Technology Stocks | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: pgerassi who wrote (256685)10/16/2008 8:28:07 PM
From: NITT of 272322
 
re: "And how do you know what the license was for? It wasn't in the press release or the earnings report itself."

On the conference call they said it was the total amount received for the the sale of their 200mm tools. They also said that they had received cash for that transactions in previous quarters, but could not count the income until the transactions was complete. They said that you will notice that the full amount of the transaction does not show as an increase of the Q3 cash line because they received much of the cash in previous quarters and it was shown in those quarters.

I don't care where they report it as they are transparent with what it means for future quarters. They will probably not be showing an operation profit in Q4... unless they show a one time event for the cash that comes in from The Foundry Co. transaction.

I don't have a transcript, so anyone who listened and heard anything different, please chime in.

Thanks,
Nitt

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

To: muzosi who wrote (256680)10/16/2008 8:28:18 PM
From: Elmer Phud of 272322
 
The question was rhetorical. The previous poster noted that shareholder equity went down by ~$2 Billion. That's what happens when you spend $2.1 Billion on stock buyback and give out $800 million in dividends.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: NITT who wrote (256690)10/16/2008 8:31:06 PM
From: dougSF30 of 272322
 
Thanks for replying-- I have him on ignore. But you are right, they admitted it on the CC. I guess Pete did not listen to it.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256689)10/16/2008 8:31:11 PM
From: mas_ of 272322
 
They just said in the CC they will save $100m a quarter on R&D and that the foundry's fixed costs will be shared with other users lowering average wafer price. The foundry is also basically doing IBM's processes which is no different to now.

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

To: pgerassi who wrote (256684)10/16/2008 8:32:35 PM
From: Elmer Phud of 272322
 
As to the question of why Intel is using borrowed money to buy its own stock, that is something to leave to another thread.

Of course it didn't happen, that goes without saying, but a case can be made that it should. With an ROE of 17.75%, borrowing at 5% to buyback stock makes very good sense. They should consider it. Especially when you consider they would save another 3.5% in unpaid dividends.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: pgerassi who wrote (256685)10/16/2008 8:33:45 PM
From: Elmer Phud of 272322
 
Then why isn't Intel removing their revenue from licensing from their earnings? And how do you know what the license was for?

AMD pays Intel a royalty for the use of Intel patents.

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

To: mas_ who wrote (256693)10/16/2008 8:34:54 PM
From: dougSF30 of 272322
 
mas, I refer you to the Q2 CC transcript:

Srini Pajjuri - Merrill Lynch

My final question is on the gross margin again once you are done with the asset smart strategy and once you execute that what kind of impact and how should we think about your gross margins longer term? Also do you have a longer term target in mind once you close the asset execution?

Robert Rivet


I’ll say a 50,000 feet with specific details to me doesn’t make sense to give to me until we actually have a deal with all of the pluses and minuses of a deal. But in reality today if you think about it from a cross of business I spend two things in the R&D category or three things I’ll call it in the R&D category which is process development, bringing up factories and chip design. Clearly there are two of those that will go away in an asset smart strategy. So one, there is cost reduction in that area. Clearly there is going to be cost increases in the gross margin as you pay for the cost of that technology on a per wafer basis and the cost of capital on a per wafer basis. So it is kind of trying to figure out the math of working those two angles that we will talk about once we have a deal.

So gross margin down, R&D down. That’s about all I want to get into at this point.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (256695)10/16/2008 9:05:06 PM
From: pgerassi of 272322
 
Ephud:

Another post worth less than nothing as the reference was for AMD's licensing revenue.

Pete

PS considering the low worth of your posts, you go back on ignore.

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

To: dougSF30 who wrote (256677)10/16/2008 9:09:30 PM
From: neolib of 272322
 
Not under Microprocessors & Chipsets AFAIK, since in general Intal Capital's investments were not in that sector. I don't recall the exact amounts, but there were some quarters where their investment income hit the better part of $1B ($700M???) and they tried to convince analysts that this was going to be the norm going forward, and that Intel Capital would be an increasingly important aspect of their business. Didn't work out that way of course, but the typical dotcom era analyst played along for a year or so.

Kind of interesting that neither MSFT's nor INTC's hotshot CxO's seem to be able to do anything with their hugh profits other than give it to shareholders, or buy back their own stock (the better for to give the profits to themselves). Unfortunately, their timing ain't so hot on this aspect either it would appear.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: pgerassi who wrote (256697)10/16/2008 9:10:00 PM
From: Elmer Phud of 272322
 
the reference was for AMD's licensing revenue.

Dear Pete - perhaps you are unable to read your own writing:

Then why isn't Intel removing their revenue from licensing from their earnings?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.