging-oct5,0,3587325.story
The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.
The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take.
Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned.
AMD found the secret phase 2 of the underpants gnomes.
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: Use underpants as collateral for multibillion dollar loan.
Phase 3: Profit
h/t Atrios
A classic definition of bankruptcy is the inability to pay bills as they come due.
A negative net worth does not necessarily define a bankrupt condition. Negative net worth does describe a serious financial condition know as deep sh*t
Of course there is an inconsistency but it is not surprising that an AMD expert -- i.e. paid whore - finds that undisclosed
documents he reviewed "would send chills up your spine".
Hector probably would say the say the same thing without having reviewed the documents
I have heard nothing about why Gelsinger is leaving. It does look like he landed at a good opportunity.
The Bruce Sewell departure to "pursue other opportunities" really surprised me. There has to be a story there. It's time to do some networking
I think you have the right call on Sean Maloney as the next CEO. There have been lots of forecasting from good sources that Maloney will be the next CEO.
As for the Phenom II, AMD might as well nickname the Core i5-750, the "Coffin Nailer."
h/t Paul Engel
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_lynnfield_core_i5_i7_processors/6
AIG also looked fundamentally sound with its AAA rating.
Its what you get when the regulators don't want to regulate. That and Bernie Madoff.
It's called fraud...
The redacted EU decision will contain little if any evidence and instead you will see lots of unsubstantiated conclusions by the Commission. You will alsto see some inflammatory accusations about derived from unsupported hearsay.
Probably, a lot of the allegations will have come directly from AMD without any first hand evidence to support the charge. A lot of the accusations will come in the form presented by Dan3 who reported that Opteron boards were unavailable because of Intel threats to ASUS. Dan's "evidence" was that his OEM said that ASUS said that Intel said no Opteron boards so ASUS stopped board production.
I am not making this up. Danny boy based his conclusion of Intel interference on precisely this chain of "evidence".
I guess a link would help
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7823_8721%5E7827,00.html
"It took ten years to fully recognize the benefits of the move from 16-bit computing to 32-bit computing, with the introduction of Windows 95," said Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst for research firm Insight 64. This migration to 64 bits probably won't take as long"
One interesting item is that Nathan Brookwood is listed as an AMD expert. He is often interviewed as an "independent" industry analyst by the media around earnings time and when reviewing market share.
It always seemed that Brookwood's analysis has always had an AMD friendly tilt. Now we can understand why. Brookwood understands the smell of "paycheck".
Here is some of his work from 2002 when he was touting the wonderfulness of 64 bits in the PC world. Almost 10 years later and there still is little utility for 64 bits in the PC world.
ChipGuy and all
I really don't have a particular need for an i7 system given my low power usage profile and will not upgrade until later. Probably my upgrade will involve an i5 dual core that will have more than enough power for my needs.
Of course, I don't have a practical need for the 620 HP Corvette ZR1 I saw at the Chevy dealer but I still have a strong urge to have one in my garage. I need to start wearing blinders when I drop my Silverado diesel off for service at the dealer.
I received an email from MicroCenter with a sale for a Dell i7 930 system at $999 and another at $799. The $799 version looks very tempting to me.
http://www.microcenter.com/storefronts/dell/index.html?BrCs=498&BrCg=16185012&BrRc=1101166647
Dell XPS 435 $999
# Intel® Core(tm) i7 Quad Processor 920
# 6GB DDR3-1066 RAM
# 1TB Hard Drive
# DVDRW Drive
# ATI Radeon HD4850
# 10/100/1000 Network
# Microsoft Windows Vista Premium (64-bit)
# Display Not Included
Dell XPS 435T $799
# Intel® Core(tm) i7 Quad Processor 920
# 6GB DDR3-1066 RAM
# 640GB 7,200RPM Hard Drive
# DVDRW Drive
# ATI Radeon HD 4670
# 10/100/1000 Network
# Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
# Display Not Included
Yes, the finding of abuse of dominant position ruling is also challenged in the appeal as wrong on the evidence. It seems that the Human Rights violation attacks the procedure for a ruling that has such large impact that it becomes a criminal charge.
