AMD placed ON list of companies "at risk of failing"

fourdegrees11

Senior member
Mar 9, 2009
441
1
81
Nothing official in here, just speculation based on AMD's financial status. It would be very bad if Intel were all alone, just look at CPU prices prior to PhenomII...

"Everybody hopes the economy bottoms out and starts to improve tomorrow. Or sooner. But there are few signs of an imminent recovery. One obvious indicator is the health of big companies - you know, the ones that have been announcing all those four- and five-digits layoffs recently. And the outlook for them seems to be getting worse, not better.



Moody's, the ratings agency, recently published a list of "bottom rung" companies most likely to default on their debt. The criteria are technical, but the upshot is that a lot of companies are in deep trouble - and the list is getting longer, not shorter. Moody's predicts that the default rate on corporate bonds this year will be three times higher than in 2008, and 15 times higher than in 2007. Defaults are often the last step before a bankruptcy filing. And bankrupt companies, obviously, don't usually hire people. They dramatically shed costs and workers and sometimes liquidate completely, firing everybody.

[See 15 firms that might not survive 2009.]

So the Moody's findings help explain why most economists expect the unemployment rate, now 8.1 percent, to rise as high as 9 or 10 percent before it starts to drift back down. And right now, real and perceived fears about job security are the main force driving a contraction in consumer spending, and the economy as a whole. Here's what the bottom-rung report tells us about the next several months:

There will be a lot more bankruptcies. Moody's places 283 companies on its bottom-rung list, up from 157 a year ago. Since the quarterly list was last updated, 73 additional companies have fallen to the bottom rung. Twenty-four companies made their way off the list - but mostly because they defaulted on their debts. Only one company, Landry's Restaurants, got off the list because its circumstances improved.

[See why bank nationalization terrifies Wall Street.]

Companies exposed to consumer spending have it toughest. The industries most represented on the list are media, automotive, retail and manufacturing. Companies in the most acute danger are those with reduced cash flow and a high debt load. A lot of big, well-known companies are in danger. On the list: Advanced Micro Devices; AirTran; AMR (parent of American Airlines); Chrysler; Duane Reade; Eastman-Kodak; Ford; General Motors; JetBlue; Krispy Kreme; Palm; R.H. Donnelly; Reader's Digest Association; Rite-Aid; UAL (parent of United Airlines); Unisys; and US Airways.

Many of the other firms on the list are second- or third-tier suppliers to automakers, airlines, and other troubled firms. Being on the list doesn't mean a firm is destined for bankruptcy. But it does mean the company faces severe constraints in terms of raising new capital, making new investments, and hiring. Instead of expanding, it may be far more inclined to sell assets, streamline or close divisions, and lay people off to cut costs and raise cash.

[See 6 possible upsides to a GM bankruptcy.]

America's malls are going to end up looking a lot different. The retail sector is obviously getting hammered, with chains like Circuit City and Linens 'n Things already out of business. Many other retail chains are in trouble. Also on the bottom-rung list: Barney's; BCBG Maz Azria; Blockbuster; Brookstone; Claire's Stores; Eddie Bauer; Finlay Fine Jewelry; Harry & David; Loehmann's; Michael's Stores; Oriental Trading Co.; and Sbarro. Again, this doesn't mean the company is doomed. But many of these firms will restructure, close outlets, shrink, and find ways to transform themselves. So if you ever go back to the mall, and your favorite shop has disappeared, you'll know why."

http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/09...html?.&.pf=family-home

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Intel rejoices. New processor roadmap to be revealed on day AMD goes under.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: techs
Intel rejoices. New processor roadmap to be revealed on day AMD goes under.
Yeah they'll have a super fast expensive CPU that nobody can afford or needs.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: techs
Intel rejoices. New processor roadmap to be revealed on day AMD goes under.
Yeah they'll have a super fast expensive CPU that nobody can afford or needs.

And it will be top of the line...for three years.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Even if they go down someone would buy the rights to their chips and keep at least some of it going. Esp now since the split.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: techs
Intel rejoices. New processor roadmap to be revealed on day AMD goes under.
Yeah they'll have a super fast expensive CPU that nobody can afford or needs.

And it will be top of the line...for three years.
Yeah and?
 

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,539
212
106
Yay, can't wait to buy a new octocore netburst with a 300W TDP and a $400 price tag.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Honestly - who cares? Ten years ago, losing AMD would have been a much bigger issue because performance doubled every 18 months and people were constantly using every cycle that the latest and greatest CPUs were capable of. Who needs a new CPU every two or three years anymore? Intel's biggest competition are their older processors running in machines no one wants to replace.

Both AMD and Intel have relied on the replacement of the existing stock in order to keep generating revenue. Guess what? Anything bought in the past couple of years, running XP or Win7, is fast enough for the vast majority of people. And if things are slow, they are slow for reasons not related to the CPU.

Invariably AMD will fail and Intel's core CPU business is going to get pounded because they just can't expand anymore. People no longer see a need to replace machines as much as they used to and WinXP, which came out SEVEN YEARS AGO, is still by far the dominant OS.
 

weflyhigh

Senior member
Jan 1, 2007
971
1
81
your title makes it sound like AMD produced a list of companies that might fail
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Even when times were good they built more debt than processors. It will be a shame, but ibm will get involved somewhere to add more competition to intel.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Originally posted by: weflyhigh
your title makes it sound like AMD produced a list of companies that might fail

Yeah that's how I read it. My first thought is who the hell are they to be making such a list :D
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
Originally posted by: beer
Honestly - who cares? Ten years ago, losing AMD would have been a much bigger issue because performance doubled every 18 months and people were constantly using every cycle that the latest and greatest CPUs were capable of. Who needs a new CPU every two or three years anymore? Intel's biggest competition are their older processors running in machines no one wants to replace.

Both AMD and Intel have relied on the replacement of the existing stock in order to keep generating revenue. Guess what? Anything bought in the past couple of years, running XP or Win7, is fast enough for the vast majority of people. And if things are slow, they are slow for reasons not related to the CPU.

Invariably AMD will fail and Intel's core CPU business is going to get pounded because they just can't expand anymore. People no longer see a need to replace machines as much as they used to and WinXP, which came out SEVEN YEARS AGO, is still by far the dominant OS.

this. I was just thinking the other day, when's the last time we had a mainstream cpu break some new speed barrier? It's been around 3.0Ghz for a couple years now hasn't it?
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,779
882
126
Originally posted by: MrMatt
Originally posted by: beer
Honestly - who cares? Ten years ago, losing AMD would have been a much bigger issue because performance doubled every 18 months and people were constantly using every cycle that the latest and greatest CPUs were capable of. Who needs a new CPU every two or three years anymore? Intel's biggest competition are their older processors running in machines no one wants to replace.

Both AMD and Intel have relied on the replacement of the existing stock in order to keep generating revenue. Guess what? Anything bought in the past couple of years, running XP or Win7, is fast enough for the vast majority of people. And if things are slow, they are slow for reasons not related to the CPU.

Invariably AMD will fail and Intel's core CPU business is going to get pounded because they just can't expand anymore. People no longer see a need to replace machines as much as they used to and WinXP, which came out SEVEN YEARS AGO, is still by far the dominant OS.

this. I was just thinking the other day, when's the last time we had a mainstream cpu break some new speed barrier? It's been around 3.0Ghz for a couple years now hasn't it?

Why go higher when you can just add another cpu or 2? ;)
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: MrMatt
Originally posted by: beer
Honestly - who cares? Ten years ago, losing AMD would have been a much bigger issue because performance doubled every 18 months and people were constantly using every cycle that the latest and greatest CPUs were capable of. Who needs a new CPU every two or three years anymore? Intel's biggest competition are their older processors running in machines no one wants to replace.

Both AMD and Intel have relied on the replacement of the existing stock in order to keep generating revenue. Guess what? Anything bought in the past couple of years, running XP or Win7, is fast enough for the vast majority of people. And if things are slow, they are slow for reasons not related to the CPU.

Invariably AMD will fail and Intel's core CPU business is going to get pounded because they just can't expand anymore. People no longer see a need to replace machines as much as they used to and WinXP, which came out SEVEN YEARS AGO, is still by far the dominant OS.

this. I was just thinking the other day, when's the last time we had a mainstream cpu break some new speed barrier? It's been around 3.0Ghz for a couple years now hasn't it?

Absolute GHz is not the best metric of performance. Program execution time and IPC would provide more meaningful information.

That said, didn't AMD get a huge cash infusion from spinning off their fabs? That should keep them going for awhile.
 

fourdegrees11

Senior member
Mar 9, 2009
441
1
81
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: weflyhigh
your title makes it sound like AMD produced a list of companies that might fail

Yeah that's how I read it. My first thought is who the hell are they to be making such a list :D

fixed
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Did you even look at the list?
Ford is on there. Ford.
They didn't ask for any money from the government bailout and are on the same list as AMD (who basically just got a short term bailout from the Middle East).

http://arstechnica.com/busines...ly-to-default-list.ars
Ultimately, it's difficult to gauge how much stock to put in a list like this. Most of the financial press (see Bloomberg and the WSJ) has been reporting Moody's announcement of this Bottom Rung list as a publicity stunt aimed at rehabilitating the debt rating agency's reputation after the subprime debacle. To call the reputations of Moody's and S&P "tarnished" or "tattered" would be a gross understatement?"completely ruined" is more like it, since both companies were happy to certify the now-worthless "toxic assets" at the root of the present meltdown as top-quality, investment-grade debt. Some suggest that the Bottom Rung list is just Moody's aggressively doing the opposite of what got them into trouble, i.e., they'd like to be known as the first to spot worthless debt, instead of the last.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,120
4,771
126
AMD is a gnat on Intel's back. Sure, it is annoying, but it doesn't make any real difference. Intel followed Moore's observation before AMD was big, and Intel followed Moore's observation after AMD was big. AMD's presence made no real difference. Heck, if you look closely when AMD came on strong in the mid 1990s, Intel slowed DOWN a bit.

Too many people here need to Learn the difference between competition and a duopoly.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: jjsole
Even when times were good they built more debt than processors. It will be a shame, but ibm will get involved somewhere to add more competition to intel.

I've always wondered why IBM wasn't in the CPU business before... they already make processors for everything else besides PC's
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: jjsole
Even when times were good they built more debt than processors. It will be a shame, but ibm will get involved somewhere to add more competition to intel.

I've always wondered why IBM wasn't in the CPU business before... they already make processors for everything else besides PC's

They did make CPUs for computers, macs. But they are also smart. There is little profit from desktop computers but it requires a lot support and money to stay on top. Servers make a pile of money and you can take your time with some regards. IBM still uses some designs that are very old and would look dumb on a desktop, but with a little rework will suit many other business applications that don;t need bleeding edge, but something that fits their need.

My SO works at IBM and was in design at one time as well.