Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

Man, how dumb are you?

I'll break this down so that even someone as clueless as you can follow it.

This is from AMD's own figures you simpleton.

All those figures you have quoted were revenue

That is why AMD consolidated statement for this latest QTR http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjcyODB8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Reads as follows: (All figures below represent millions of dollars)

Net REVENUE = $1,646
Less Cost of Sales of $911

Gross Margin then = $735

From this figure, AMD then takes away the following expenses/amounts

$432 - Research and Development
$239 - Marketing, general and Admin
($1,242) - LEGAL SETTLEMENT - The brackets indicate a negative. Do you understand what a negative expense means?
$18 - Amortization of intangible assets

So starting with the figure of $735 above, subtract all the expenses, and you add on the Legal Settlement amount.

That is why they then get an Operating Income figure of $1,288

Now to that figure they add $3 of Interest, take off $19 of Interest expense they incurred and subtract other expenses for $19

This gives them their Income before Taxes figure of $1,191, and then they take off provision for income taxes of $11, thus taking this figure down to $1,180.

They further subtract a loss from discontinued operations of $3, to arrive at the final NET INCOME figure for Q4 09 of $1,177, which is LESS THAN the INTEL LEGAL SETTLEMENT AMOUNT of $1,242.


So let this post be a special reminder of how not only did I school you completely on reading a financial statement, but it also showed how you were too stupid to even be able to comprehend the mainstream media reports of these figures where things get dumbed down for people like you. :lol:


 
Yes it does include the Intel settlement.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AMD- [...] l?x=0&.v=1

SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AMD1 (NYSE:AMD - News) today reported revenue for the fourth quarter of 2009 of $1.646 billion, an increase of 18 percent compared to the previous quarter and 42 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2008.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, AMD reported net income attributable to AMD common stockholders of $1.178 billion, or $1.52 per share, which includes a net favorable impact of $1.238 billion, or $1.57 per share. AMD reported operating income of $1.288 billion in the quarter, including a net favorable impact of $1.224 billion. The net favorable impacts were primarily from a legal settlement with Intel Corp

For the year ended Dec. 26, 2009, AMD reported revenue of $5.403 billion. Fiscal 2009 net income attributable to AMD common stockholders was $304 million. AMD reported revenue of $5.808 billion and a net loss attributable to AMD common stockholders of $3.129 billion for fiscal 2008.
Click to expand...

For the full year, AMD's net income was $304-million and revenue was $5.4-billion. In 2008, AMD had a net loss of $3.1-billion and revenue of $5.8-billion.

If you want to compare those figures vs intel y/y, be my guest. And no, that doesn't include the intel settlement :)
Click to expand...

Which version of revenue didn't you understand? Now compare that year over year vs intel.

$37.6bn 2008
$35.1bn 2009

Hey guess what, both are down 7% year over year. *Not including the intel settlement*. Capiche?
 

No you clown.

Let's look at what you were responding to.

I said : "AMD made yet another loss(when one takes out the Intel money), in the same QTR Intel's gross margins hit 65%."

You obviously being too dumb to understand the meaning of 'loss{when the Intel money is excluded)', responded with


I then pointed out to you that without Intel's money they made a loss for the QTR(and as they had made a loss in the previous QTR, then obviously for the Year too".

You responded that AMD's Net Income for the year was $304 Million and were still denying that their Net Income only occurred because of the Intel Money.

You also then blathered on about Revenue, which was never anything I mentioned or had anything to do with whether or not AMD made a profit without Intel's settlement money.

Has the Penny finally dropped for you yet Jenny that without Intel's settlement money, AMD did not make a healthy profit for the year?

Do you realise I never disputed AMD's revenue had increased, because that turned out to be irrelevant to whether AMD made a profit or loss in this instance.

Do you realise throughout this conversation you tried to hide behind AMD's revenue increase, so you could ignore that without the Intel settlement money they still made a loss for the Year, again.
 
Hey guys & gals, let's lose the ad hominem since it doesn't add anything to the discussion (or diss & cussin' 😀), plus it's likely to result in warnings or bans. Dunno where the mods are, but let's please keep it civil, eh??

Thanks in advance,
Fazers
 

The tree of maturity must be watered with the blood of the banhammer.
 



Dear oh dear. It's amusing you mentioned dumbing down Chad because that's *exactly* what I have to do in most of my posts against you.

My point was, year on year (even without the intel money), AMD had actually performed no worse than intel.

Take that 3bn loss in 2008, that would be what, 900m or so in 2009. If you look at intels figures, AMD certainly haven't gone backwards. The same goes for revenues with both down the same, ~7%.

Now clearly "revenue" doesn't include payments like the one intel made, but if you weren't so goddamm thick in everything else I wouldn't need to dumb down stuff like this because I need to assume you wouldn't understand.

You've shown no particular sense or logic in anything else up till now, why would I assume you actually have a grip of financials? Is there anything else you are good at, maybe give me a heads up so we can avoid wasting forum space like this in future?
 
99% is good, except that 1% attack mode.
Lets keep it good

Heres the latest mindset at nVidia "the devs did it"
What the interviewer didnt ask the Physx head was, did or did not ageia push the devs to the best outcome? Meaning, didnt they use more multi core on their cpu solutions at the time , moreso than they do today, since we have even more MC rigs than evr?
I think the answer would have been interesting, to say the least

Ive pointed out several times in the past, both nVidia and Intel do similar things, some is attributal to being the front runner, while some is malicious IMO.
Since Intel commands a monopoly marketshare, this limits their chances of being malicious and to be let go, whereas with nVidia, theyre even more so, which again, implies they are much alike, with only 1 being more constrained.
SSE, Physx etc should be standards allowed on any competitors HW and offered up prior to release, so standards are kept.
At this point, having special IP shouldnt go outside of simple arch design, as only the consumer suffers from proprietary conditions.
If this changes the dynamics of profits , who cares? Its Intels claims their arch and process are superior, and anything outside of this shouldnt matter, same goes with nVidia, AMD, ATI etc.
For us consumers, itd be a win win scenario, and save for a few ultra fans, it wouldnt matter.
And before someone says "itll stop progress", I point out that the FTC wants more competition anyways, and what better way to introduce it? If Intel, nVidia AMD or ATI sit on IT due to a non profitable scenario, other than thru licensing, theres others out there that will do it
 


Jenny,
I said that AMD did not make a profit without Intel's Legal Settlement money AND YOU DISPUTED this.

Do you now admit that you were wrong on this?

 
That isn't what I was disputing muppet.

My 'that doesnt include the intel settlement' was supposed to be a cue for you to compare both AMD's and Intels year on year results (without the settlement money).

Why else would I have listed the 2008 figures?

As for your point, why the hell take out the intel money anyway? Why not take out all the money spent on GF or the advertising budget seeing as you often claim they never advertise anyway. 😗
 

As that(AMD not being profitable without Intel's settlement money) was what I had posted and you responded to, then it just goes to show you don't know what you are talking about, but we all knew that anyway, didn't we. :lol:

My 'that doesnt include the intel settlement' was supposed to be a cue for you to compare both AMD's and Intels year on year results (without the settlement money).
Click to expand...
As my point was only that AMD weren't profitable without Intel's money, why the FCUK would I do what you suggested? It was irrelevant.

Why else would I have listed the 2008 figures?
Click to expand...
Because your thinking is so muddle headed you have no idea of what you are saying.

As for your point, why the hell take out the intel money anyway?
Click to expand...
Because it shows that AMD have still not returned to profitability without a one off large payment from Intel.

Remember, Intel has now bought out ALL of AMD's excuses, so they can't rely on Intel's money any more to massage their figures.

Why not take out all the money spent on GF
Click to expand...
Normal costs of running a business shouldn't be excluded.

or the advertising budget seeing as you often claim they never advertise anyway. 😗
Click to expand...
In keeping with the overwhelming evidence that you don't have a clue, where did I ever claim AMD don't advertise?
 
So 1-off payments shouldn't be included? If you look back far enough (q2 perhaps) you'll see that intel only made a profit because of a 1-off payment.

Nope sorry Chad, but your point is the irrelevent one. Go tell the street that the intel money doesn't count, see where they tell you to go. 😀
 


In no way is the money being dragged out of AMD to GF 'normal'. That is precisely why each section is split, so that you can see that AMD - THE PRODUCT COMPANY - has been in the black the past two quarters.

It is intended to show that without the drain of GF - which will be removed from the balance from this moment onward - is an artificial drain and does not reflect the viability of the company.
 

The money being "drained" out of AMD because of GF, is actually less than would be the case if they still had their fabs, so there is nothing abnormal about those amounts.

It is intended to show that without the drain of GF - which will be removed from the balance from this moment onward - is an artificial drain and does not reflect the viability of the company.
Click to expand...
GF isn't a drain compared to AMD having to pay the true costs of its wafers to a third party.

AMD will not be getting a reduced price on wafers from GF forever.

Once GF's foundry business is properly up and running, they will need to charge AMD a price where GF makes profits on the service it provides AMD.

For now that is all being obscured.
 


Finally I understand.

AMD created GF so they could LOSE MONEY BY SPENDING MORE ON WAFERS.

Thanks Chad, that sure as hell cleared one thing up. You are grade A NUTS.
 

AMD could no longer afford to develop FABS, so they have gone for a HAIL MARY play where they have sold off the Family Silverware and are just hoping against hope that it all works out. And what choice did they have anyway.

AMD took drastic SHORT TERM action because without doing so, they had no long term.

That doesn't mean they have found some secret formula to success, it just means they have bought themselves some breathing space where if they can improve the design of their future products, they may be able to overcome the disadvantage of higher costs of goods sold they will incur.

I'm sorry to be destroying your illusions Jenny, I know you thought that AMD had found the Golden Goose here, but in time you will see that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
AMD could *never* afford to take their fab construction past 32nm, it's getting too expensive. You know how much a fab costs to build?

Do you realise that GF and AMD will forever be tied together, so it is in BOTH COMPANIES best interests to find a working solution.

If AMD cant afford to pay GF for wafers, who else do you think is going to?

I'm sorry to destroy *your* illusion Chad, but the GF spinoff was a lot more than a short term measure to save AMD. It has created a much leveller playing field than AMD alone could ever have managed, because ATIC won't be brushed aside by intel you can be sure of that. :)
 

Yes, but you seem to think that after GF pays for these expenses, they aren't going to pass that cost back onto AMD in the form of higher wafer prices.

Do you realise that GF and AMD will forever be tied together, so it is in BOTH COMPANIES best interests to find a working solution.

If AMD cant afford to pay GF for wafers, who else do you think is going to?
Click to expand...
Other Semiconductor design companies that GF will be targeting.

But obviously it will take a good few years before they can get so much volume that the loss of AMD doesn't matter.

Or if that isn't practical, they will stop investing in Fabs that only suit AMD, let them wither and die and concentrate on customers who can pay their bills.

GF are in this to ultimately make money you know.

I'm sorry to destroy *your* illusion Chad, but the GF spinoff was a lot more than a short term measure to save AMD. It has created a much leveller playing field than AMD alone could ever have managed, because ATIC won't be brushed aside by intel you can be sure of that. :)
Click to expand...
Jenny, you seem to think that just because you are in love with AMD, that other businesses will be prepared to lose money on behalf of AMD forever, and never extract a profit.

It doesn't make any sense for why GF would subsidise AMD forever, it only makes sense in the short term.

You just don't grasp this and it seems like you think GF should feel honoured to be losing money to back up AMD in their fight against Intel.


 
Nope the problem is, you don't understand that AMD are, and always will be GF's #1 customer.

That is in terms of revenue, expertise, relations, whatever. AMD will help GF to create the technology that will continue to be used for *other* companies, and AMD will always be the premier customer using the most advanced tech available.

When AMD is done with 32nm, STM/Qualcomm or somebody else will make use of it. That, is how this is going to work. :)
 
so sitting back as objectively as possible, AMD did actually escape red ink this year due to the one time monetary gift/payment/whatever from Intel. they would have on their own steam in short time i believe. now the question becomes can they stay in the black? can they improve their marketing and public perception enough to infiltrate the commercial lines offered by OEM's?
 
Wow chad are you really having that much problem with understanding logical finance situations!? jennyh has most of her S!@# straight take a little time to learn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom