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.
If I can presume on the goodwill of the moderator once - I'd like to thank all those on this board who sent me PM's welcoming the new AMD v Intel board and its liberal approach to moderating.
One feature of the board will be the grouping of all significant AMD and Intel news links in one spot pretty soon after they hit the wires, and I hope readers of other boards dedicated to AMD and Intel will find this juxtaposition useful and will feel free to visit just to make use of that feature.
In its first day and half, the new board has been visited by some familiar AMD,Intel and uncommitted investors and has given a new SI forum to some who recently "lost their voice" on the SI AMD board.
But I want to stress that the new board is not a replica of any existing AMD or Intel board on SI or iHub as the following extract from the introduction makes clear:
"This board is about the competition between AMD and Intel and the consequences it has for all investors.
As such it is not the "home board" either of AMD or Intel investors. In SI terms, it is not a "Bulls" or "Bear" board. All investors, including the non-committed, are equally welcome.
Moderation will be liberal to encourage searching questions and open discussion in a lively and pleasant atmosphere. I will rely heavily on the self-discipline and experience of posters."
I was not offended in the slightest. My post clearly was not a criticism of your discussing the moderation of other boards on this board. In fact I welcomed your comment about the board I started as I welcomed the moderator making the introduction.
I have included your suggestion of the word "persistent" in the description and made one or two other minor changes to reflect advice received from others.
I was inhibited because I was aware that I should not use this board to discuss the moderation of the board I have started. I saw previous posts on here where discussion of other boards were ruled OT.
As far as I know, there are no other boards like the one I started. It is about the competition between AMD and Intel and its effects. Investors in AMD and Intel and the non-committed have equal status. Its not the "home" board of any particular group.
As for the AMD board where you say the moderator is over zealous - that's another subject. No discussion of it is allowed on the board in question. I'm told it can be discussed in the Unmoderated AMD board. I've explained there the reasons why I started a new board about AMD v Intel.
wmbw
I feel inhibited from discussing it further on here. I believe its against the rules to discuss the moderation of another site.
And its difficult to have an abstract discussion about the subject without referring to examples of specific experiences we have both had.
The danger of trying to find tight formulae to cover all eventualities is that the formulae themselves can become the topic of discussion and dispute. One rule begets another and so on. The rules then become the loci of power.
If we were all sitting around a table and having a free-flowing discussion or argument we would know soon enough if someone was being disruptive. How we would want the group to deal with that is the issue.
wbmw
I agree completely with the tenor of your post and your general conclusion.
But adding qualifications like "persistent" does not remove the subjectivity. Its a question of degree not of kind.
The intention is to be liberal - but also to be decisive when confronted with someone who disrespects other posters or the purpose of the board.
mas
Thanks for posting that link. I've given a full explanation of the reason for the new board on the SI OT board here:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=23372349
This is an extract from that post:
".....I decided it would be better at this time to create a new board that took account of some of the structural stresses that are common to some AMD and Intel boards. One of them is the heat generated by the "host" investors - AMD or Intel - when they perceive that "their" board is being undermined by the activities of the "visiting" investors.
Ten years ago, there may have been a case for proposing that Intel and AMD lived in their own self-contained universes. But that's no longer the case.
Its impossible to discuss AMD or Intel without discussing the competition between them. I think there ought to be a board where both sets of investors - as well as uncommitted investors - have equal status and where the AMD v Intel competition is front and centre.
Dave agreed and I have set up a new board. I welcome advice, suggestions and your input.
This is how I introduce it:
"AMD's antitrust suit against Intel dramatizes the competition between the two companies.
They compete on technology, manufacturing, design wins and distribution. They go head-to-head in most of the world's markets. They compete for partners and associates, for investment funds and for the favour of the financial markets.
This board is about the competition between AMD and Intel and the consequences it has for all investors.
Moderation will be liberal to encourage searching questions and open discussion in a lively and pleasant atmosphere.
I will rely heavily on the self-discipline and experience of posters. However, I will ban any poster who uses disruptive debating techniques such as insults, baiting and anything that smacks of spamming."
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=57040
If things don't improve, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will stop giving forward guidance.
Which will put them on par with AMD
mas
Since I ignored those silly terms and never used them anyway, I don't really care about the ban on them.
