AMD Posts Record Revenues in 2006

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6524
Looks like all the AMD is doomed talk can finally end.
What was AMD's profits for last year? They gain revenue with ATI merger, but didn't fare very well profit wise.

I think the article shows that with the merger AMD/ATI rose, but the bottom line is still not showing good signs for AMD.

I would wait until Q1 reports are released, before saying anything about doom and gloom, especially since AMD already announce that they could possibly miss Q1 expectations.

Just my $.02
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
2,360
0
19,960
55
AMD lost money in 2006.

This in and of itself does not mean doom and gloom, much of that was due to ATI acquisition true... but revenue is not the same as profit.
Yeah revenue means nothing guys remember. AMD is selling more chips and diverse products (thanks to ATI) making higher revenues but at lower prices thus costs are outweighing the revenues.

As such AMD will be posting a loss for 2006 (a significant one at that partially due to the ATi acquisition).
 

Mr_Wang

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
22
0
18,510
0
AMD lost money in 2006.

This in and of itself does not mean doom and gloom, much of that was due to ATI acquisition true... but revenue is not the same as profit.
When the 2006 annual report comes out I think it will show that AMD had a spectacular year in terms of CPU sales. The ATI acquisition was a long-term investment and the purchase price is going to negatively effect their bottom line in 2006. As long as their operating income and expenses show a profit I don't see any reason to worry that they show an overall loss for the year.
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
0
22,780
0
AMD lost money in 2006.

This in and of itself does not mean doom and gloom, much of that was due to ATI acquisition true... but revenue is not the same as profit.
When the 2006 annual report comes out I think it will show that AMD had a spectacular year in terms of CPU sales. The ATI acquisition was a long-term investment and the purchase price is going to negatively effect their bottom line in 2006. As long as their operating income and expenses show a profit I don't see any reason to worry that they show an overall loss for the year.Both companies should sell a boatload of CPU's for 2006/2007. Between the "price-wars", and VISTA's release, if you have anything below a 3.0GHz P4/2.0GHz A64, you'd be silly not to take advantage of the cheap prices.....especially in jumping on the dual-core bandwagon. :)
 

Stealth_JAG

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2006
62
0
18,630
0
MSN Money shows that over the last 12 months, AMD had 5.6 Billion dollars in sales, negative 166 Million dollars in profit, and a negative 2.44% profit margin. I guess you guys pegged it - they sold a lot of chips and still lost a lot of money. However, the picture is not as gloomy as I thought. To only lose 166 million dollars after the ATI acquistion doesn't sound so bad. Especially when you're comparing it to 5 Billion dollars in sales. Still - I don't think AMD is out of the woods yet. They still have to get product out there that will compete with Intel and NVidia.

Rob
 

zornundo

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
318
0
18,780
0
gross profit % looks good for the year for the combined company, but dropped from 3rd Q to 4th Q. that is NOT good, especially by how much it did drop. If that is the result of ATI, then I'm thinking wtf?? or is it the result of AMD going full-throttle to gain market share by destroying their own margins?
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
MSN Money shows that over the last 12 months, AMD had 5.6 Billion dollars in sales, negative 166 Million dollars in profit, and a negative 2.44% profit margin. I guess you guys pegged it - they sold a lot of chips and still lost a lot of money. However, the picture is not as gloomy as I thought. To only lose 166 million dollars after the ATI acquistion doesn't sound so bad. Especially when you're comparing it to 5 Billion dollars in sales. Still - I don't think AMD is out of the woods yet. They still have to get product out there that will compete with Intel and NVidia.

Rob
Q4 made the loss happen in conjunction with the ATI aquisition.Take ATI away and they have a phenomenal year total.


Maybe now Wombat knows how AMD is actually killing Intel. 91% increase in revenue, etc.
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
0
You guys are missing something here. This 91% increase in revenue is kind of misleading. What they are doing is taking the combined AMD/ATI revenue for 2006 and comparing it to the AMD only revenue for 2005.

I just took a quick look at AMD's year over year revenue #'s not counting all of the preaquisition ATI revenue and to my surprise the revenue was actally down year over year.

2005 = 5.8 billion
2006 = 5.6 billion

AMD Financials

While it is impressive seeing AMD moving up the rankings, it is only because they counted ATI's full year revenue along with AMD. So this really is not as impressive as it appears to be at first glance.

Actually if you consider that Q4 revenue year over year was flat -- even with ATI revenue counting in Q4 2006 this is actually not good at all.

