All Barcelona Shipments Halted

[taltamir]

Mr Fawlty? what a name

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: NXIL
Same with Phenom: if it were the only quad core on the market? Cool. But, you have the Q6600 from Intel sitting there at about $280....and it is about 10% faster, or more. So, even if each Phenom is costing them $500 to make right now, due to low yields, or other inefficiencies, it's hard for them to sell it except for less than the price the Q6600 sets.

Not as long as AM2 motherboards can actually run them, which I'm still not convinced that's possible. Both Asus and DFI have AM2 boards, and both are known for supporting their boards with BIOS's in a timely manner, I'm starting to think that maybe it isn't possible for Phenoms to run on AM2 boards, or one of those companies would have already released a BIOS update, it seems to me.

But assuming it's possible, there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people who would be interested in one, even if it cost $50 more than a Q6600. It would obviously be considerably less expensive than a Q6600, plus motherboard.

 

[taltamir]

if the phenom costs 500$ to make then they would be halting production! Why would the WANT To sell more when they loose over 200$ a peice?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: eRacer

Originally posted by: ZstreamI just want to know how much Intel is paying you for all the Viral Marketing you do. Can you please just flood futuremark with your crap. It is getting really old now...

Pardon me. I didn't realize you had already graced the Anandtech forum with your presence. Perhaps you can keep your personal insults and paranoia at Futuremark to avoid burdening the forum members here. And feel free to send me an apology if AMD posts Q4 graphics revenue far less than $552 million (a $300 million gain over Q3).

I will not apologize to a Viral Marketer. You are on the lines of Rollo and eventually it will come out that you are being paid by Intel as well or you are on some sort of Vendetta against AMD as it shows in your post in futuremark.

That is quite enough with the Viral Marketer comments. Discuss the tech, and not what you think of the poster for having opinions.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003.

 

[eRacer]

Originally posted by: ZstreamI will not apologize to a Viral Marketer. You are on the lines of Rollo and eventually it will come out that you are being paid by Intel as well or you are on some sort of Vendetta against AMD as it shows in your post in futuremark.

I can't speak for Rollo, but I am not a viral marketer and have no vendetta against AMD so please stop with the viral marketer lies and delusional accusations. Thanks.

What are your motivations for posting? Have you so closely associated yourself with AMD products that you view an attack on AMD as an attack on YOU? Is AMD so noble and righteous that no one would dare be openly critical of AMD unless they were paid to do so?

Can no one post about AMD's string of recent setbacks and failures, or question the competency of AMD's management, or wonder how AMD will pay the bills if times get tougher? Quite frankly, Intel and NVIDIA doesn't need a viral marketing campaign to highlight AMD's shortcomings, because they are so incredibly obvious they are nearly impossible to miss.

Lack of competition from AMD means potentially higher prices from Intel and NVIDIA. That is bad news for everyone. NVIDIA and Intel viral marketers and black helicopters aren't responsible for where AMD is today. AMD is responsible. I like to see the underdog win. I've spent the last five years building nothing but AMD systems for myself, family and friends. Unfortunately those days are coming to an end. AMD isn't the only one who now offers CPUs with an excellent performance/price ratio.

As deceptive as AMD management has been over the past year in regards to financial performance and product introductions, they have lost any claim to the moral high ground. Without someone to "cheer for" choosing a CPU becomes an impersonal decision rather than an opportunity to make a "charitable contribution" to a deserving underdog.

Getting back to my original posts, could you explain why my prediction of a healthy $50 million quarter-on-quarter increase in graphics sales, and a 50% increase year-on-year, is defamatory to AMD? Aren't viral marketers paid by Intel and NVIDIA supposed to post only bad things about AMD?

