My posts speak for themselves. I don't recognise them as re-gurgitated by doug on SI. Nor will I debate them on his terms.
On the substance:
It is almost a truism that, as a general rule, Intel provides good guidance.
I notice that jayxxx, the compiler of the eps competition, acknowledged the other day, that his self-imposed obligation to make an Intel earnings prediction, as well as an AMD prediction, has taught him over the quarters/years, that Intel's method of guidance is superior. But I believe that this is generally acknowledged in the market. As a rule the market can rely on Intel's guidance. In addition, Intel regularly schedules a mid-quarterly report in which it updates the guidance. Earlier this year Ruiz appeared to acknowledged the superiority of Intel's guidance but went unto to say that Intel's business model was quite different from AMD's. In particular he mentioned the nature of Intel's clientele. He said that AMD could not emulate the Intel guidance model. I think I understand what he meant by that. At the same time, I hope that in the future, as AMD become more of an enterprise company, it will be able to emulate Intel's guidance model.
I really don't understand the desire among some AMD investors to belittle Intel's guidance. So it was wrong this quarter, but they corrected it! My sense is that the market expects Intel to meet its reduced guidance. doug on SI is one of those who hopes/expects it won't. doug was wrong about AMD's results, he is about due for a correct prediction.
When a company gives guidance that is not specific but is vague then it opens itself to the criticism that what it is expressing is its intent and wish rather than its prediction.
In the case of AMD, Ruiz said clearly and repeatedly that he expects cpus in 4q to be better than seasonal. He expects flash to be flat or up, subject to a resolution of the customer problems he had already described.
Apparently, not everyone trusts this guidance. In fact one critic said "they are fooling themselves". Others have raised questions about the guidance because they are concerned about AMD's flash inventory and Intel's cpu and flash inventory.
When an analyst asked questions about Intel's inventory at the CC, Ruiz deflected the question. He also made a point of questioning the normal definition of "seasonal" so we are left wondering what definition he is using in his guidance. (Although, on a preliminary reading of his remarks, the new definition seems to favour AMD).
Those who questioned Ruiz 2CC guidance and the completeness of his August/September remarks, were proven right. Obviously he is not always going to be wrong or right. Interested, informed osbervors have a right to analyse his guidiance, analysts have a duty.
While I don't accept doug's kneejerk paranoia about anyone who holds a different opinion from him (including investors who may have even more AMD stock then he) it is obvious that there is broad institutional interest in Intel and a general desire in the market to see it do well. There is a corollary desire to question AMD's claims of gains in market share, or at least, continuing or exponential gains.
The obligation on AMD is to be as transparent as possible, and as consistent as possible. It is winning new friends both among customers and investors, but it would help if its guidance was more specific, if it held regular mid-quarterly reports to correct its gudiance, and if Ruiz could convey the impression that he had as much foresight about the next three months as he seems to have about the next three years.
AI
