[edited] @Romus - Targets
I couldn't take e.g. Glen Young from Citi serious, because he
derives his target based on 2009 EPS projections. I'm wond-
ering who could make a 2009E guess, not alone 2008E, which is
extremly tough. When all my university knowlegde was right,
I would use a forecast which is derived from the actual
situation. We both know what this means. So, when it comes
to price target in that environment, you could only go back
to past times, where the situation was as bad. The problem,
the situation wasn't that bad in the past. The only way too
measure is a mix of Rev. forecast/potential cash flow and
some hard numbers as book-value. These numbers alone could
be taken seriously, the other things are WILD guesses, which
could be way too low or way too high.
I would summarize the next two year very simple. When you
want to valuate AMD, it will only be a measure, how you
could see K10 DC near term and K10 QC longer term. Why? It
should be clear, that AMD can't ramp a 300mm^2 DIE in volume
for desktop - I mean volume, not small fractions of % of
overall volume - really volume. So QC is mainly a Server-
product up to the point where 45nm kicks in. The way to value
AMD is the way you value K10 Desktop DC against both Penryn
DC and QC derivatives. Why QC at Intel - just because DIEs
are small and prices already low for QC. When you could give
yourself an answer how this will look in Q1 and going forward,
you could SERIOUSLY give a value measure. Why do I say this?
Its simple, noone knows that much about K10 at this point
and Henry yesterday said, that performance is not so impor-
tant - other factors play a bigger role. Its up to how you
value these phrases.
BUGGI |
