from schwab net after taxes for '03 - '06:

(274)
91
165
(166)
--------
(184)

when added to 186.6 even double counting the first two q's of 03 and not doing the math for sell offs, acqs or charges it comes to a grand total of (drum roll please)

BUPKIS! NADA! ZILCH! ZIPPO!

a big fat ZERO profit to show for 36 freakin years!

i wonder how much "other people's money" was burned in the process?

gb

wanna

thanks for the links.

fwiw, i learned karras negotiating class the first rule is always do calculations in real dollars rather than dollars per anything.

unless of course you're trying to sell something!

i'll do some calculating and see what comes out.

tnx

gb

any ideas on where i could get historical p/l info on amd dating back to their start? i checked schwab and they only go back to '98. amd website only goes back to 2000.

i'd like to add up their total profit/loss since beginning.

just for fun...

gb

gb

I'm sure if it happens it will be accompanied by a proclamation that joining some other process development consortium was the grand plan all along.

and the in(tc)fidels are dying at the gates...

gb

AMD expects the migration to take between 2-3 years.

What does that mean...?

Sounds like their website is inconsistent with their latest executive pronoucements.

I think the IBM process development has taken them about as far as it can go. IIRC, they tapped out with the Mot process activity (where they obtained copper) after a couple of years before teaming with IBM.

Along with a likely reduction in Capex this year I expect a long confusing stream of doublespeak about "clever" process development strategies will emerge from AMD. All of which will be eagerly sopped up and parrotted back by the usual AMD enthusiast suspects.

Not clear however is what the market will think about it. They might "love" the capex reduction in the short term but anyone who thinks beyond the current quarter would have to have serious concerns about AMD's viability as they trail further behind on process.

If the IBM BOD pulls the plug on process development later this year then it's going to get very interesting.

gb

It will be interesting to see how long it will take Dell to back down and start offering vPro.

I'm guessing before year end.

gb

if amd doubles the float they only net 1.66B

analysis here:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=23373609

gb

Intel Parallel Programming series:

https://event.on24.com/event/36/88/3/rt/1/index.html?&eventid=36883&sessionid=1&key=D76A2FD29D7444AEC06765011A2D4953&sourcepage=register

gb

sounds like 65nm on conroe, et. al., is doing *very* well and they are trying to ensure they sellout that capacity as well as ensuring they keep the top end refreshed with something that maintains clear leadership.

gb

So if you know for certain that AMD will have to do a dilutive stock offering (say you are a hedge fund holding AMD paper...) you could withold your "renotiation" vote while shorting AMD.

The terms of the note ensure that you get a nice payback on the paper and you make out on the short as well.

It will be interesting to see if the short interest on AMD starts to take off.

gb

I wonder if MS is still holding the majority of the AMD October paper or if they've laid it off?

If it's already laid off then it might be hard for AMD to get a sufficient number of the holders to renegotiate the October '06 Note if they want to avoid asset sales or a dilutive stock offering at these levels.

I'd find it unlikely that MS would want to risk holding AMD paper in the current environment but would have likely bundled it up somehow and sold it off as some sort of CDO.

A sale/leaseback of properties appears to be a nogo per the October Note agreement as far as raising cash.

gb

Also the Saxony loans have a $1B cash position clause in them. Failure to sustain $1B cash position or B credit ratings triggers additional (confusing to me...) requirements.

gb

While reading the 10K it appears that AMD wouldn't really improve their cash position by another debt offering due to the clause in the October Term Loan:

"Additionally, under the terms of the October 2006 Term Loan, we must prepay the October 2006 Term Loan with: (i) 100 percent of the net cash proceeds from any debt incurred by us or a restricted subsidiary; (ii) 50 percent of net cash proceeds from the issuance of any capital stock by us (subject to specified exceptions); "

So they get zippo, nada, zilch cash if they try to raise it through additional debt offering and only 50% of the proceeds of any stock offering.

Reading further in the same paragraph:

(iv) 100 percent of net cash proceeds from asset sales outside of the ordinary course of business in excess of $30 million, subject to a reinvestment allowance;

Looks like a stock offering might be their only choice for raising cash this year, hence the recent proposal to raise the limits on shares outstanding.

gb

they don't have debt ratings by class there.

i did find a moody's rating of ba3 as of oct 11, 06.

gb

Anyone have links to AMD debt ratings including classes and amounts outstanding?

tia

gb

i don't think amd has a "right" to be in business. it is up to them to survey the opportunities and take advantage of them as best they can within the law.

the fact that they have not been able to do so profitably over many years does not constitute a basis for legal remedy.

it says much more about their lack of execution of a realistic business plan.

gb

they keep referring to their capacity as if everyone were buying athlon single core cpus and they were pumping out 65nm like jelly beans.

complete bs.

gb

it will be really interesting to see which analyst is the first to publicly point out the amount of ati goodwill in the amd "book value".

imo, that will really be the first indication that the analysts have thrown in the towel on amd.

maybe we should get a contest going for that. probably more fun than the amd eps contest.

