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.
Ritz,
AMD up 3%, Intel down 3%. Intel is already facing a host of anti-trust issues, the market seems to think that this is a lot more likely to blow up in Intel's face then put AMD out of business.
Well the market is never wrong, now is it? :)
Seriously, I doubt that there is a connection. Todays news is probably the main factor in buying and selling, but with such low volume, you can not argue that it has significance. Perhaps to AMD and its faithful, who have very little tangible reasons for being optimistic, this is another carrot that keeps them into the stock. For Intel, the stock movement is rather benign. It is interesting how this will play out and very important to both companies in the long run, but for now the market is just taking it in.
IMHO
mas,
How wise is it of Intel to go out of its way to antaganize Abu Dhabi ?
Antagonize? Perhaps Intel is doing them a favor by making sure AD knows exactly what they got themselves into with AMD.
Anyway, you know that AD $tand$ for "(A)ll the (D)ough" $o nothing rattle$ them. They just need to remedy the $ituation with Intel, that'$ all ;)
IMHO
mas,
re:
http://www.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Intel-pricing-model-seen-facing-EU-scrutiny/10309116982/0/
This is the same article that Elmer posted a few days ago. The main theme of the article is summarized in the following paragraph:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Intel Corp could face a hefty fine from EU regulators over charges it fiddled with retail channels to suppress competitors, but of more concern could be any fresh rules imposed by the EU.
Ever since the EU went after Intel, I do not recall articles that emphasized the imposing of rules to be the "greater" punishment as oposed to the maximium fine. I find this interesting and I am wondering if the EU is laying the groundwork for its decision. I think the EU will impose a minimal fine and impose some rules that will amount to a slap on the hand. In that case, the EU will look foolish, unless it can spread the word that the imposing of rules is the greater of the punishments. I think that is what this article is doing.
Ultimately, I think the way Intel reacts to the EU decision, whatever that is, will indicate how much sting it caries.
IMHO
The Duke of Url,
re: AMD call about Foundry Company
Congratulations on a great quarter
I bet they will also use the Intel/TSMC deal as an example of "our competitor is copying us yet again" to justify/endorse what AMD has done with the Foundry Company. Nothing changes.
IMHO
chipguy,
Smart strategy for Intel. Wrap itself in the flag and announce a huge investment in manufacturing in the U.S. These days such a move stands out prominently at the national level.
Given the protectionist inclination of the current congress the EU had better think twice about engaging in what could look like opportunistic special taxation or structural protectionism directed against Intel.
I agree. Continuing that line of thought, it looks like the US government is asking Intel for favors. I wonder if the US will do something for Intel in return? ;)
Obama lobbied Intel CEO on stimulus
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-lobbied-Intel-CEO-on-apf-14312654.html
IMHO
mas,
and maybe 97% of those voting are voting YES !
This is encouraging, I agree. The question to you is, as Golfbum pointed out, why are so many "institutions" late to respond? My guess is that they are not happy.
IMHO
Golfbum,
i thought amd was overwhelmingly institutionally owned. i would expect that those institutions would rather crisply execute on such an issue as opposed to retail investors.
I agree. Getting the vote in, in a timely manner, should not be an issue for them. I would go further and say, if such an institution was not happy about the choice, something would leak out (?)
IMHO
smooth2o,
One comment I saw is that shareholders did not get their proxy statements until last week. However, I would believe that most of those would default toward approval.
I believe they default to approval if they 1) are sent in and signed and 2) no "yes" or "no" selection was made or 3) vote with the board.
So it is possible they simply did not have time.
IMHO
mas,
AMD shareholders better get their fingers out if they still want a viable company
Maybe they realize the new entity is not viable, but rather a gift to the Arabs? Maybe, the question is, do shareholders want to be under protection of a bankruptcy court in the USA, or under bankruptcy protection overseen by the Arabs?
another company I know recently did they can just change the quorum number needed if push comes to shove
Kinda like selling more shares until numbers match?
IMHO
mas,
AMD stock plunges on delay in spin-off plan
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-shares-plunge-delay-spin-off/story.aspx?guid=%7BB74E4E75%2D9584%2D4BAC%2D9FC1%2DDAB2C5629BF1%7D&siteid=yhoof
"SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Shares of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. plunged nearly 9% Tuesday after the company said it needs more votes for the approval of its planned major spin-off.
AMD 2.15, -0.21, -8.9%) fell 8.9% to $2.15 following the chip giant's announcement that it is extending the period for soliciting votes for its planned spin-off after failing to meet the required 50% quorum.
The company said only 42% of shares have been voted, with 97% in favor of the creation of Foundry Co. AMD said it has postponed its shareholder meeting on the issue to Feb. 18. in Austin, Tex."
What is that you say?
IMHO
mas,
AMD stock plunges on delay in spin-off plan
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-shares-plunge-delay-spin-off/story.aspx?guid=%7BB74E4E75%2D9584%2D4BAC%2D9FC1%2DDAB2C5629BF1%7D&siteid=yhoof
"SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Shares of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. plunged nearly 9% Tuesday after the company said it needs more votes for the approval of its planned major spin-off.
AMD 2.15, -0.21, -8.9%) fell 8.9% to $2.15 following the chip giant's announcement that it is extending the period for soliciting votes for its planned spin-off after failing to meet the required 50% quorum.
The company said only 42% of shares have been voted, with 97% in favor of the creation of Foundry Co. AMD said it has postponed its shareholder meeting on the issue to Feb. 18. in Austin, Tex."
What is that you say?
IMHO
Golfbum,
agree but it sets up further "discussions" between intc and amd once the abu/atic deal is finalized
It seems to me Intel's request and the predictable indifference from AMD is intended to demonstrate in any future litigation that AMD is not a "good faith" participant in past and probably future agreements they may have with Intel.
IMHO
Golfbum,
re: AMD/TFC agreement
so they had an agreement with terms and now they have a different one.
the visible financial terms got rewritten in december to amd's disadvantage.
i wonder what these result in?
How is it possible for US government agencies approve a deal in which the terms are changing after approval? I get the feeling another US agency is pulling an SEC(re Madoff) on us.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/090106/20090106006479.html?.v=1
IMHO
techno_bull,
"re: $99 netbook...
I would love to see a WiMax version of this offer from someone..."
So would I. To me the issue with netbooks, is portability. Given all the miniaturization, they still only get about 2.5 hours on battery. This is not good, IMO. This is where Intel's solid state disks and Atom, whose success is a reflection of Intel's semi manufacturing ability, will be a big boost. These two products (SSD's and Atom) are the first tangible ones that benefit from portable wireless communication technologies like, WIMAX, LTE or anything else.
IMHO
tecate,
More info on the KFTC stuff
Thanks for the article.
Samsung and Trigem, obviously angry about their involvement in the mess, are predictably Intel's biggest backers in the legal dispute.
``The marketing funds are provided to all PC makers, not just Samsung and us, and even AMD offers subsidies for advertisements,'' said a Trigem spokesman.
``We use Intel products because of the company's reputation and the strong awareness among customers. It would be a burden for us to switch to AMD-based products suddenly.''
The above speaks volumes and I am sure that Intel will leverage this in court.
IMHO
Sarmad,
Which I expect will reduce cash by that much, unless AMD gets a cash infusion from Abu-D.
The wording of the warning seems to say as much, if not directly...
25% lower than third quarter 2008 revenue of $1.585 billion, not including process technology license revenue
I get the feeling that they will get revenues from "process technology licences" for as long as Abu-Dhabi is in the game.
IMHO
Elmer,
AMD at $3.35 Unbelievable.
Time to back up the truck!
IMHO
RobertG,
I would be nicer to a voice of reason than that.
So you think his statement about a companies primary duty to shareholders is to stay out of bankruptcy, is reasonable? You are just as clueless as MAS.
Nothing he says has meaning, even if in reality he may be the brightest person in the world. Only his actions mean something. His actions are to troll the AMD and Intel boards, and to engage others in meaningless games of semantics. He is constantly proven to be wrong by various posters and yet he continues his charade. Anyone else but he, would be embarrassed to continue posting.
IMHO
mas,
The ultimate duty AMD have to their shareholders is to ensure they don't go bankrupt
That explains a lot. About AMD and about you.
IMHO
jay1000,
The deal is expected to go through by the beginning of 2009, if approved by regulators. µ
It took a very long time to put this deal together. I am guessing approvals will also take more time than the always optimistic AMD people think. I will go out on a limb and say the deal will not be completed by the start of 2009.
IMHO
mas,
Everything has changed, there is a bottomless pit of money going into AMD indirectly now
Yea that makes sense. The Arabs have a "bottomless pit of money", which is why they bought AMD stock at $12, to make money. Oh wait... why bother trying to make a buck if you have a "bottomless pit" of money? (I doubt you can answer that)
LMAO. Nope, you are proven wrong. Another MAStake.
IMHO
Tenchu,
Willco, > I am assuming that Abu Dhabi is doing this for profit.
Am I part of the minority here who thinks profitability (at least near-term and mid-term) is not the primary goal of Abu Dhabi's investment?
I agree with you. Otherwise, I would think Abu Dhabi's investment arm would be extremely stupid. I do not think they are stupid. They know what they want and they feel they are getting it. I am not sure Intel will play along ;)
IMHO
Professor MD,
They assume that whey are joining AMD in their fight against Intel. Actually they are starting a war with China, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan.
You are correct. Abu Dabi has not joined with AMD, unlike someone as biased and shortsighted as Mas, thinks.
Abu Dabi, took 56% of AMD, and joined it to the 44% that remained. Duh!
In other words, "nothing from nothing, leaves nothing".
Still to be determined are:
1) The reaction from the foundries, as you point out.
2) Intel's reaction
3) Various government agency reactions
4) Western consumer backlash (re. products associated with Arab coutnries)
5) The cultural clash of the various entities (Germans, Arabs, Americans ) involved.
6) Intel's simply has better technology and products.
7) The lawsuit can still throw a monkey wrench in all of this.
IMHO
mas,
Abu Dhabi will bury your monopoly with their cheap subsidised products.
ROFLMAO. Were you ready to pound the desk your shoe, when you wrote, that?
Da, Nikita, Da
IMHO
wbmw,
The problem was that the public did not support the vote - to a staggering count of 20 or 30 to 1. Politicians do not want their name assigned to a bill that is this unpopular. A better tactic to get it through would have been to make the details and reasons for the bill more public in the first place
I agree. The majority of Americans have no idea on how this will affect them directly. You have "Joe <burp> six pack" sitting on a couch saying, WTF? Unless you convince "Joe" that he will have to become sober in a few weeks due to this "credit crisis", he hates this "bailout" of the rich. Now, if the politicians and economic experts can not articulate this crisis and demonstrate how it affects "Joe", than perhaps "Joe" is right to begin with.
IMHO
mas,
I wasn't wrong at all considering the information known at the time.
ROFLMAO. What rubbish. The "information known at the time" was available to you and to others on this thread. That information included AMD posturing, hand waving, back tracking and missing deadlines. All of which should have lead YOU to foresee B2 or other AMD woes. We all so it. You didn't.
You were WRONG. Live with it, dude.
IMHO
mas,
re: AMD ecstatic...
Time to pass out the lollipops!
IMHO
Saturn V,
It is very hard for a new technology to quickly break into the fast moving, high competitive and cutthroat memory market. PCM will have an uphill fight with two tigers of NAND and hard disk makers.
Interesting. Just before Intel threw its hat into this "cutthroat" market, I believe most of the incumbents were enjoying what was once a very "lucrative" market. Funny how that works out, huh?
Intel is no doubt aware of the barrier to entry in this market, which is why they formed joint ventures with ST Micro and Micron.
I also think that all the good news about Atom, assuming it turns out to be true, will have a positive affect on the future of SSD's, as I think these will ultimately be complimentary technologies.
IMHO
wbmw,
re: i7
I think the name is completely meaningless.
Not completely. After the Pentium, Intel skipped the "Hexium". Since the "heptium" would not make all that a good impression either, something else was needed. If you take the Pentium (i5), the Core (i6), and the Nehalem (i7) it makes sense. Now from the marketing point of view...???
BTW, it can be technically argued at what point one architecture is significant enough to warrant its own name, but I need not go there.
IMHO
Elmer,
I believe Hector has been Executive COTB all along.
