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.
smooth
Look for India to be next.
That's what i expect as well. Et cetera.
I don't think this will affect AMDs chipset biz much. Nvidia, via, Sis - chipsets will suffer, probably to the point they will loose any viable niche for chipsets down the road. Besides, Hector is in the U.S. administration's foreign trade advisory board, so today's announcement ist certainly not news for him. Nevertheless his statement on the move will be interesting, if he makes one.
K.
On a sidenote, thinking this dam-break ahead a decade, the impact on global economy is probably not significant. China has domestic demand for the output of a dozen such fabs, and India as well. Thinking it a generation ahead, the current move could well be considered as opening a Pandora's box by our children.
elmer
MK has the line of arguments wrt regulations:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39286459,00.htm
Two questions remain open for now:
1. Which fab will be moved to Dalian?
2. What die China throw in this deal beyond money?
We will learn about the former question soon, i guess, probably with an announcement of a 32nm fab at this site. The latter might become visible over time.
Anyway, i look at it as a dam-break with significant impact for Intel: It can maintain its manufacturing model and grow into lower-key silicon-markets, increasing walletshare.
I'd expect it to make best use of this by integrating its business-model thisrespectively. Probably goes the way the automotive business works nowaday, moving from supplying components to systems.
Bad news for Asian foundries. These will feel margin pressure next decade from Intels China and India-fabs.
K.
willco
Is anything less than state-of-the-art feasible?
Feasible, yes. Basically by moving used toolsets and maybe facilities of an existing fab.
However, your are correct. The most modern used equipment allowed to ship to Red China currently has been .18 micron 200mm tools. (From TSMC).
Any 200mm/130nm tooling by 2010 could probably get approval. Gossip has 300mm/90nm with a chipset-process by 2010. Sounds like a stretch to me, although not completely impossible (i.e. depending what China throws in this deal politically).
K.
wbmw
I'd love to see the mathematical answer to this. It has been bugging me for a long time now....
Basically it's easy math: Capital increases (called Senior Notes, Convertible Bonds e.g.), subsidies... Here a billion, there a billion... adds up to real money, as the saying goes. :)
K.
Keith
While the Commission's rules generally do not require the disclosure of most short sales or short security positions, which would not make much sense as the Commission' rules are just as useful as its power to enforce reaches, rules of self-regulatory organizations require their members to report once a month aggregate short positions in exchange-listed and Nasdaq securities to all customer (including hedge fund customers) and proprietary accounts. This information is publicly available.
I see. Everbody deliberately takes membership in an organization and complies to let down his pants publicly once a month to show how much everybody has.
Now, that clears it up, i guess. Many thanks.
K.
Alan
Many thanks.
How about just trying to falsify the claim
"Hedgefund do not disclose their positions." ?
Once you agree in it, it is pretty hard to hold the fort of "Nothing is invisible".
K.
Keith
The data is reported by Broker Dealers.
Interesting. How do these "Broker Dealers" know which of the shares traded are borrowed? Should i think of a coulormark on these?
"Think offshore" is not a useful reply for me.
I see. Is "Hedgefunds do not disclose their positions" helpful?
i>please give a concrete, useful example and a link supporting your theory.
You ask me to make visible what i claim is invisible. Resolving contradictions in terms is beyond my little talents.
K.
Keith
what makes you think that banks don´t have to report their short positions just like everyone else?
Think offshore. Btw it's lenders of shares obliged to file, not borrowers.
K.
Keith
I´m suprised it isn´t much higher.
It could well be a multifold of the figure you see, interbanking transactions are invisible to NYSE. What you see there could easily be just me-too-player's transactions.
K.
Mike
DRAM segment continues to plunge, product tags drop 44%
Posted : 21 Mar 2007
Prices for DRAMs continue to plummet, as the tags for mainstream devices have fallen by 44 percent since the beginning of 2007, according to a report from Gartner Inc.