The more that the 'Droids claim that the Commission shows Intel is a criminal the better the Human Rights violation claim. So travel on over to "Droid central and egg them on
Yes, the finding of abuse of dominant position ruling is also challenged in the appeal. It seems that the Human Rights violation attacks the procedure for a ruling that has such large impact that it becomes a criminal charge.
Intel appealed the ruling where the Commission denied access to AMD documents for its defense after the Media Mart charge was added to the case. The appeal court denied relief on the ground that Intel might succeed without the documents so it was too early for an appeal. The Court also said that Intel could also later claim a Human Rights violation if it believed that it suffered harm.
The claim seemed weird to me but it seems that Intel accepted the appellate Court's offer.
Intel will probably expense the entire 1 billion Euro amount in Q2. Once an amount in litigation becomes "certain", i.e. the number is known, my understanding is that GAAP requires establishing a reserve even if there is an appeal pending. Setting aside a reserve will require an expense.
In this case, a payment will be made to an escrow account instead of setting aside a reserve but that is even more reason for booking an expense. If some or all of the escrow is returned on appeal then that would be booked as income.
I think that everyone has already digested the EU fine as just a reduction of cash and will disregard the item as a one time event. The operating earnings will be evaluated proforma without the EU fine. The news of the EU decision had virtually no effect on stock price and nothing will change when you see the fine booked as an expense.
AMD is planning a new branding strategy with the EU flag plus processor designator a3xx, a5xx or a7xx.
Now that Intel must raise its prices this AMD innovation can now reach the consumer.
Re:Given that we have zero insight into the actual redaction process
You may have no insight into the redaction process but not everyone is so handicapped.
You have quite a talent for turning straight forward issues into a diversionary dispute. But that is the goal of many advocates who want to obstruct, confuse and delay.
The Commission should take a first cut at producing a redacted decision. Intel and the third parties are then offered the opportunity to submit comments on the first draft within a given time period. The Commission then reviews the comments and produces a final redacted decision.
Note that the Commission had no difficulty determining that certain AMD documents and third party documents contained "legitimate business information" that could be withheld from Intel even though the Commission used the "evidence" in its decision making and the objections presented to Intel. But when faced with the need to present. its decision to public review and analysis the Commission is suddenly quite shy.
The 500 page EC decision is awaiting redaction by Intel and also by third parties who may have little motivation to act promptly. It could be quite long time before a redacted decision is published.
The EC should carry the burden of redacting the decision. The clumsy process is another example of the unprofessional procedures at the Commission.
AMD should get up off its lazy ass and compete for all of the processor business -- not just the "contestable portion".
It still is not clear how the EC or AMD can determine the size of the "contestable portion" for a particular OEM. It seems that the formula uses a custom-built divining rod. First decide what answer you want and then work backwards to find the formula
delete
Re: "These concepts are well understood and not subject to debate."
Says the Queen of Hearts to the Mad Hatter...
Re: Where does the EUC get their estimate of Intel's cost?
The Commission got the Intel cost estimate with a dawn raid on the Trolls under the bridge.
You accidentally spoke the truth and identified the real problem for AMD -- Intel's incontrovertible popularity. AMD's own bumbling has resulted in an "incontrovertible popularity" for Intel's products. Customers prefer Intel. So the Euro Trade Commission SS interferes with market choice to rescue AMD from its well earned unpopularity and decrees that Intel must raise its prices to gift AMD with a larger quota of sales.
The core of the EC pursuit of Intel is the desire of the Trade Commissioner to regulate market share -- nothing more, nothing less. The rest is just a bunch of fluff and nonsense to disguise the regulation as modern "economic theory".
A really interesting problem for regulating Intel's market share will present itself about 2 years from now when AMD has run through the injection of capital from Abu Dhabi and goes Tango Uniform. Bye, bye "Efficient Competitor". Intel can comply with any restrictions the EC can impose and still AMD will continue to bleed cash because consumers don't want to purchase AMD's products at anything but fire sale prices.
