SiliconInvestor
     Advanced Search   [ sign in ]

register
Register

 Technology Stocks | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Elmer Phud who wrote (256668)10/16/2008 7:01:06 PM
From: muzosi of 272312
 
mas, what do you think happens when you spend ~$2 Billion buying back stock?

let's see: they paid $2.1B for stock and now the same is worth $1477M. from where i sit it seems they lost $623M. do you have a different result?

one can argue that intc would be at a different value (say around $10) without that stock purchase but that's an entirely different topic.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256671)10/16/2008 7:03:57 PM
From: muzosi of 272312
 
They list the $191M of one-time revenue (& profit, given that it is all "fees" for IP) under "continuing operations" ?!!!

so you're saying that the same ip can't be licensed to someone else? will they collect royalties?

i don't imagine arm/mips recording all their ip license fees as one time revenues. the thing with ip is that unlike a sale which is definitely a one-time event, you can license the same ip to different people. i'm not sure if this applies to amd in this instance though.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: muzosi who wrote (256672)10/16/2008 7:05:37 PM
From: Elmer Phud of 272312
 
muzosi

As of today they have lost money on the buyback. If in a year from now they value is higher then they will have made money. They aren't day traders.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256671)10/16/2008 7:13:44 PM
From: neolib of 272312
 
I am surprised this is not considered to be accounting fraud. What argument can there be for classifying this income in this manner?

You seemed to have forgotten how Intel lowered the bar in that respect: Remember when Intel Capital was considered a fundamental new source of recurring income for Intel in the dot com period, and most analysts bought that crap?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: muzosi who wrote (256673)10/16/2008 7:23:32 PM
From: dougSF30 of 272312
 
I'm saying this was *clearly* from a "one-time event", and including it under "continuing operations" is at best INCREDIBLY misleading. The whole point of breaking out income like this is to enable accurate quarterly comparisons that allow investors to track the performance of the core business. If AMD were to, at some point in the future, sell some other equipment and IP, that too should be broken out.

AMD is actively misleading investors.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: neolib who wrote (256675)10/16/2008 7:30:49 PM
From: dougSF30 of 272312
 
Are you saying Intel classified Intel Capital revenue & income under continuing operations? Under Microprocessors & Chipsets?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (256668)10/16/2008 7:33:38 PM
From: mas_ of 272312
 
$2 billion of outstanding shares to disappear yet only ~$750m did.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256677)10/16/2008 7:35:06 PM
From: combjelly of 272312
 
"Are you saying Intel classified Intel Capital revenue & income under continuing operations?"

Yes, they did. Don't remember the category, that was a few years back.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (256674)10/16/2008 7:36:28 PM
From: muzosi of 272312
 
you asked a question about what happens when you spend $2B on a stock buy-back and i gave you the answer. as to what might happen in the future, if that were relevant, why do companies have quarterly releases? everyone would just say, "we hope to do better in the future".

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256676)10/16/2008 7:39:47 PM
From: muzosi of 272312
 
I'm saying this was *clearly* from a "one-time event",

i didn't follow what exactly they sold/licensed but i don't see you making a case for that strong statement either. and it doesn't seem that you understand ip licensing model if that's what amd did. do you think mips/arm break-out their licensing deals every q ? it's entirely possible that amd might establish an ip licensing (again one usually doesn't sell ip, it gets licensed) model on a continuing basis.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.