Average DRAM spot prices across all densities were down 6.5 percent for the seven-day period ended March 16, compared to the previous period, according to Gartner. Average spot prices stood at $3.67 on a 512Mbit basis for the period, down 39 percent since the beginning of 2007, according to the firm.
Prices for mainstream 512Mbit DDR2-based chips are down 44 percent since the beginning of this year. ''Ample supply in the market and little fear of a tightening of supply gave the overall market a negative outlook,'' said Andrew Norwood, an analyst with Gartner.
At the beginning of February, the DRAM market crashed, as ASPs had already fallen by 30 percent since the beginning of this year. DRAM ASPs were projected to fall by 30 percent for the entire year.
At that time, vendors insisted that the DRAM free-fall was temporary, claiming that a rebound is due in Q2 2007, thanks in part to Microsoft's Vista OS software.
In general, the memory market is lousy. The NAND flash market is also "brutal," according to Intel Corp. Some believe the ASPs on NAND chips will decline 65 percent this year.
- Mark LaPedus
EE Times
http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800457492_499486_4174f1d2200703.HTM(sub)
By building a nice mousetrap with help from DELL, opening a door for Intel into the channel biz in Q4. But then, not the one building the trap is to blame but the one tapping in it.
K.
Tenchu
See post to chipguy. I had a glitch in memory. However, all it needs to remember is Intel did not dominate X86-silicon out of the starting-blocks.
K.
Chipquy
You are correct on Compaq. Thanks for setting it straight.
Your are not wrt IBM: Back in the eighties Intel-based systems were considered as "IBM-compatibles" or "clones".
K.
Tenchu
The key word is "historical" Yes.
which rules out revenue share No.
After all, since when did "Anything But Intel" EVER command a 28% revenue share? A while back, in the times Compaq, IBM and Cyrix made CPU besides AMD.
K.
Is it the thorazine talking or simply a total lack of inihibition against sharing personal fantasies with strangers? Beats me. You might ask Paul whether omission of units in his share -statement should be considered as Freudian slip. You won't get the answer direct probably, since I can't remember him having been vocal on personal visions differing from Intels position in the public by intent. But you might see the statement show up without the omission.
K.
well its only business.
Sure is. Pauls expectation of conceding 28% marketshare to AMD seems reasonable. Btw he did not say this this would be unitshare.
K.
Kate
I'm not optimistic about intel or amd.
It all comes down to it depends on what you are focusing. I am optimistic for either company and almost all of its stakeholders: Management, employees, suppliers, customers, to name some. Just not for its stockholders, in the scope of couple years to come.
K.
Kate
Lehman said it now expects AMD to lose 19 cents per share in 2007 overall
Still pretty optimistic in my book for this side of the house, but then, Tim does not say how much dilution is factored in his number, in so far it is certainly not out of reach. (I guess JoAnne has it right in this respect).
Otoh, i consider 07 eps-consensus for the other side optimistic as well.
K.
Kate
Talking about eyesight, while i agree there is lots of room for trouble on the investment side of the house´on either side, looking at the industry beyond a myopic focus on stockprice it looks not worrysome at all for me - on opposite. It looks healthy and beneficial.
K.
Elmer
On behalf of Alan, thanks for connecting the nodes of utilization and inventory to answer the question who has inventory issues.
K.
Kate
While eyesight is weakening, i still have ears even good enough for Texan language.
Have a nice Sunday.
K.
alan
Who is it that has an inventory problem here?
I heard Andy mumbling about underutilization charges. Is this helpful to answer your question?
K.
Hi Matt,
just to say i'm happy with extended on-site search-capability by year.
Many thanks.
Klaus
wmbw
While i believe i am entitled to point out factual errors, who am i to argue - let alone judge - your perceptions?
K.
OT Tenchu
Your last post is evidence you don't care about common opinions for stating your own.
Btw, i learned in asia about the paradigm to let people mischief without acting on it except carefully observing. Needless to say, i am far from being capable of living this paradigm consequently - but i find it very useful when i can.
K.
OT Tenchu
Many thanks for seconding - appreciated.