But I would have thought it was more important to ban people who call others a liar. There has to be an assumption that people post in good faith otherwise there is no point in participating.
I also think that repeatedly calling another poster a criminal fugitive deserves a permanent ban - permament under any user name.
I've seen examples of both those on here and SI (sometimes by the same poster) without comment from moderators or anyone else.
I don't understand most of the references to the German store names but here, in Mexico, Walmart sells more Intel-based desktops and laptops than AMD.
A case for tech valuations
17 Jan 2006
There are pockets of exuberance, but it's not clear the whole sector is overpriced.
Marc Gerstein
Director of investment research
Reuters.com
After the 2000-02 tech-stock collapse, many resolved to be more diligent about stock valuations. Now, with some wondering if the current cycle has reached maturity, we'll need a solid justification for such recent 13-week tech moves as Advanced Micro (AMD), up 61.1 percent, Apple (AAPL), up 58.5 percent, Google (GOOG), up 57.4 percent, JDS Uniphase (JDSU), up 49.5 percent, Marvel Technology (MRVL), up 48.1 percent, Palm (PALM), up 31.7 percent, or Broadcaom (BRCM), up 30.9 percent. Pockets of exuberance may, indeed, exist, but it's not clear there's enough evidence to indict the sector as a whole.
http://dai.investor.reuters.com/Article.aspx?docid=8882&target=screeningmarket
mas
I thought I made it very obvious by the use of quote marks that I was quoting Elmer. He actually did use that word, you know, as many AMD posters used "Intellibies" or some such thing. If you check back you will find I never used either term.
paul
No I did not join the debate with Elmer. A couple of months before he "left" the room I put him on ignore.
But I don't agree with the characterisation of his contributions which you share with some of the other AMD posters. Elmer was a pedestrian debater who, once he had hit on a formula, was able to spin it out far longer than would have been possible had his protagonists not been so blinded by the kind of antipathy against Intel and Intel employees that other posters have alluded to here today.
With respect to flash, his formula was that the "Droids" did not have any hard evidence that Intel was selling flash at a loss. Intel's statements about "improving profitability" in that group of products were not an admission of loss. While this was the position of a Sophist, I agree with it as far as it went.
The substantive issue of whether Intel actually was making a loss was answered this week - six months after Elmer "left" the room. But this is not proof of the related "Droid" argument - that Intel was a predator dumping flash at a loss to hurt AMD. That may have been part of Intel's motivation, but is not proven, even after this week's improved accounting. In fact that explanaton is not consistent with Intel raising flash prices in early 2004, when AMD did not, and lowering them again to recover the market share they had lost when AMD took advantage.
It's the same with the legal issues. Elmer had great fun baiting the "Droids" on the fairly elementary point that a Statement of Claim is not a trial and does not constitute proof. He never had to go beyond this primitive argument to generate hundreds if not thousands of heated posts from "Droids". It was amusing for perhaps 50 posts and after that an almighty bore.
You remind me of Elmer and his claim that Intel hasn't been dumping flash at a loss. Somehow he seems to have disappeared..
I thought AMD had been dumping flash at a loss, too - and still was in 4Q 05. In fact the only time AMD made a profit from flash during my acquaintance with the company was in 2004 when Intel priced itself out of some contracts.
You've got to hand it to Elmer, some of you are still trying to answer his debating points six months after his last post.
I think Intel shareholders have still not recovered from the "shocking" information that Intel is losing money on flash...
Now they know how AMD shareholders feel.
Intel goes with hertz but AMD, being No. 2, goes with avis.
Strange goings-on in San Fransisco
"Some analysts think there will be as many as 9 to 10 million Macintelatoshes this year, which would be about 2.5 times as many as the 4 million Macs in 2005. That's a hell of a ramp, and Apple's never shown an inclination to flood a tight market with units," Doug Mohney writes for The Inquirer. "By the way, is Intel so desperate for increased business that 1) their CEO needs to dress up in a bunny suit to show up at MacWorld 2) Give Apple first dibs on the Duo Core in its new machines and 3) Having committed these two acts of submission, then let Apple ignore Viiv and instead say 'Hey, we've freed the chip from the box?' Andy Grove would have NEVER worn a bunny suit for Mr. Jobs. It being San Francisco, Otellini should feel lucky he wasn't handed a costume including black leather chaps."
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8230/
Today, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co set AMD at "market perform" and upgrade the target price from $25 to $30. (No link - snippet on Yahoo)
Dell boss: 'No $100 laptops and no AMD deal'
CIOs say they "don't give a shit" whose chips are in the box
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,39155633,00.htm
higlandpk
So far 10 out of 10!
M-P is at $27.50 now but moving to $30. I realise that it is only one factor probably to be swamped by others during an earnings month. For the option writers to force it to $30 (or $27.50) in the two days after earnings will require massive help from a post-earnings drop. We all know the factors that usually contribute. There are some new ingredients this quarter. (As always, there is also the possibility that this time will be different - there are new ingredients on that side of the equation, too.)
Would you buy the February puts after a drop or before earnings? I noticed you dropped your comfort zone from $30 to $27.50
highlandpk
You mentioned a few months ago that you were in 07 $40 leaps. Your principles were to go as far out and at as high a strike price as is feasible. What are your thoughts now?
We can go around in circles but I agree with BUGGI. DELL has clearly said, implicitly in its business model, and explicitly in the Rollins interview, that they will not offer AMD because they prefer a high-volume, single supplier. He said AMD's recent success is noteworthy, especially in some niches, but it does not constitute a threat to DELL's financials. He also said that DELL has contingency plans to work with AMD. That potential contingency will become less likely if Intel executes well its road map for 2006.
rlweitz
The last public statement from Ruiz about the Chartered deal - about a month ago - is that AMD was going to be aggressive in exploiting it.
About that time there was also acknowledgement that Chartered would be used for 90nm, using AMD's APM, but also had the potential to do 65nm.
tecate
Is this the same guy who has publicly supported the AMD lawsuit against Intel alleging some past coercive Intel practices against his company?
Keith
Last weekend I said on SI that I had reduced my AMD holdings (calls and shares) because I was grossly overweight AMD and on margin. I said I might reinvest my profits, subject to "events", or simply allow my reduced holdings to ride.
In fact, as a result of the further spurt Monday to Thursday morning, I reduced even further.
My best guess is that the pre-earnings bubble has been pricked and even if the price does recover before earnings $35-36 will be very difficult. If we go into earnings at $32-34 then there is a good chance that the options writers may try to drive it to $30 post-earnings or even lower. (Max Pain is at $25 but only a few points from $27.50 and $30). There won't be much time to do it before expiry and they will need a lot of help. They may get it from analysts who will say that it is overvalued or fairly valued and facing renewed competition from Intel (which most people will be inclined to believe). They may get it from media headlines which confuse the issue of Spansion losses, spin-off related one-time write-offs, convertible debentures. The momentum players who have only a vague idea of AMD's fundamentals may take fright.
On the other hand, blow-out results and vague but optimistic guidance from Ruiz, and a clear presentation of future earnings without Spansion as well as some influential upgrades (where's Merril Lynch since it downgraded at $25 from BUY to HOLD?)- may be enough to maintain a positive tone and the recovery could be fairly quick.
Keith
Let me know if you can think of better ways..
In a couple of posts on SI you joined in DRBES, NG and (I now discover) DougSF30's comments on my linking to articles. In general their remarks were that I did not read the articles before posting them, or that they were repeats. Your comment - which you said was in jest - was that I probably wrote a program which automatically posted anything with the term "AMD".
Actually, more than two thirds of my posts on SI and a higher percentage on iHub were simply posting links. It became a burden costing me more than an hour in the morning and probably another hour later throughout the rest of the day. It was also increasingly stressful trying to remember if articles had already been posted on SI and iHUb and Yahoo. I made a point of not commenting when other posters duplicated my posts - as they did several times virtually every day. (I know that occasionally I also duplicated). But the duplication did make me ask if people were reading them.
The remarks about my posts contributed to my decision to stop. I still read all the articles but have saved myself a lot of time, energy and distraction by not posting the links. Since then, IMO, SI has fallen behind Yahoo in the promptness and completedness of its reporting of relevant news on AMD.
To return to your remark about my writing a software program. I assumed that everyone, including you, used a search engine to locate news and then to read it before posting.
The engine I use is http://www.newsnow.co.uk/
Users are restricted to a single search term unless they are subscriber to the advanced feature. I found that "AMD" and "Intel" was sufficient to bring up most articles in the world press in English and a fair number in French, Italian, German and Spanish. On the Intel page one is also offered a link to another search word "Processors" and I would always use that to find articles that had not found themselves in the AMD or INTEL category - probably because whoever codified them did not see the relevance.
After checking newsnow I would check Yahoo. Saxplayer is a good source for little-known and technical journals. But I found most of his mainstream links were late and he very often posts old links for educational purposes. Other posters on Yahoo might throw up snippets from analysts reviews especially "Fly on the Wall" which is a heads-up early alert.
I bought a half-position this morning based on the news last night
I thought you bought yesterday? Was that the first half of the position?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9230626
Is the "news last night" the Deutsche Bank downgrade?
avatar
I agree that a restrospective quarterly "snapshot" is not very helpful.
The reason I asked about the 5% and Insider institutional deadline being 15 days and the rest 45 days is that when I started to post on this subject about a year ago I made reference to those categories. But I was relying on my memory from a time when I used to follow institutional ownership avidly with respect to a certain IPO in 1997-2000. But another poster(s) said I was wrong, so I dropped it. Instead I have said that the institutional ownership quarterly snapshot is based on reports submitted within 15 days from the end of the quarter but that the "snapshot" continues to change as late returns arrive. In fact the daily or weekly changes to the "snapshot" don't change it very much.
However, I was not entirely comfortable with this explanation. Then someone on here mentioned that there were two deadlines - 15 days and 45 for the two categories. This would explain the changes to the "snapshot" better than the rather vague "late reports" I had been using.
I suppose we should look up the exact rules but its not on my list of priorities.
highlandpk
Whats' all this about Kanata - ga'na'da' in the original Huron language. But don't reply if it would involve revealing something private.
Given the context I guess it refers to the town of Kanata east of Ottawa where there are a number of high tech companies - some listed - Canada's silicon valley.
avatar
...that is the quarterly report. Institutions have 45 days to file it. I asked about the monthly report you said was available.
Perhaps you mis-read what I said:
"I believe shorts are updated once a month in the second week - about 10th."
With respect to the monthly short report - they are computed up until about the 10th of the previous month. But the report, itself, will not appear until about 15-20th.
As for institutional ownership - do you know who it was who said there is a different reporting date for 5% and insider ownership and the rest? I can't find that post. Do you have a link to the reporting rules for institutional ownership?
avatar:
Its available from a number of services. Here is one. Notice that the effective date for the calculations is 30th September 2005. This will change to 31st December when the new report is collated.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=AMD
The returns have to be in on 15th. It takes a few days more for the report to be collated and published. There's probably a stock exchange site where the new report can be found first (NYSE for AMD) - but it usually shows up on this site pretty quickly.
bobs10
Your two posts using biblical themes prompted an exegesis. You seem to be mixing Old and New Testament and Early Church History.
How about this for an analogy.
The AMD-ites (I like that better than "Droids" because it reminds me of the Hittites) were the Early Christians, huddled together in the Upper Room mourning the loss of their charismatic leader, and actually quite terrified of what the Roman Empire would do to them if they put their nose out of the door. It was not a happy place. If any of them fancied taking a walk in the market to have a look at what the Romans were up to, the bullies in the group, who were really more frightened than the others, would tongue-lash them, accusing them of being in the old Judas clique, secretly seeking to sell-out for thirty pieces of silver. So none dared to move - all huddled together waiting for the second coming (the first being 2000).
It was dark and fetid in there. The windows were barred by great Spansions. There were times when they feared they might suffocate. But one day there was a great flash of lighting of from the North Orient Region (NOR). The Spansions cracked and their new leader - a humble Mexican - broke them up and threw them through the windows. All at once the room was filled with brilliant light and pure air.
Exhilirated they burst into the market and began talking in many tongues - dollars, loonies, euros, pesos. They told stories of how they came to be in the room - vying with each to dramatise the miracle of their personal conversion and their particular steadfastness through the difficult times.
The oxygen went to their head and in their euphoria they began to act as if they already were a Church Triumphant. They mocked the Romans and refused to pay the market tithes. They began opening new installations in Mesopotamia and Greece.
The Romans were having a bit of problem in changing their Ceasars at the time. But eventually they decided on a plan. The Early Christians didn't like it one little bit. They claimed that it breached international law. The Romans replied that they were the international law.