Edit: I just realized what the disparity was in the revenue #'s from the article for 2005 weren't jiving with the #'s from the financial chart.
The reason: Spansion (AMD's former flash memory biz)
From this article I found that spansion contributed around 2 billion in revenue for 2005. Which brings us back to the funny way they arrived at this 91% number.

Spansion Sales
Spansion was spun off in Dec. 2005

AMD minus Spansion compared to AMD plus ATI = 91% revenue increase

Lies... Damn Lies..... and Statistics
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
0
Ok for all of you wanting the no-BS AMD only numbers not counting Spansion or ATI here goes.....

2005

Total Revenue: 5.8 billion (1.9 billion was from spansion) = 3.9 billion

2006

Total Revenue 5.6 billion (398 million was from ATI) = 5.2 billion

So we have an apples to apples AMD revenue comparison of 5.2 billion for 2006 versus 3.9 billion for 2005, or a year over year revenue increase of
33.3%. Still very respectable, but nowhere near 91%.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
Ok for all of you wanting the no-BS AMD only numbers not counting Spansion or ATI here goes.....

2005

Total Revenue: 5.8 billion (1.9 billion was from spansion) = 3.9 billion

2006

Total Revenue 5.6 billion (398 million was from ATI) = 5.2 billion

So we have an apples to apples AMD revenue comparison of 5.2 billion for 2006 versus 3.9 billion for 2005, or a year over year revenue increase of
33.3%. Still very respectable, but nowhere near 91%.

Obviously, using Ati's additional revenue is not illegal so I would say the 91% stands. The point is they experienced growth, LOTS OF GROWTH.
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
0
Ok for all of you wanting the no-BS AMD only numbers not counting Spansion or ATI here goes.....

2005

Total Revenue: 5.8 billion (1.9 billion was from spansion) = 3.9 billion

2006

Total Revenue 5.6 billion (398 million was from ATI) = 5.2 billion

So we have an apples to apples AMD revenue comparison of 5.2 billion for 2006 versus 3.9 billion for 2005, or a year over year revenue increase of
33.3%. Still very respectable, but nowhere near 91%.

Obviously, using Ati's additional revenue is not illegal so I would say the 91% stands. The point is they experienced growth, LOTS OF GROWTH.

With the stock price showing absolutely no sign of recovery on this news, I would say Wall Street does not agree :?

Well, lets do it another way. Lets combine the revenue of ATI and AMD for 2005 as well. This way we get an accurate picture of the revenue performance of the combined company year over year.

2005
AMD = 3.9 billion
ATI = 2.2 billion source
combined = 6.1 billion

2006
AMD = 5.2 billion
ATI = 2.3 billion
combined = 7.5 billion

For a year over year % revenue increase of the combined company of 23%. Geez the deeper we go into this the worse it gets.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
Ok for all of you wanting the no-BS AMD only numbers not counting Spansion or ATI here goes.....

2005

Total Revenue: 5.8 billion (1.9 billion was from spansion) = 3.9 billion

2006

Total Revenue 5.6 billion (398 million was from ATI) = 5.2 billion

So we have an apples to apples AMD revenue comparison of 5.2 billion for 2006 versus 3.9 billion for 2005, or a year over year revenue increase of
33.3%. Still very respectable, but nowhere near 91%.

Obviously, using Ati's additional revenue is not illegal so I would say the 91% stands. The point is they experienced growth, LOTS OF GROWTH.

With the stock price showing absolutely no sign of recovery on this news, I would say Wall Street does not agree :?

Well, lets do it another way. Lets combine the revenue of ATI and AMD for 2005 as well. This way we get an accurate picture of the revenue performance of the combined company year over year.

2005
AMD = 3.9 billion
ATI = 2.2 billion source
combined = 6.1 billion

2006
AMD = 5.2 billion
ATI = 2.3 billion
combined = 7.5 billion

For a year over year % revenue increase of the combined company of 23%. Geez the deeper we go into this the worse it gets.

In the first post you said 398M was from ATi. Which is it?
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
0
398M was from ati in Q4 2006 only. For this 91% increase they are counting ATI's full year 2006 revenue of 2.3 billion for a combined total AMDTI revenue of 7.5 billion.

I only brought that up because that is the only quarter in which AMD actually started counting ATI revenue in their official earnings releases. Go back and check the links I provided I think you will easily figure out how I arrived at my numbers.
 

luminaris

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2005
1,361
0
19,280
0
I don't see how they're hurting Intel even though Intel took a loss too. AMD still doesn't have the market share nor do they have the boatloads of cash that Intel does. I'm in agreement with you and just wanted to throw in my two cents
 

Mr_Wang

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
22
0
18,510
0
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~115444,00.html
The above links to AMD's 4th Quarter and YE results. Even with the ATI acquisition and the $527 million of expenses incurred as a result AMD had only a $47 million loss for the year. Add back in the $129 million loss associated with the ATI purchase ($398 million revenue - $527 million expenses) and AMD would have had $82 million in profits for the year. This is probably an overly conservative number since ATI actually lost AMD money from operations as well as the acquisition costs.

AMD wouldn't have had the year they had in 2005 without the ATI acquisition but they would have had a good year. The acquisition costs won't be on the books in future years, so I think AMD will be just fine.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
I don't see how they're hurting Intel even though Intel took a loss too. AMD still doesn't have the market share nor do they have the boatloads of cash that Intel does. I'm in agreement with you and just wanted to throw in my two cents
Intel technically did not take a loss ... they have suffered from significant declines in revenue ;) I am senstive to that term and how it is applied becuase Baron uses loss to imply Intel is losing money .... but make no mistake, this occured because of AMD and the price war they started to gain back market share so I do believe it is hurting Intel...

It is just not 'killing Intel' as Baron would like to think. In this price war, all things being equal, AMD loses and Intel wins... this cannot last forever.

And I say it can since it has been really going on since the 80s and AMD is now at 25% of the world market. This may increase slightly this quarter as new initiatives seem to be picking up steam and design wins.

AMD is down right now only because of the acquisition and the lack of real understanding from analysts. Intel is in a declining march YoY but they are given a lighter punishment whereas AMD is a lot of people's punching bag no matter what they do.

Business doesn't have to fair but businesses have to be run by people. You take that how you will. I know you'll take the opportunity to gain more Brood converts and hope I can help you. Large groups of idiots can be turned on each other.
 

jagmuss

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2006
17
0
18,510
0
I don't see how they're hurting Intel even though Intel took a loss too. AMD still doesn't have the market share nor do they have the boatloads of cash that Intel does. I'm in agreement with you and just wanted to throw in my two cents
Intel technically did not take a loss ... they have suffered from significant declines in revenue ;) I am senstive to that term and how it is applied becuase Baron uses loss to imply Intel is losing money .... but make no mistake, this occured because of AMD and the price war they started to gain back market share so I do believe it is hurting Intel...

It is just not 'killing Intel' as Baron would like to think. In this price war, all things being equal, AMD loses and Intel wins... this cannot last forever.

And I say it can since it has been really going on since the 80s and AMD is now at 25% of the world market. This may increase slightly this quarter as new initiatives seem to be picking up steam and design wins.

AMD is down right now only because of the acquisition and the lack of real understanding from analysts. Intel is in a declining march YoY but they are given a lighter punishment whereas AMD is a lot of people's punching bag no matter what they do.

Business doesn't have to fair but businesses have to be run by people. You take that how you will. I know you'll take the opportunity to gain more Brood converts and hope I can help you. Large groups of idiots can be turned on each other.

WAIT...I get it now!! All the analysts who do this for a living and make billions of dollars doing it...they are just idiots! Same goes for the conglomeration of analyses, insights, and decisions that we call the "marketplace".
Whew...thanks for clearing that up BM! Ya know.....back when I had Martin Feldstein as a professor in the 80's I knew he was full of crap! I just needed you to point out how all of those analysts and economists just don't have an real understanding of the marketplace.
BaronLogic rules!!
 

gr8mikey

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2002
551
0
18,980
0
And I say it can since it has been really going on since the 80s and AMD is now at 25% of the world market. This may increase slightly this quarter as new initiatives seem to be picking up steam and design wins.

AMD is down right now only because of the acquisition and the lack of real understanding from analysts. Intel is in a declining march YoY but they are given a lighter punishment whereas AMD is a lot of people's punching bag no matter what they do.

Business doesn't have to fair but businesses have to be run by people. You take that how you will. I know you'll take the opportunity to gain more Brood converts and hope I can help you. Large groups of idiots can be turned on each other.

I can't believe you actually believe all of this ....um.... stuff you just typed. Thanks for typing it anyway. Like so many other posts of yours, I found it quite entertaining.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS