Buying AMD stock

Coop · Jul 6, 2005

Ello

As you all know, AMD is finally suing Intel, and yes they are gooing to win this case, afterall, they win in japan, and they are no idiots, they do this together with IBM, im sure.
My question is, will it be smart to buy AMD stocks now ? i think it is, but the case can take 18 months, in the meantime the quote can go down (intel tells lies and all that).

In the long time, AMD and Intel will have a marketshare of 50/50, so buying stock`s is always a good thing, but maybe we can step in lower ?

What do you guys investors think about the share AMD ?
Buying putts from intel is not such a good ide i think, intel is to big, if they got beaten by AMD(not by cpu, this is already happening, i mean from the court) it will almost not harm them.

Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.

Starfishy · Jul 6, 2005

You are overestimating the power of this lawsuit. Don't invest on the basis of the outcome of this lawsuit. Intel will not be forced to give up market share, it will most likely settle, or if found guilty, will be required to ammend some of there business practices a little to allow Dell the OPTION of going with AMD. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they WILL go with AMD.

Coop · Jul 6, 2005

Not gooing AMD will make you lose customers, because AMD has the better CPU.
This case makes AMD known to the common man, hey did AMD not kicked intels butt in court ? yes they did, and is it true they are better for common use ? well lets try them.
All that intel inside and intel jingle will not do much of it.

Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.

mozzartusm · Jul 6, 2005

Actually for an investor looking for a huge return"very risky" this may be the market for calls and puts.

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs

P4Man · Jul 6, 2005

My 2 cents: I think this case is do or die for AMD. If they win, at the very least they will get much better prospects of gaining marketshare and winning OEM deals, even though this will likely happen in a period where Intel could have some very competitive parts again (conroe/meron). AMD *could* also be awarded some healthy compensations, which wouldn't hurt its stock price I guess.. but there is a catch; if AMD looses, the future looks exceptionally poor for them. Expect Intel to turn on the thumbscrews until it bleeds, counter sew them, and push them out almost all markets save perhaps the DIY market and white box vendors.

Personally, I might to take a gamble on it though. from what I read, it seems it will be exceptionally hard for Intel to win this one. This quote if from aces where I asked about this trial:

Here is the burden of proof that Business Week thinks AMD should provide:

1) That Intel dominates the market, with a 60% or higher share
2) That the exclusive dealing prevented AMD from entering markets
3) That there is no valid business justification for Intel's conduct, such as lowering prices for consumers

1&2 seem overly obvious, the first one being a simple fact, the second one proven by the Japanese investigation if nothing else. The third one... not sure how to interprete it, but if I apply common sense rather than reading it literally, I'd say shouldn't be too hard to prove that either.

In short: I expect AMD to win (75/25 odds), and to gain substantially from it. But I do see a possibility of AMD losing BIG time, so its still a gamble. Don't bet your house on it, but if you have some money you don't need in the next year or two, why not give it a try ?

BTW, also note the EU is investigating intels conduct, and if i'm not mistaken will finish its investigations long before the US trial will take place. If the EU determines intel abused its position, expect that to have a double effect of:
-possibly increasing AMD stock instantly
-providing evidence AMD can use in the US lawsuit.

just my semi random thoughts, I will not accept liability if you loose your entire fortune on AMD stocks

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

dunklegend · Jul 6, 2005

I don't think it's very risky because AMD has little to lose and a lot to win.
If AMD doesn't win I don't think that would make him lose market share, so in the end at least you could sell for around the same price you bought.

It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious

mozzartusm · Jul 6, 2005

Thats not what I was talking about. I was placing emphasis on calls and puts being a risky investment. That has nothing to do with AMD or INTEL. Its simply the risk level of this type of investment.

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs

P4Man · Jul 6, 2005

You are underestimating the power of this lawsuit IMHO. Did you read the PDF containing AMDs allegations ? Assuming most of what is in there is actually true (even if not nearly all of it will be proven in court), I think it makes it very clear just how much AMD's marketshare is currently being capped by Intel's behaviour. In fact, its almost a miracle how they manage to get >15% regardless of technical merrit or price competitivity.

If you put on your rose (green ?

sunglasses, and fast forward 18 months from here, with AMD capacity >3x what it is today, with a victory in court resulting in the end of unfair practices by intel, and assuming AMD still having a technological lead or at least parity with Intel, I don't see why they could not grow to 2-3x their current marketshare. Fast forward another 18 months, and they just might become the market leader. Stranger things have happened in the industry, and just to put things in perspective; in markets where Intel's rebates don't fully work like the DIY market, AMD currently *is* marketleader.