Assume for the sake of argument that the Commission obtained an email that says Dell is required in an unwritten condition to purchase 95% of its processors from Intel or Dell will get beaten into guacamole by Intel. For fun, we can further assume that the email is from Dan3 who repeatedly makes these charges and has, at best, somewhat impaired credibility when it comes to all matters concerning Intel.
Michael Dell was deposed in the AMD antitrust case as shown in the docket of the Delaware Court. It is a pretty good assumption that Michael Dell was asked whether there were hidden conditions attached to the Intel discounts. Again, assume for the sake of argument that Dell testified under oath that there were no secret conditions attached to the written Intel discount agreement.
Who has greater credibility on the Intel discount structure, Michael Dell or some Intel hater who never saw the sales agreement or was present at any sales negotiations?
The Michael Dell deposition does exist and is available in the US as are depositions of executives from Acer, HP, Lenovo and NEC -- all companies identified by the Commission. All of these depositions and related documents are available to the European Commission upon request. And we cans safely assume that this evidence was included in the material that Intel asked the Commission to request from the US antitrust case and consider in its investigation.
However, the Commission refused to request the US evidence and would not consider the best possible evidence describing the Intel discounts. Very much a case of judgment first, trial later.
Given the desire of the Commission to ignore the testimony under oath of Dell, Acer, HP, Lenovo and NEC and rely solely on unspecified rumors from Intel haters, the conclusions of the Commission have almost no credibility. Neelie Kroes is simply seeking a "sponsor for the European taxpayer" and establishing a market share quota for AMD.
Then why rebates, triggered by marketshare etc., which were only delivered to OEMs months later?
An actual Intel rebate or discount schedule has never been publicly described: Not by the Commission, Not by AMD and certainly not by you.
So describe an actual discount schedule with product quantity or market share numbers, discount pricing numbers ($$ or per cent), product types, and discount schedule term (e.g. 1 month, 1 quarter, 1 year)
Also describe with numbers the size of the "limited part of a computer manufacturer's x86 CPU requirements is open to competition". This would define the market share that the EC thinks belongs to AMD. Intel can then structure its agreements so than Intel will refrain from suppling any of the AMD share to an OEM.
Why not just lower prices?
Lower Intel prices, namely discounts or rebates, are precisely what AMD and its advocate the European Commission are complaining about.
The Commission stated that third parties as well as Intel need to identify confidential information in the decision. It could take a long time for that to happen.
The burden should fall on the Commission to produce a redacted version of the decision.
Re: The EC's decision states that Intel's rebates coerced OEMs into buying processors from Intel that were, even with the rebate taken into account, more expensive than alternatives.
The concept of a lower price AMD processor as an alternative to a discounted Intel processor was not a statement in the EC decision but instead was a claim by Tom McCoy of AMD published in the WSJ IIRC. What was unstated by McCoy was that the lower price AMD processor was also a poorer performing processor from a lower price point.
If the AMD processor was indeed a full equivalent to the discounted Intel processor why did the OEM purchase the more costly Intel processor instead of the AMD processor? The answer is because the Intel processor was a better performing processor and had more value.
Both Intel and AMD have a stack of parts that are aimed at various price points. AMD is claiming that because an OEM can select a processor from a lower price point instead of an Intel processor at a higher price point, the Intel processor costs more and any discount produces "higher costs" for the OEM. This is a willfully false comparison.
Processors at different price points have different prices. This is true whether you compare one Intel processor from a given level with another lower price point Intel processor or make the comparison with a lower price point AMD processor.
At one time the EC had indicated approval of AMD's theory that the Intel discounts produced Intel sales below cost. The theory required that the entire discount be allocated to a few marginal processors to determine cost. In the end that below cost theory was so weak that it was totally abandoned by the EC.
So now AMD parades a new theory that you can always buy a low cost Athlon instead of a Core i7 Quad so the Intel prices are higher and Intel discounts hurt the consumer.