 

[trajan2050]

More AMD business news

http://blogs.barrons.com/techt...weak/?mod=yahoobarrons

Intel (INTC) shares are getting a boost from Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Kevin Cassidy.
Cassidy sees two trends boosting Intel: strong PC demand, and stumbles by its primary rival.
Cassidy today cut his outlook for AMD for 2008: he now sees revenue of $6.4 billion, down from $6.6 billion, with a loss of $1.75 a share, widened from a previously expected loss of $1.70. He maintains a Market Weight rating on AMD. The estimate cut, he writes, reflects a belief that ?AMD?s 65 nm process and/or architecture continues to generate poor yields limiting the introduction of higher performer server, desktop and notebook CPUs. Adds Cassidy: ?AMD?s lack of execution in the process node transition could potentially lead to significant market share loss in 2008.?

Today, INTC is up 75 cents, or 2.9%, at $27.06; AMD is unchanged at $9.25.
Lots of risk for investors.

 

[NXIL]

if the phenom costs 500$ to make then they would be halting production! Why would the WANT To sell more when they loose [sic]over 200$ a piece?

To stay in the market--and almost without exception, the cost of production comes down.

Ah, no wonder they call econ 'the dismal science'.

The first phenom chip certainly cost millions of dollars to make.

The second cut the average cost in half. The third, etc....

There are fixed costs (the engineers, the PR flaks who set up the bogus Lake Tahoe demo, buildings, etc) and variable costs (the silicon wafers, the fee they pay the fab to make the CPUs, a box and fan and cpu cooler for each unit). Ideally AMD would like to sell the first batches at high prices--tough to do when the Q6600 is out there setting a benchmark price.

Somewhere in AMD a number cruncher estimated the # of Phenoms they would be able to sell, and did a fancy spreadsheet--you can assume that at some point they project a profit on Phenom sales based on what they estimate they can charge for each CPU.

However, Intel has some new 45nm CPUs coming soon--the smaller gates makes them cheaper to produce than 65nm size dies--and they use less power, run faster, etc--so, faster, better, cheaper.....makes it tough to be a Phenom lover.

Other economic/business stuff: price elasticity of demand, ROI, R/D costs, marketing costs, etc etc etc--and, it is a science, hence the Nobel Prize in Econ--

And here, check out the Prize awarded in 2000:

Daniel McFadden
United States United States
"for his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice."

A superset of : Next product to buy models: These models predict which product a next purchase is going to be from.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/waiting.shtml

OK, the guy who wrote that uses a friggin Sony CD walkman, and not an iPod: he may be insane. Caution.

http://www.decisionanalyst.com...t/salesforecasting.dai

I am pretty sure that Intel's R&D budget is bigger than AMD is entirely, as in entire company. Intel made their quad core with 2 dual core CPUs in one package; it could be that there was an Intel team trying to make a unified quad core like AMD did that would have been released about now if it worked. Their unified quad core comes out in 2009 I think. And, it could be that AMD did not have enough R & D money to crank out a 2 dual core Quad--I think there are limitations with the on die memory controller, which was an advantage for them in the dual core competition.

HTH

NXIL

 

[NXIL]

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=INTC

Intel R/D 2006: 5.8 billion $$

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=AMD

AMD: total revenue 2006: 5.6 billion $$

AMD R & D: 1.6 billion $$

AMD Profitable in 2004, 2005.

AMD Losses in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006.

As of the end of the third quarter, they have lost $1.187 billion dollars this year, according to:

http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=AMD

For typos:

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: Viditor

The stock price quoting troll hits again...:roll:

When are you going to learn that it just doesn't matter...

Only to a point -- if a stock price gets low enough and stays there long enough it may not qualify for institutional ownership. Conservative mainstream mutual funds will be forced to liquidate their positions. You may know if AMD is widely held by institutionals -- I'm not interested in enough to find out.

Even when AMD hit the $3 range back in 02, they didn't lose their institutional investors...so in this case I would dispute your hypothesis.

But $10 is a very important stock price level for another reason. A completely different class of 'investors' trade companies with stock prices under $10. That's why companies do reverse stock splits (which as a rule are never a good thing from a long position standpoint).

Again, this isn't always (or even usually) the case. The most common reason for reverse stock splits is to avoid delisting. Companies with share prices below $1 for 20 consecutive days are delisted from the NYSE...

