AMD will writedown $880 million related to ATI acquisition

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

It helped AMD to stay affloat, otherwise AMD would had stop to exist today because they're under a huge debt,

You should read the article again. They are not staying afloat they are sinking fast. Their stock hit a 16 year low

[

That would be wrong...
They went much lower in 2002:

10/3/2002 $3.63
10/4/2002 $3.51
10/7/2002 $3.20
10/8/2002 $3.55
10/9/2002 $3.56
10/10/2002 $3.63
10/11/2002 $3.76
10/14/2002 $3.93
10/15/2002 $4.20
10/16/2002 $3.49
10/17/2002 $4.33
10/18/2002 $4.40
10/21/2002 $5.55

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Viditor


Q4 was last year..

Well you did say "since last year"

That would be wrong...
They went much lower in 2002:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eef8...58.html?nclick_check=1

"Shares in Advanced Micro Devices fell to a 16-year low yesterday as $1bn in second-quarter charges highlighted its struggle to slim operations and return to profitability.

AMD announced the second writedown from its 2006 acquisition of the Canadian graphics chipmaker, ATI. It said it was taking an impairment charge of $880m, following a charge of about $1.5bn last year. It paid $5.4bn for ATI.

The microprocessor rival to Intel also announced a $32m restructuring charge as it made severance payments to laid-off employees, along with $36m in other charges. The bulk of these related to its shareholding in Spansion, the memory chipmaker it spun off in 2005.

AMD shares fell to levels not seen since July 1992, dropping as low as $4.60 in trading in New York. This represented a 69 per cent fall in value over the past year.

AMD's acquisition of ATI represented a bold attempt to seize the initiative in a new semiconductor trend called visual computing. It envisages a blurring of the lines between linear central processing unit (CPU) microprocessors made by Intel and AMD and the parallel-processing graphics processing units (GPUs) that have been made by ATI and rival Nvidia.

AMD's strategy has been hampered by the debt burden it has taken on, initial underperformance by ATI,"

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Viditor


Q4 was last year..

Well you did say "since last year"

That would mean Q1/Q2 of this year...

That would be wrong...
They went much lower in 2002:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eef8...58.html?nclick_check=1

"Shares in Advanced Micro Devices fell to a 16-year low yesterday as $1bn in second-quarter charges highlighted its struggle to slim operations and return to profitability.

AMD announced the second writedown from its 2006 acquisition of the Canadian graphics chipmaker, ATI. It said it was taking an impairment charge of $880m, following a charge of about $1.5bn last year. It paid $5.4bn for ATI.

The microprocessor rival to Intel also announced a $32m restructuring charge as it made severance payments to laid-off employees, along with $36m in other charges. The bulk of these related to its shareholding in Spansion, the memory chipmaker it spun off in 2005.

AMD shares fell to levels not seen since July 1992, dropping as low as $4.60 in trading in New York. This represented a 69 per cent fall in value over the past year.

AMD's acquisition of ATI represented a bold attempt to seize the initiative in a new semiconductor trend called visual computing. It envisages a blurring of the lines between linear central processing unit (CPU) microprocessors made by Intel and AMD and the parallel-processing graphics processing units (GPUs) that have been made by ATI and rival Nvidia.

AMD's strategy has been hampered by the debt burden it has taken on, initial underperformance by ATI,"

Which should be a lesson to you not to believe every article you read...they do make many mistakes!

If you go to Yahoo Finance and read their historical prices, you'll see that Chris Nutall got it wrong...

 

[evolucion8]

Yeah, but remember, Wreckage loves ATi bashing articles, even if they're wrong. He just can't understand that we need more companies to push innovation and keep the prices low. I cannot imagine a world that only Intel and nVidia would rule.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Yeah, but remember, Wreckage loves ATi bashing articles, even if they're wrong. He just can't understand that we need more companies to push innovation and keep the prices low. I cannot imagine a world that only Intel and nVidia would rule.

So the Financial Times is some sort of biased video card site?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Wow that stock is really cheap..

Probably the most intelligent and poingant comment in the whole thread (including my own).

QFT!

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I don't think anyone is allowed to buy AMD because Intel will revoke their license sharing agreement.

Then again AMD could revoke their tech that Intel uses so who knows.

I think only few tech companies can buy them out with a problem. IBM or another CPU company that also has alot of same tech.

 

[Acanthus]

The problem with AMD now vs AMD in the past is they have a massive loan to answer to for a company that is worth 1/3 what they paid for it (many people including myself balked at the 5B+ figure).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oBOYlewxkU

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: taltamir
what does "writedown" mean?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/writedown.asp

Reducing the book value of an asset because it is overvalued compared to the market value.

This is usually reflected in the company's income statement as an expense, thereby reducing net income.

They forgot to mention that in the statement of cash flow, the write down is added back much like depreciation. So AMD still has the same amount of cash in their bank before and after the write down. They still have the same ability to pay up their loans and bills. And the write down doesn't impact their ability to do business one bit.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I don't think anyone is allowed to buy AMD because Intel will revoke their license sharing agreement.

Then again AMD could revoke their tech that Intel uses so who knows.

I think only few tech companies can buy them out with a problem. IBM or another CPU company that also has alot of same tech.

I think federal anti-trust and regulatory agencies would get involved before any break-up or sale of AMD occurred, especially if a non-US firm was involved. The US government has propped up lagging industries viewed as essential to national security for years, like defense contractors, Amtrak, the airline industry, postal service, and the oil companies.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: chizow

I think federal anti-trust and regulatory agencies would get involved before any break-up or sale of AMD occurred, especially if a non-US firm was involved. The US government has propped up lagging industries viewed as essential to national security for years, like defense contractors, Amtrak, the airline industry, postal service, and the oil companies.

If that's the case then the terrorists have already won....
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...2M-stake-in-AMD_1.html

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: taltamir
what does "writedown" mean?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/writedown.asp

Reducing the book value of an asset because it is overvalued compared to the market value.

This is usually reflected in the company's income statement as an expense, thereby reducing net income.

They forgot to mention that in the statement of cash flow, the write down is added back much like depreciation. So AMD still has the same amount of cash in their bank before and after the write down. They still have the same ability to pay up their loans and bills. And the write down doesn't impact their ability to do business one bit.

Its to hide a large loss.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: chizow

I think federal anti-trust and regulatory agencies would get involved before any break-up or sale of AMD occurred, especially if a non-US firm was involved. The US government has propped up lagging industries viewed as essential to national security for years, like defense contractors, Amtrak, the airline industry, postal service, and the oil companies.

If that's the case then the terrorists have already won....
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...2M-stake-in-AMD_1.html

Mubadala is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. Since the investment is not a controlling stake, the deal is not subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., according to AMD.

They don't even get a seat on the board. If AMD relocated to Dubai and started fab'ing out of Afghanistan I'm sure you'd see a little more interest from the government.