gb

there is one aspect of tick-tock and pricing that will be very troubling to amd if they can't maintain that pace.

intel will be introducing new processes and architectures on a regular, predictable schedule within a pretty defined band of prices. things only a year old will get pushed down not just a price slot or two but into the next lower brand.

that's going to seem pretty daunting for a competitor and pretty wonderful for consumers.

gb

i think amd is trying to hold onto sockets. oems can't afford to maintain an infinite variety of skus even if they don't build their own motherboards.

with intel continuing to fill out their product line it no doubt is causing the oems to consider reducing the number of amd based skus.

gb

UMPC = Ultra Mobile PC

gb

ROFLMAO!!!

gb

Although I had heard of Mooley while I was at Intel I never had the chance to meet him. I thoroughly enjoyed his talk, he is a very confident speaker and has a good sense of humor.

His accent is quite thick and the mike didn't help but years of listening to Grove (Hungarian) and other accented speakers while at Intel has gotten my internal decoder tuned up.

The multiple laptop per home scenario was quite interesting as volume stimulus in developed markets. And I can personally vouch for the replacement cycle shortening when laptops are involved.

It sounds like there will be more than one 45nm product released in '07!!

gb

zackly!

gb

giving away 90nm parts to retain a presence in the market doesn't seem to be a viable strategy. the 65nm boondoggle with ibm isn't panning out. remember 65nm is the point at which ibm and amd maintained that they would be "fully aligned."

they won't get fab30 converted to fab38 until late in '08 and that is "if" they get sufficient funding to maintain their capex plans.

they are way behind on conversion to dualcore which will drive up their die size when they finally get there reducing their effective capacity.

lastly they will attempt to produce a very large die quadcore on the same process they're struggling to produce a meaningful amount of dual core on.

and there's no credible 45nm plan.

that's what i mean when i say they need a change of biz model.

gb

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/tech07/id08202152.cfm


Stacy Smith.

gb

I'm not sure demand per se is the problem. The problem is that AMD managed to create additional capacity and Intel hasn't backed off their historical capacity growth rate.

So the problem is a capacity fight. If you listen to one of the latest conference calls (server group) you'll hear Intel's response to this: all capacity is not equal.

They've completed the 65nm ramp and are now starting the 45nm ramp this year. They're not backing off.

The obvious implication is that AMD will have to cut their lagging technology capacity since Intel has no plans to cut their advanced technology capacity.

Listen to the call, it's quite revealing...

gb

i can't imagine where such guidance would be justified unless it was based on lowered costs due to 65nm...which appears to be largely still mia.

if they miss any aspect of guidance again i think the analysts would be quite upset. of course any miss will be blamed on big, bad intel and be accompanied by another impassioned oratory.

more interestingly, i wonder if they'll try for a round of financing before or after the april cc? time is drawing short with only a month to go but talking about financing would divert attention from unpleasant q1 results and let them talk about a more rosy future.

i still think that another round of financing can't be based on a continuation of the current business model. if i was a potential deep pocket i'd want to see some material changes.

gb

Just trying to figure out how AMD will try to weasel out of what is becoming to me increasingly obvious: that they will need to significantly change their business plan along with a level of external investment that is tantamount to a buyout.

gb

uuuhhh

actually i don't think anyone over there actually owns any stock of amd. they're all just cheerleaders that hate intel.

sorta sad...i stopped reading that list.

gb

duke

i wonder if amd will try to weasel out of this one based on some monopoly arguement.

gb

that may have been true in the past but i think not this time around.

gb

that had to be pgerassi...

gb

what is holding up amd price is that the majority of those who own it aren't selling. if it correct that 70%+ of the ownership is institutional then i'm guessing that right after amd's gloomy q1 conf call the institutions will begin significantly lowering their position.

the problem will be of course that since they own so much of the outstanding there will be few buyers for it until it goes into single digits.

i don't think the institutions will wait until their positions are diluted by an expensive round of financing.

gb

that was the ugliest conf call i've ever listened to. i have never before heard analysts saying things like "yeah, right..." with their mikes still live. i'm sure they've said it before but never as obviously.

i think the analysts were justifiably angry that they got conned in december. i don't remember if amd set any such "happy" expectations in the january call to get called on in april.

it will be interesting to hear if the analysts still carrying a grudge at the april call. i wouldn't doubt it.

gb

There was an article in the WSJ on Wednesday about PIKs. I suspect AMD will have this in their next round of financing.

Basically it's a bond proviso which allows suspension of interest payments in return for a higher rate of interest at a later date.

No way AMD would miss out on this gimmick given their cash flow prospects.

gb

pretty much covers it!

gb

someone posted that the cross license can be cancelled for insolvency.

if there is a takeover clause as you're suggesting then amd's "true" book value is just real estate and equipment at a discount. pretty much a poison pill.

gb

skaugen mentioned a new hpc/workstation chipset as well as the bus increase. asked if it replaced blackford, he said no, it was in addition. it also has a improved snoop filter over blackford.

they're leaving no stone unturned.

gb