A corporation's stock is its currency. Costs very little to issue more stock, yet that stock can be used to buy market share and assets and grow the company through acquisition as well as compensate employees and management without dipping into cash. We all agree growth and keeping cash are good goals, yes?

Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.
Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

So it does matter.

Nope...

AMD's 6 month chart looks like roadkill -- from a technicals standpoint there's no short term bottom in sight. AMD is nowhere near a penny stock yet, but it is now a remote possibility.

Anything is possible...there could be a lightning strike, flooding, terrorist attack, etc...
But then the reverse is true as well. AMD currently has a very high SIR (Short Interest Ratio), and a high Beta (how quickly and to what degree a stock price changes).
The possibility of a Short Squeeze hasn't been this high in a very long time!
For those who don't know, a short squeeze is when the stock goes up quickly and people who are short the stock must scramble to cover their short position (a short is when you borrow some shares and sell them right away...at some point you have to buy shares to replace the ones you borrowed). Obviously as there are currently 68 Million shares short, if everyone had to cover at the same time then the stock price goes up VERY fast and well past what it normally would have.

Think of it like a spring being tightened...if things remain steady, then the spring is let out slowly. But, if something unexpected happens (like AMD breaking even this quarter) then the spring unwinds violently, and grows much larger than it was to start with.

So, if AMD makes an unexpected jump (say 5% or more), then a short squeeze could very well double or triple that immediately. In fact, I have seen a short squeeze double the price of a stock in a matter of hours...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: trajan2050
The stock price quoting troll hits again...

When are you going to learn that it just doesn't matter

It doesn't matter a bit unless one happens to have invested in this disaster. Most people invest so that at some reasonable length of time they can make a profit and enjoy spending it. In this case lack of performance coupled with very high risk financials are driving the stock towards the basement. AMD now owes more than it's market value. People on this forum are interested in how AMD is doing and that includes the stock price.
It's certainly nothing personal unless you're an AMD employee.

I am indeed invested in AMD, and have been so off and on many times over the years. I buy low and sell high, which is why I'm now buying AMD and have sold all of my Intel.
The only time I was ever nervous about my AMD investment was the first time in August of 99...AMD had a real chance of bankruptcy then. Sadly for me, I limited my purchase to a few hundred K because of the risk (it went from $8 to $45 split adjusted before I sold).
As of now, I have invested 7 figures into AMD, and I am far more relaxed about it than ever.

The point is that if it doesn't matter to me what the second by second stock price is, I can assure you it matters even less to anyone else on this board...that's why it appears to be trolling.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: eRacer

Originally posted by: Viditor
My estimate is that HD38xx should give AMD an additional $300 million in revenue while cutting costs on GPUs by at least 40%...

I'd say the $300 million figure is off by at least a factor of ten for Q4. If we assume AMD ships 300,000 38xx GPUs this quarter (which is a large number for a launch), and we assume a healthy ASP of $100 then HD 38xx revenue will only be $30 million.

Actually, 300,000 is a very small number...
Remember that purchases from foundaries are made by the wafer, not the chip. Even at say 2000 wafers/week (to give you an idea of proportions, TSMC is currently ramping their 300mm to 100,000 wafers/month), that's 2.8 Million candidate dice per month.
If it's as low as a 50% yield (doubtful), then that's still 1.4 Million chips a month or 4.2 Million for the quarter.

TSMC also owns more fabs than AMD, and has hundreds of customers...

And produces both ATis and Nvidias chips...

So? Why does that matter?
nVidia and AMD are 2 of TSMC's largest customers by far...and I believe that TSMC only has one other 55nm customer. Are you saying that AMD purchasing 8% of TSMC's production is unreasonable?

Why the hell do you try to spin AMD postively all the time?