Ooops. Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression JSIII was still around. When Hector first became CEO, JSIII was still chairman, I thought. Did not reallize there was a change.
IMHO
mas,
Chairman and still heading Break Free/Asset Smart
Is Hector chairman of the board or is this a new position made up to sound like a "step up" on the corporate ladder? What is Jerry S title? Is he retired for good? I can't believe that Jerry will not continue to be the chairman of the board?
IMHO
All:
Looks like someone got a hold of Mas' email ;)
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=24762617 (thanks to eracer on SI)
ATI (AMD) and NVIDIA Fix Prices in the US, Class Action Slapped Against them
http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?65970
Judge backs action against Nvidia and AMD on price fixing
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/16/nvidia-amd-accused-price-fixing
Perhaps this was uncovered when Intel asked the FTC to subpoena AMD?
IMHO
mas,
You still don't get what I have said despite me clarifying it.
It seems, that is all you do on these forums. "Clarify" previous statements. Perhaps if you knew what you were saying in the first place, you would not need to go around clarifying and trying to educate others on what you really ment to say.
As it is, I rather think you say what you mean, and what you say is most often wrong.
We both can't be wrong. I must be right.
IMHO
mas,
You mistake dependency for unreliability.
Nope. I mistake nothing. You MAStake fantasy for reality.
Let me help you (no need to thank me)
Reality: Intel reports billions in profits, quarter after quarter
Fantasy: Intel must pony up billions to pay AMD, even though you admit that other companies are responsible for AMD's miserable performance.
IMHO
mas,
but Intel will still have to pony up billions for their illegal monopolistic behaviour
Why Intel? You said yourself that the culprits are Nvidia, Via etc. "AMD as it is no longer beholden to Nvidia, Via etc to deliver."
Are you dreaming again?
IMHO
mas,
You and Intel are all so incredibly short-sighted and your stock price shows it.
Yep. Short-sighted. As in Short AMD stock. You never know, some people's hatred for AMD may have profitted them handsomely. As a reminder AMD went from 40+ to under 5. That is difficult for any stock to do, but AMD handled it like a champ.
IMHO
mas,
as long as there is an AMD as it is no longer beholden to Nvidia, Via etc to deliver.
So you are now admitting that Nvidia, Via etc. are responsible for AMD not delivering and getting their "fair share"TM of the CPU business. About time. I am sure that is exactly how Intel's lawyers see it also. And yes, Mas, Intel's ability to deliver "solutions" in the form of engineering support could be a reason why AMD could not even sell their chips even if they offered them for "free".
BTW, Have we reached the bottom for AMD at this point? Is this the bottom for Intel?
IMHO
Sarmad,
From: DRBES Read Replies (1) of 253119
TOCK...TICK...TICK...klink...SHPRUCK...SHPRUCK...SPIONG :)))
Very accurate, actually. The "klink...SHPRUCK...SHPRUCK...SPIONG" is the noise it makes when it hits AMD right upside the head.
Dougsf30 had a much funnier post:
For AMD, "in production" means: A wafer that will hold our first broken samples has been shoved into the line.
I take that back. That is not funny. That is probably fact.
IMHO
smooth2o,
Do you think there's a possibility that as a result of working with the FTC that Intel requested the investigation in order to put a stop to being tried in a court of public opinion? After all, the trial is being delayed until 2010... was that requested/caused by AMD's 486?
The court of public opinion is AMD's best hope as things now stand. But I dont think Intel feels public opinion will be easily swayed by AMD, so I do not think Intel requested this just for that purpose. In fact we do not know who requested the subpoena’s be sent.
Speculating from both sides can make AMD or Intel be the instigator. There are also some interesting coincidences. Like the proximity of the US FTC to act on the heels of the Korean FTC. The proximity of this, to the decision to push out the US trial to 2010. The proximity to the leadership change at the FTC etc.
More questions than ever before.
IMHO
The Duke of URL,
But Intel made the point that the only thing this changes is that the FTC will now be able to subpoena AMD's documents.
This is the impression I got from Intel's press release, also. Of course, "drjohn" also points out this could be implying documents from OEM's.
One other thing; AMD has not issued any comments on the matter. Usually, they would follow up such FTC action by comments that they "applaud" and "welcome" such action. So far, nothing.
IMHO