____________________________
I'll continue later with Ampitheatres, Lions and Early Christians to be followed by How the Early Christians Learned to Suck Up to the Roman Empire and Use it Shamelessly.
a couple of the other times the rumors had good legs too
I am suspicious about the Piper Jaffrey opinion. By adding such precise estimates for AMD's percentage of DELL's sales for both 2006 and 2007 the analyst went to some lengths to achieve credibility and, therefore, an impact on the market. But its those very details which don't ring true. How could he know?
You may remember the analyst with a Chinese name who was definite in 1H 2005 (or was it 2H 2004? - see how easily I have forgotten him!) I think he said he had information that the DELL-AMD adoption was in the offing. His report had a distinct but temporary impact on the share price. (Not to mention the several other subsequent media reports or rumours which have been more vague but which the PJ analyst refers to as part of his "proof").
avatar
Unfortunately we do not get a snapshot of their positions until 45 days after the quarter ends.
The "snapshot" of institutional ownership is 15 days after the quarter ends. But not all the institutions get their returns in on time so the "snapshot" can be adjusted as the late returns arrive.
I believe shorts are updated once a month in the second week - about 10th.
I have argued that last month's short report may not have accounted for all the shorts that were covered after the 5th December conversion (it reported a drop of about 18 million rather than the 27 million). Some of the balance may show up in this week's report and - all other things being equal - the short position should be reduced further. But it will be interesting to see if new short positons have opened as the share price enjoyed its late December run-up or - and, as you suggested - institutions may have become active shorters.
Up and Down
I don't think that was me, I have done and would do no such thing
I've just checked. You are right - it wasn't you. I'm very sorry for my mistake.
The rivalry goes to the fundamentals of the founding of the state...
Geez... I'm way out of my depth here.
Seriously, thanks for everything, you're a good sort.
I thought I just told you - he has been on ignore for more than a year. He has also been on ignore on SI for a similar time.
Why don't all you guys/gals just grow up and leave it alone! Take it to the Yahoo thread if necessary -- it's already a zoo over there.
You made a very off topic post(s)recently on SI. I replied factually and reasonably about the subject-matter. You responded with a venemous personal remark.
(For what its worth - the Yahoo board is very lively, informative and up-todate. The obsessives, pumpers, spammers and yobos can be excluded by the ignore feature, as they can on here and on SI).
Rupert, I got banned from one board over the sniping you two engage in. Can you just cool it? Please?
I've not written any posts to him on here in more than a year, in fact I haven't read any of his in that time either. He has been on ignore.
What I have done is respond a very few times to others who are commenting on his posts - very amusingly, in my opinion.
I'm sorry you were banned on SI. It had nothing to do with me. I'm glad you will be back soon.
However on SI you took "the word" right out of my mouth so for your sake I'll do my best to restrain from commenting on the comments.
I assumed the DougSF30 was for personal ad..
But those types of ads are notoriously self-delusional, arent' they? "SF" could mean "near SF" - like Montana.
Something found often in your posts from whatever place your mind has taken you :)
He's the only one I know who includes his alleged place of residence in his user name - "dougSF". But he also uses "chipdesigner" on here. When found out, he belatedly claimed he designed the moniker to annoy other posters. So what if the "SF" is also false and designed for the same purpose? He never mentions San Fransisco on his profile or in his posting. But he never stops posting about the beloved Yucatania of his mind. Home is where the heart (mind) is. Perhaps dougSF has signed a NDA with his other selves.
Did you know that the Intel presentation at the technology show in LA was shown unedited - probably in its totality - on a CNN International Special Presentation last night. Otellini was the presenter. I've never seen this before - it was almost like an infocommercial. Do you suppose Intel paid for it? Or perhaps they undertook to buy time on CNN for commercials?
It may also be shown in the USA at different times.
It was a broad overview, not very analytic, but well-done as far as it went.
BTW with respect to the Yucatania of his mind...My impression is that he is a kind of Minister Of All Portoflios. But his various selves are required to report to himself. His favourite portfolio is Controller-in-Chief of Hurricanes. He uses Google Earth for that. Apparently he was displeased that Gilbert refused to follow the path he set for it this year. He sent-off a nasty PM to God complaining that it was a TOU violation.