But without this lawsuit, if indeed Intel behaves like AMD claims it does, I don't see them going *anywhere*, unless perhaps a small miracle happens like some major OEM (Lenovo ?) going AMD-only or at least mostly, giving intel and its marketing dollars/rebates the middle finger in an attempt to out-dell dell. Its not impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nah, no way you can underestimate the importance of this lawsuit..its do or die for AMD.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Starfishy · Jul 6, 2005

In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without a budget Dual core system.

Starfishy · Jul 6, 2005

In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without a budget Dual core system. I see what you mean though, but I would be fairly surprised to see this end "in court" as I think it would be wise for Intel to take a loss and settle. But even if they can win, and do win that still means that they have to offer Dell a better deal. And the fact is that the majority of uneducated consumers want to buy Intel products from Dell. This might change over time, but it won't likely change just because they win this lawsuit.

slvr_phoenix · Jul 6, 2005

No offense to anyone, but neither winning nor losing this lawsuit will hardly change anything. Even if AMD flat out wins (which is highly unlikely as what they have is just circumstantial evidence of business practices that may not even constitute anything illegal) it won't change much. AMD would just be awarded some chump change and Intel would be told to behave better. Whoop-de-doo. The award certainly won't turn around anything at AMD (their own increase in production will do way more than that money would) and even if Intel is court-ordered to change their business practices, just how much exactly do you think they'll actually change? Only the minimum necessary by law, if that.

If AMD wins, yes, their stock price will jump up a little at first. And then it'll trickle right back down to normalcy because the business itself won't be in any way changed. If you invest based on that you may make a few bucks, but only if you prey on the hype and are smart enough to get out before the bubble pops.

If you're going to invest in stocks you're better off looking at the cycles that a company's stock price goes through, what drives the cycles, and making plans to buy at low points in that cycle and sell high. (Which is all pretty obvious stuff.) It's a long game to play that takes patience, and even then, it's still all a gamble.

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ

@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · Jul 6, 2005

>In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without
> a budget Dual core system.

pff, AMD doesn't offer one because it doesn't have to, and doesn't want to (ASPs versus margins). An A64 is about the same size as a P4, so there is no technical reason AMD wouldn't/couldn't, especially once they move to 65nm which won't take 18 months.

>I see what you mean though, but I would be fairly surprised
> to see this end "in court" as I think it would be wise for
> Intel to take a loss and settle.

AMD would be unwise to settle. Why would they ? They'd get some instant cash perhaps, and a few worthless promises, and 6 months laters, everything is back to where it was. no, AMD needs to get Intel convicted as a monopoly abusing its market power. Anything less just isn't helpfull to AMD.

>But even if they can win, and do win that still means that
>they have to offer Dell a better deal

There is quite a bit more to this than just Dell. Read the PDF, and reconsider. Lots of major OEMs where willing to offer AMD based systems (or did, but canceled them later), but backed down because of Intels threats/rebates. read the story about HP even not using *FREE* A64's because of intels policy. They where offered one million cpu's totally free of charge by AMD, and they still had to decline and stopped production after 160k units.

>This might change over time, but it won't likely change
>just because they win this lawsuit.

read the PDF, it really is an eye opener. Yes, winning that lawsuit (and assuming an appropriate ruling) has the potential to change things dramatically for AMD. As it is, intel simply defines AMDs market share by saying to its OEMs they have a rebate target of X million units, where X is the oems marketshare minus Y, what they allow AMD to sell. AMDs market share simply is Y, and its defined by intel, purely and simply. Read the Sony story..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

P4Man · Jul 6, 2005

I disagree 200%. First let me ask: did you read the PDF ? If not, read it first.

>No offense to anyone, but neither winning nor losing this
>lawsuit will hardly change anything. Even if AMD flat out
>wins (which is highly unlikely as what they have is just >circumstantial evidence of business practices that may not
>even constitute anything illegal)

See my post above. 2 of the 3 required proofs are already there. The third one seems pretty obvious to me, but will require some substantial testimonies or other proof. I doubt AMD would even consider a trial if they didn't have this.

>AMD would just be awarded some chump change and Intel would
>be told to behave better. Whoop-de-doo

No, not just whoop-de-doo. If AMD wins, Intel will either face risk of being broken up, or *will* change its business practices. Read the PDF, see how many additional design wins AMD could have gathered if it wheren't for Intels rebate policy.

>The award certainly won't turn around anything at AMD
>(their own increase in production will do way more than
>that money would)

Their increased capacity will do *squat* if Intel is allowed to continue its current practices.

>and even if Intel is court-ordered to change their business
>practices, just how much exactly do you think they'll
>actually change?

They don't need to change much at all:
1) exclusivity deals should be forbidden
2) they should be ordered to apply volume discounts, and not only on the total ammount reaching a certain arbitrary volume (which today is like 90+% of the oems total potential) which the oem either hits (full rebate on all products) or doesn't (zero rebate, negative quarter for sure). AFAIK, this practice is illegal for a monopoly (>60% of the market).

Two simple rules that will change everything for AMD.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · Jul 6, 2005

read the PDF, it really is an eye opener.

Meh. The only way I'd count that as an eye opener was if you were asleep in the first place. Intel has always had strong marketing and sales tactics.

The real questions are: Have any of these tactics actually been illegal? And if so, can they actually be proven?

AMD would be unwise to settle. Why would they ? They'd get some instant cash perhaps, and a few worthless promises, and 6 months laters, everything is back to where it was.

How would this be any different if they win? There are certain business practices that are still legal, no matter how unfair they may seem, that won't change. The market won't suddenly become equal ground for all overnight even if AMD wins.

 :evil:

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:

The devil is in the details.
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · Jul 6, 2005

>Meh. The only way I'd count that as an eye opener was if you
>were asleep in the first place.

Pff.. so typical.. of course you knew. Obviously you also knew intel used illegal tactics too. And you understood how it all worked. Well I didn't, but now I do.

>Intel has always had strong
>marketing and sales tactics.

ROFL, as if "strong" is the word here. No, *illegal*.

>The real questions are: Have any of these tactics actually
>been illegal? And if so, can they actually be proven?

Im no lawyer, and not too intimate with US regulations, but from what I read on the topic: yes it clearly IS illegal. It certainly was so in Japan. As for being proven.. again, cf Japanese FTC, but even that aside, it shouldn't be excessively hard for AMD to find at least *some* people willing to testify. that is, if emails/written accounts would't do the job.

>How would this be any different if they win?

I think it would be change a tiny little bit at intel if they are being officially declared a monopoly, and if they are convicted for abusing its market power. Most companies don't like being broken apart and prefer to comply with the FTC. Don't make the mistake of comparing this with the MS lawsuit, MS is a monopoly and will at times be ordered to change its doings, but there is no credible competitor, so there is not much any rulings will change.

>There are certain business practices that are still legal,
>no matter how unfair they may seem, that won't change.

Such as ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · Jul 6, 2005

I disagree 200%.

And I disagree with you 400%. What's your point?

First let me ask: did you read the PDF ? If not, read it first.

Yes I've read it. It makes for a good zealot inspiration handbook, but does nothing for proving illegal business practices. If AMD is going to win this in court they're going to need a hell of a lot better evidence than evil Intel bedtime stories.

I especially loved the part about Intel's compiler. **ROFL** I mean not only is it Intel's compliler, so it'd be expected that it compiled better for Intel procs than AMD procs, but the actual truth is that for years it's been doing more for AMD's procs than agnostic compilers like gcc out there.

Again, AMD's law suit is mostly gibberish. The real question will be can the needle of any actual illegal business practices be found in that huge zealot-inspiring haystack?

See my post above. 2 of the 3 required proofs are already there.

Sorry, but it'll take a hell of a lot more than those three proofs to actually win anything in their case. All that those three will give AMD is a sorry-arsed chance of winning the sympathy vote, which is still a long shot to getting anything real out of it at best.

It's not just about proving that Intel has been strongly competetive. No one argues that. It's not even about proving that Intel has been anti-competetive. It's about proving that Intel has been illegally anti-competetive. For that AMD needs actual documented proof. Hearsay and sympathy are only a step away from useless.

I doubt AMD would even consider a trial if they didn't have this.

Are you kidding. For the first time in forever AMD is doing well enough to waste money on this kind of stuff. For a relatively low legal cost they can try to grab some very low hanging fruit and get a ton of publicity out of it. Even if they fail in court it's still been cost-effective advertising.

If AMD wins, Intel will either face risk of being broken up

**ROFL**

**still rolling**

**still laughing**

**still on the floor**

You don't honestly believe that'll ever happen, do you? They courts couldn't even do that to Microsoft, and there was never an easier target!

**ROFL**

or *will* change its business practices.

Yeah, if AMD is lucky, Intel will be forced to change their business practices slightly to toe the legal line. This itself may open up a whole 0.5% more market share and make Intel invest an extra 2% on legal fees to ensure that they're safe. Ooh.

Read the PDF, see how many additional design wins AMD could have gathered if it wheren't for Intels rebate policy.

Bah. Conjecture at its best. Even if AMD had won those, how much more would it have sold? We can only guess, and there are way too many 'ifs' in that line of reasoning to ever be reasonable about it.

 :evil:

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:

The devil is in the details.
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

slvr_phoenix · Jul 6, 2005

Pff.. so typical.. of course you knew.

Well duh. Are you honestly telling me that you didn't know that Intel was agressive? That they pushed themselves right up to the line of legal business practices? What company out to make money doesn't? Hell, what company doesn't even do something illegal at one point or another? It's not if they did something illegal, but if they got caught.

And you understood how it all worked.

Hey, I never claimed that.

ROFL, as if "strong" is the word here. No, *illegal*.

No, "strong" is the word. The question is "illegal".

Im no lawyer, and not too intimate with US regulations

Then stop talking about what you don't know.

It certainly was so in Japan.

1) You can't be found guilty for the same thing twice.
2) Japan has stricter anti-competetive laws than the US. What Intel did there is legal by US standards.

it shouldn't be excessively hard for AMD to find at least *some* people willing to testify. that is, if emails/written accounts would't do the job.

We will see. I personally think that it'll be a lot harder for AMD than you think. And even if they come up with actual evidence, it still has to prove something illegal for it to matter, and that is AMD's greatest hurdle.

Such as ?

Such as making unique deals with each individual customer. Such as per-quantity pricing. Such as marketing incentives. Such as customer rebates. Nothing that courts can do will prevent Intel from doing everything they can legally.

Sorry, but Intel knows exactly where the line between legal and illegal is, and they'll be right on the edge of it so long as it makes them more money. They'll probably even be willing to cross that line every so often so long as the occasional court costs when they're brought to task are less than the profits made from doing it every so often. So unless AMD has a lot more money for legal fees to bring Intel to court often, they're not going to actually change anything.

And on top of that, the process will take years, especially with appeals should AMD actually ever win anything. So it'll still always make Intel more money to be agressive and fight the occasional court battle.

 :evil:

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:

The devil is in the details.
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

wolverinero79 · Jul 6, 2005

You know what I think would be a good sanity check? If the courts try to find out if AMD could have even supported the "stolen marketshare". Intel seems to be barely able to keep up with their demand right now and if you look at production capacity vs demand in light of the marketshare split, AMD wouldn't be able to supply the extra demand from the big companies that supposidly couldn't do business with AMD, because Intel's a big meany.

The timing of AMD's new production capacity and this lawsuit are pretty close to be coincidental. I hope this is just a slightly paranoid thought and has no truth, but who knows.

In terms of the future, could AMD support 50% of the market even with their new facility? Doubtful. And I don't think anyone out there has been dissatisfied with Intel reliability (reliability being what typically sells more products when prices are similar). If AMD and Intel look about the same and you've had many fine products from Intel, why change? Because you feel bad for an underdog company? I don't think so.

Intel being broken up is pretty funny. How would you even divide the company? There's no logical way except by perhaps product grouping - but AMD doesn't compete in areas besides CPUs (they don't do flash anymore, remember

) so it kind of defeats the purpose of the split. You'd still have the CPU based firm have all the contracts and the 5th most valuable brand in the world (Coke, Microsoft, IBM, GE, Intel) vs AMD (not even an honorable mention for brand awareness).

I'll bet that AMD would have stood a much better chance in a couple years with this lawsuit (bigger capacity, Intel's holistic package marketing scheme). I still question whether or not Intel has done anything illegal (aggressive sure, but outside the law? Doubtful). Intel is a company that has been recognized as being a great community enriching company that follows both US and foreign laws (whichever are stricter) - just look at their dealings in China.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

Starfishy · Jul 6, 2005

I am happy to see that you and P4man are at it again... we took a long break for a while, but its good to see that you guys have jumped back in the ring.

dunklegend · Jul 6, 2005

Let's get ready to RUMBLEEEEEEEE!

It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious

Starfishy · Jul 6, 2005

I think they get mad at me when I pit them against eachother.

mozzartusm · Jul 6, 2005

[/pulls up a chair] [pops open a beer]

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs

Rugger · Jul 6, 2005

[/stretches out on recliner][/pops a can of pringles]
This is great! I leavee for a month and get back just in time for the action!

__________________________________________________
You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!

mozzartusm · Jul 6, 2005

Not as great as it may seem. If you would have been here all this time you probably wouldnt feel the same. Just browse around and then let me know what you think.

How was South America?

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs

slvr_phoenix · Jul 6, 2005

I think they get mad at me when I pit them against eachother.

**ROFL** Not me. I laugh. It's funny how often it happens.

But depending on how much is going on at the time, I may not be inclined to keep up the fight when I have better things to do.

Plus there's always that agree to disagree thing. :O

And failing that, there's a slightly modified addage: Who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool who keeps arguing with him?

So I tend not to fight for overly long periods of time anymore. (Not unless I'm really bored and/or frustrated with my software.)

I'm that balance between rage and zen that your sefu/sensei always warned you about. :evil:

:evil:

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:

The devil is in the details.
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

Buying AMD stock

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Share this page