Why do you try to spin AMD negatively all the time?
Honestly, I try to post responses to things that I feel are based on untruths or intuition based rather than fact based. Even though I am heavily invested in AMD, that's not why I post here...
The simple fact is that there is a very strong bias in this forum (at the moment) against AMD, so it seems like I'm spinning their way because I am one of only a few who speak against that bias. I have also posted many "pro-Intel" posts, but they are just not noticed...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: NXIL
I am pretty sure that Intel's R&D budget is bigger than AMD is entirely, as in entire company. Intel made their quad core with 2 dual core CPUs in one package; it could be that there was an Intel team trying to make a unified quad core like AMD did that would have been released about now if it worked. Their unified quad core comes out in 2009 I think. And, it could be that AMD did not have enough R & D money to crank out a 2 dual core Quad--I think there are limitations with the on die memory controller, which was an advantage for them in the dual core competition.

HTH

NXIL

Intel's R&D budget has ALWAYS been bigger than AMD's revenue...that hasn't really stopped AMD from being competitive though.

Your guess on why AMD didn't do an MCM (the dual-dual-core on-die) is spot on. AMD stated as much a few months ago...

AMD Losses in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006

2001-3 were from the recession...in 2006, AMD had a net loss of $166 Million after buying a $5 billion company.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Viditor
[
Again, this isn't always (or even usually) the case. The most common reason for reverse stock splits is to avoid delisting. Companies with share prices below $1 for 20 consecutive days are delisted from the NYSE...

Most common reason, yes. But even NASDAQ traded stocks have been reverse split. There is quite a bit of psychology attached to various price levels, and no company wishes to appear as a 'penny stock.' Moreover, it's very hard to manage your risks using options if the underlying stock is trading below $10. Many of the bigger fund managers won't touch such stocks just for that reason.

Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.
Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Some other thread mentioned AMD's debt being rated junk. Which means that cash may be from sale of assets and needed for operations. Not a good sign -- holding cash while paying junk paper levels of interest on doesn't make much sense.

At any rate, you've got me intrigued. I'm going to mosey off and actually read AMD's financials as opposed to just blindly parroting what I read here.

Anything is possible...there could be a lightning strike, flooding, terrorist attack, etc...
But then the reverse is true as well. AMD currently has a very high SIR (Short Interest Ratio), and a high Beta (how quickly and to what degree a stock price changes).

[/quote]

Beta is commonly regarded as a measure of risk. A high beta implies high risk for a short OR long position. On the bright side stocks below $5 can't be shorted, so the downward spiral has limited fuel to draw on.

The possibility of a Short Squeeze hasn't been this high in a very long time!

If I had a nickel for every time the short squeeze mantra came out during a down trending stock I'd be as rich as you. Not everyone shorted AMD at $10, and I'm sure plenty of shorts with brains are covered by calls.

That said, the drum beat re: AMD is about as negative as it gets. Analysts who have been bullish the entire time this stock has been sliding into the toilet are suddenly turning bear. I don't know how much downside is left in this trend, it's been running a looong time. This means I'm not joining the bears at this point. But I'm certainly going to look into bullish trading of AMD once the down trend is broken if the underlying financials are as strong as you imply.

The trend is your friend, never fight the trend.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.

Only because they have greatly increased their debt load. They are losing on the order of several hundred million in cash on the business side every quarter. Their debt load has increased from $600 million to over $5 billion in one year.

Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Which should be gone in 4-5 quarters, barring AMD being able to sucker in more loans or stock deals.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.

Only because they have greatly increased their debt load. They are losing on the order of several hundred million in cash on the business side every quarter. Their debt load has increased from $600 million to over $5 billion in one year.

Obviously so...they bought a $5 billion company in that time. But they have also restructured their debt load enourmously. The terms of the short-term loan from Morgan-Stanley were that all available cash AMD had was to be spent first on repaying that loan (whcih left them with no operational cash to speak of).
The restructure in Q2 has eliminated that loan and has pushed out repayment far enough to allow them to use their cash for operations (while at the same time dropping the cost of the loan by a HUGE amount).

Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Which should be gone in 4-5 quarters, barring AMD being able to sucker in more loans or stock deals.

4-5 quarters??
AMD's 10-Q for Q3 2007
Page 6 at the bottom...
Net cash used in operations for the 9 months ending 9/29/07 = $371 Million

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.

Only because they have greatly increased their debt load. They are losing on the order of several hundred million in cash on the business side every quarter. Their debt load has increased from $600 million to over $5 billion in one year.

Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Which should be gone in 4-5 quarters, barring AMD being able to sucker in more loans or stock deals.

I think operating loss on CPUs was around $120m last quarter. The point made on year 2012 (if I remember correctly from their financials) concerns arangements made on all that debt for ""5 years out"" - and I was actually quite surprised that it was at 5.75%.

AMD has always been boom/bust/boom and has never really made a great deal of money. In 2 or 3 years we will know where they stand. If they have gone boom/bust/boom/bust/bust/bust then we are all screwed.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Viditor

The restructure in Q2 has eliminated that loan and has pushed out repayment far enough to allow them to use their cash for operations (while at the same time dropping the cost of the loan by a HUGE amount).

Interest expense has been steadily increasing, up to $133 million in the last quarter.

4-5 quarters??
AMD's 10-Q for Q3 2007
Page 6 at the bottom...
Net cash used in operations for the 9 months ending 9/29/07 = $371 Million

Combined that with Net cash used in investing activities and you have a net cash loss of $1.7B for the year from the business.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.

Only because they have greatly increased their debt load. They are losing on the order of several hundred million in cash on the business side every quarter. Their debt load has increased from $600 million to over $5 billion in one year.

Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Which should be gone in 4-5 quarters, barring AMD being able to sucker in more loans or stock deals.

I think operating loss on CPUs was around $120m last quarter. The point made on year 2012 (if I remember correctly from their financials) concerns arangements made on all that debt for ""5 years out"" - and I was actually quite surprised that it was at 5.75%.

AMD has always been boom/bust/boom and has never really made a great deal of money. In 2 or 3 years we will know where they stand. If they have gone boom/bust/boom/bust/bust/bust then we are all screwed.

AMD made an Operating Loss of $112 Million on CPUs last quarter...
I agree that they haven't made a great deal of money. However, what they HAVE done is to expand into a much bigger marketplace (which was VERY expensive.)

In August of 1999 when the first Athlon was released, AMD competed in low-end desktops and laptops only...today, they compete in every level of CPUs, Graphics, and Chipsets.
While it's tough to see it in a balance sheet, that kind of growth and potential is incredibly expensive in semiconductors...

 

[krazykilluh]

Originally posted by: Viditor


4-5 quarters??
AMD's 10-Q for Q3 2007
Page 6 at the bottom...
Net cash used in operations for the 9 months ending 9/29/07 = $371 Million

You can't point to that $371 million figure and say that AMD can survive for years and years. Net income for those nine months was negative 1.6 billion including a $464 million hit to AR and $974 million D&A. AR can't go down forever, eventually those losses will come from cash. What is paid out in capex comes back in D&A so that's a very real expense too. So AMD is a lot worse off than you are leading on.

For grammar:

 

[Nemesis 1]

Shame . Telling people AMD may be a good investment. You know as well as I that AMD stock won't reverse course until they have =or>performance and performance per watt.

Telling people that there may be a short squeeze on AMD stock is about as blatant lie as I have ever seen inorder to shore up stock prices.

Also saying ATI can somehow save AMD is just pure bs. IF ATI can make enough to pay AMD interest debt per qt.They paid for ATI. That would be impressive.

Viditor some of the things you said befor phenom release is forgiveable. You got sucked in by AMD's lies. OK fine!

But to tell people amd is a good stock buy is sinful at best. YOU said buy AMD @ $15. now it $8.90 . Its going a lot lower. Lucent got down to 50cents a share.

Shame on you!

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that AMD has just topped up with enough cash to last them at least through 2012.
Obviously, this has been one of AMD's worst years ever...but even so, they only have a net cash loss of $284 Million for the year, and they greatly reduced their debt commitments.

Only because they have greatly increased their debt load. They are losing on the order of several hundred million in cash on the business side every quarter. Their debt load has increased from $600 million to over $5 billion in one year.

Obviously so...they bought a $5 billion company in that time. But they have also restructured their debt load enourmously. The terms of the short-term loan from Morgan-Stanley were that all available cash AMD had was to be spent first on repaying that loan (whcih left them with no operational cash to speak of).
The restructure in Q2 has eliminated that loan and has pushed out repayment far enough to allow them to use their cash for operations (while at the same time dropping the cost of the loan by a HUGE amount).

Currently, AMD has ~$2.2 Billion in cash and short term investments.

Which should be gone in 4-5 quarters, barring AMD being able to sucker in more loans or stock deals.

4-5 quarters??
AMD's 10-Q for Q3 2007
Page 6 at the bottom...
Net cash used in operations for the 9 months ending 9/29/07 = $371 Million

Hmmm, but yet the conference call transcripts have a much larger number. And AMD keeps going to the markets to fund operations.

According to Robert Rivert, operating loss excluding ARC charges and stock-based compensation expense was $363M in Q1 and Q2, and $148M in Q3. That looks like $874M to me. And then I go and look at the 10Q and find the operating loss of $1.187B And look at that a little farther down, cash flow of negative $1.6B.

So how do we reconcile your number with Robert Rivet's numbers? If AMD has enough cash on hand to last five years, why go get more cash? Why does Robert Rivert say he needs $600M in cash to fund operations for a quarter? Why would a company that has five years of operting cash dilute shareholder equity by 9%? Why does Rivet say AMD needs $2B in revenue for a break even quarter?

If I was a smarter person I would probably point out the difference between operating cash and net cash. You know, how net cash is a book entry, and has nothing much to do with how much money you are actually spending. For example, depreciation is additive to net cash, but doesn't actually produce any revenue.

I guess I'll have to leave the answers to these questions to people that are smarter than me. After all, I unwound my short position at $11, only doubling my money. I could have done much better if I was smarter and continued to hold a short position.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: krazykilluh

Originally posted by: Viditor


4-5 quarters??
AMD's 10-Q for Q3 2007
Page 6 at the bottom...
Net cash used in operations for the 9 months ending 9/29/07 = $371 Million

You can't point to that $371 million figure and say that AMD can survive for years and years. Net income for those nine months was negative 1.6 billion including a $464 million hit to AR and $974 million D&A. AR can't go down forever, eventually those losses will come from cash. What is paid out in capex comes back in D&A so that's a very real expense too. So AMD is a lot worse off than you are leading on.

For grammar:

Good post...
To answer your points, a very large chunk of that D&A was for integration of ATI, not capex...
AMD will also be receiving $500 Million from Angstrem for their fully depreciated 130nm equipment, and the deal is to continue down the track on 90nm equipment sometime after AMD is finished with their Fab 38 conversion. This means that the rest of the D&A will be heavily modified downward.
I don't know what you mean by AR...if it's Accounts Receivable, then that's been steady at $680-$700 Million for the last year, with the exception of Q4 06 which was $1140 million.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Hmmm, but yet the conference call transcripts have a much larger number. And AMD keeps going to the markets to fund operations.

According to Robert Rivert, operating loss excluding ARC charges and stock-based compensation expense was $363M in Q1 and Q2, and $148M in Q3. That looks like $874M to me. And then I go and look at the 10Q and find the operating loss of $1.187B And look at that a little farther down, cash flow of negative $1.6B.

Operating loss isn't the same as Net Cash used in operations...
As for the rest, I couldn't find them...could you list the page?

BTW, I find it interesting that you've held a short position on AMD since January, and never disclosed that in you posts...

 

[Acanthus]

Sig updated :laugh:

 

[trajan2050]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Sig updated :laugh:

Viditor - The Iraqi Information Minister of AMD



Hysterical!!