Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD making $300M last quarter

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2003 8:59:37 PM

Finally some good finanical news for AMD; they are still not reporting a profit (but none was expected) but at least the loss was much smaller than expected and they had a $300M positive cashflow, which is excellent (well, for AMD anyway). here is the link:
<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105046630" target="_new"> Aces forum </A>

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

More about : amd making 300m quarter

October 16, 2003 11:11:04 PM

The title is misleading. AMD didnot lose as much money as planned. This is not equal to making that amount of money.
October 16, 2003 11:13:25 PM

Thanks for pointing that out... wouldn't want AMD to look like they are doing too good now, would we...
Related resources
October 16, 2003 11:17:59 PM

As long as they are not going bankrupt it's all good.

<font color=blue>
I will not add another word.
Horace </font color=blue>
October 16, 2003 11:53:33 PM

FYI...

Hector Ruiz now calls AMD the new AMD. Here are some highlights from the earnings conference call.

There are 90nm engineering starts at Dresden now.
50% of starts in Q1 will be for AMD64 CPUs.
90nm production production starts will come in the 1st half of 2004.
AMD64 production will surpass 50% by the end of 2004. SOI yields are characterized as good.
AMD also said they were not expecting such high Athlon 64 demand, and they are ramping up to meet it.
CPUs and flash are now a 50/50 mix of product revenue.
Mobile CPU sales were at a record high.
Major Athlon 64 OEM wins are coming in Q1.
ASP and unit shipments were both up.
Channel inventory for CPUs is at under 4 weeks.
10-15% growth is expected for Q4 in CPUs and flash.
1 billion dollars is the new break even point with the FASL acquisition.
Growth occured world wide.

Well there you have the highlights. I'm posting up the notes now.
October 17, 2003 2:45:59 AM

That's all very great news, but now is the real deal, and if Omid's question which holds true: "Will that all translate into profits or not" will get answered.

Because it's true, it can be as great as ever, the K8, but you simply won't benefit if AMD doesn't prosper from it. So we'll see just how the next 2 quarters do. It's gonna be VERY interesting, because it's a very crucial point in their company finance.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 3:35:52 AM

Captain Obvious says what AMD needs now is good marketing!
Make people aware of the A64!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 3:45:24 AM

Doh! This will surely slow the recovery of their stock value, which otherwise should be around $20 by the end of the year.

You see, for some odd reason sellers react favorably, and buyers negatively, to good news about this company.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 6:02:38 AM

They didn't loose money, they got (a lot) more money in than went out. positive cashflow is more important than posting profits; a company could literally post losses for decades, as long as cashflow is positive, this isnt an issue.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 6:05:40 AM

>50% of starts in Q1 will be for AMD64 CPUs.
>AMD64 production will surpass 50% by the end of 2004.

Isnt that a bit strange ? Sure, hammers are larger, and yields likely lower than for bartons, but still.. :/ 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 17, 2003 4:30:42 PM

How exactly can it be positive if you're still losing money?
I mean, if you're only spending, and getting less in return, how exactly can it still be good?
Eventually you would die out if you never get profits, no?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 17, 2003 4:49:00 PM

I was about to ask the same thing... doesn't positive cash flow = profit and negative cash flow = loss? If you post a loss, then how can you say your cash flow was positive?


<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 5:00:42 PM

Profit and loss is about a lot more than just getting more (or less) money in than out. You can make bookkeeping profits while spending more than you earn in cash, and vice versa. Thing like writing off investments(if that is the correct english term), goodwill, stock, depreciation, and tons of others have an influence on your operating profit (or loss) while they don't have an impact your cash position.

Many small companies never ever post a profit (if for any other reason than to evade taxes), yet they make their owners (and or investors) money. Yes, you could operate almost like forever, never ever posting a postive profit. Amazon operated for like 10 years while never posting a cent of profit; doesnt mean they didnt make any money or didnt grow though.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 5:10:50 PM

a simple example.. say you build a $1 Billion fab. you pay for it cash in the year 2000. That means your cash flow will be hit hard in 2000, but not at all in the years after. However, in the bookkeeping you have to write off such an investment over, lets say 10 years. That means from 2000 to 2010 you will have to take a $100M cost into account, weighing on your profit/loss, while it will not impact your cash position at all since you paid for it entirely in 2000. So in 2000 you be very cash flow negative while still posting profits, and in the years after it you may be cash flow positive while posting losses.. see the difference ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 17, 2003 5:11:39 PM

uhm yes it actually is, you'de be suprised how many large corporations operate on this principle
October 17, 2003 5:13:09 PM

Oh I see what you mean.
Non-profit orgs often get their expenses leveled with incomes, but seriously though, without profits, AMD can't expand.
They can cut some costs and spend elsewhere, or earn more in a section of their bill, but still, if they can't generate overall profit to really start putting money somewhere, it just ain't good. It's a big company, let's face it, and they need to compete. If they did keep losing for a while, they'd be gone, for sure.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2003 5:36:47 PM

> but seriously though, without profits, AMD can't expand

? On the contrary, companies expanding fast are prime candidates to post losses while having positive cashflow. Amazon went from a $10.000 no name website to a multi billion (?) coroporation without ever making a profit (until recently). Now, Im no accountant either, so I tend to agree that posting profits is still better than posting losses though :)  but I expect AMD to be in the black next quarter with ease.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 18, 2003 2:38:27 AM

Although I don't drink, here's a glass raised for that. :wink:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 18, 2003 3:41:09 AM

Anyone who has grown up on a farm has knowledge of something very similar from personal experience. Lets say when you're getting started you buy all the new good stuff, you can easily drop $500,000 on a tractor, combine, head, planter, baler and such, but, at least where I grew up, farms that pulled down that much money in a year numbered maybe one. For your average guy, that ment he never had a profit any year he worked because he was always in debt. Does that mean they all starved and went out of buisness? Obviously not. That money is spread out over many years, (and since these machines can last decades you can really plan to do it over the long run) and the taxes are much lower when on paper the money you owe is much more than what you make. It's not exactly the same, but I think it's still in the same ballpark. :smile:
October 18, 2003 3:58:13 AM

To be honest it's still a bit vague in my mind.
But we CAN agree, AMD as a big company, wants to expand their fabs, add into R&D, market, etc.
I just wouldn't believe they can operate for a long time on losses anymore, without profits eventually, even if they go on the borderline. I'd need real figures on them to be proven otherwise.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 19, 2003 9:15:00 AM

revenue was up 20%
net income up 150%... damn thats alot
starting to be glad i bought that stock 6 years ago...
October 19, 2003 9:02:38 PM

It will also be interesting to see if Intel's revenues will be down at all from last Q4, this time, aside from how AMD will fare.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
!