K.
wmbw
Like claiming that Barcelona will win 40% over Intel across the benchmarks
You apparently confuse me with somebody else. I never did nor will make such a claim.
K.
Kate
I'm sure Intel thought going forward it was a slam dunk with P4
Craig and everybody involved in the decision knew exactly what they did when they decided to go netburst. Not everybody was exactly happy about it, the decision came at a price of human capital, a pawn sacrifice in chess-terms. However, Netburst was clearly the strategy to make most money, and this is what Intel is in the market for. Besides, they had a mobile-arch to fall back to if anything goes wrong, insofar it was sort of a no-brainer in a humble understanding - although not necessarily for more more subtly organized minds.
I believe you are right folks were indeed caught by surprise by really nasty issues in 90nm, but this happened many years later and purely speculation, i.e. not backed up by sources.
how do you get your AMD info? Many sources - including those inside intel. :)
K.
Kate
witness P4
Exemplar on capabilities of looking ahead couple years. My assessments of netburst back in 2003 are on the record of this system. * Needless to say, i got flamed for it back then in a similiar way as experienced yesterday.
Btw, i am not looking a decade ahead with what i said. The next decade is just three years away. Not much room for disruptive change within this timeframe from an industry perspective. Insofar, technological visibility in the scope of my posting is good.
K.
* Kudos to Dave and whoever was involved in improving this site's search capabilities by year.
smooth
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?
Please see my previous post to alan for elaborations why i duck this one. Hope for your understanding in this respect.
K.
or is it something else?
Near-term-impacts come from these aspects, e.g.:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=23260211
Not to claim there is anything revolutionary in there - but it should be enough to be competitive for the rest of this decade.
Longerterm aspects of the arch are visionary and as such beyond the scope of this forum, as unmistakably expressed. I will respect this.
Just for the record: Those remembering my previous comments on Barcelona (recorded on-site) are aware my attitude towards the architecture is not exactly a "love at first sight" - affair. However, i consider these remarks as premature now. I saw trees back then - but not the forest they make.
K.
elmer
I would not know a better way to confirm what i said. Good luck with it.
K.
spaarky
Weeeeell. You know how that is with visions: You never know you got it right before you see them materialize. The other way round is not better: Even if you have the right visions, you never know whether the chaps can pull it or not. Actually, things are even worse in this industry. Say your visions are at least halfway right, and the chaps pull it off. You invest accordingly - and get badly burned or even screwed only because it takes two years longer than you thought. That's why Warren and others stay away from technology-investments in general and semis in particular.
K.
elmer
I think you belong back on SI.
While i think the posting you have been banned permanently from the thread would not justify the measure per se, the tone and attitude of some or your posting do well justify it. In particular those with no other aim than invalidating people posting content beyond your understanding are disturbing.
K.
spaarky
I am talking about visions of an architecture not visible at first glance.
K.
the real deal might not be until we compare Barcelona to Nehalem?
Absolutely. With its platforms.
K.
elmer
I think your confidence in Barcelona is faith based, nothing more. Maybe. What I expect won't happen this year. It will have first impact next year, but most impact will be in the next decade.
K.
elmer
I don't see any way out from here for AMD.
Well i believe you are confused who is attacking and who is defending at this point.
AMD's designs are becoming uninspiring and they slip every single schedule they make.
I understand that. My own relation to Barcelona is far from love at first sight. It takes time to understand. Yes for what you call slips. It takes longer than most expect, because it is on a schedule few understand, or better put it the design is aimed at a horizon few are able to think. Many things not yet discussed appropriately on the boards. Will take a year or so until it will be widely understood, i guess.
It's just no fun kicking people when they're down and I mean that sincerely. I believe you feel this.
It would be much more fun if AMD were more competitive.
Careful what you wish for. :) Guess there is more fun in Barcelona than you want.
K.
elmer
Well if you are ready for enshrinement, I'd be the very last to contradict. :)
Hope there is a terminal in your shrine, in case you care to share something.
K.