Nvidia posts loss this past financial quarter

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: SirPauly
I don't know if this has been posted but don't thinK it has but this is the actual transcript of the conference call to give some insight were nVidia feels where there may be growth potential:



http://seekingalpha.com/articl...rnings-call-transcript

Wow, to increase discreet desktop marketshare like that when 4XXX got so much publicity is simply amazing.

The publicity was all about the battle for mid-range which is not followed by many. I think it was overshadowed by things like game physics, CUDA, GPGPU, and single GPU performance.

 

[HurleyBird]

Cut out the stupidity, Nvidia fanboys. Nvidia has more market share yet is losing piles of money, ATI has been making small amounts of money with lower share. In no way can you spin that as "Nvidia is dominating". More like: both companies are reacting to the economic situation, but Nvidia is feeling it much worse. The fact that the rest of AMD is losing money is irrelevant to who is doing better in the graphics market right now. And then there's the fact that Nvidia's Q1 share is an anomaly due to the mass dumping of inventory into the market, and will almost definitely not be replicated in subsequent quarters. Same thing goes for the AMD CPU division's massive share gain this quarter -- not gonna be permanent. The general rule when talking about changing market share is: wait another quarter to see if there is a trend, but of course fanboys of any color will jump on any information that they see as helping their beloved companies.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
wait another quarter to see if there is a trend,

The previous quarter they had 62% of the market.

 

[error8]

Nvidia is just going to be crushed, Wreckage, there is no way around it. You have to admit the truth for once. Ati with it's fantastic directx 10.1, widely used in almost all games and the massive AA performance, which will just increase in the next generation, GDDR5, with massive bandwidth, will take all Nvidia's shares. Next year, in May, Nvidia will probably own 10% of the market, at the most. Sorry, it's just the truth.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: error8
Nvidia is just going to be crush, Wreckage, there is no way around it. You have to admit the truth for once. Ati with it's fantastic directx 10.1, widely used in almost all games and the massive AA performance, which will just increase in the next generation, GDDR5, with massive bandwidth, will take all Nvidia's shares. Next year, in May, Nvidia will probably own 10% of the market, at the most. Sorry, it's just the truth.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
Cut out the stupidity, Nvidia fanboys. Nvidia has more market share yet is losing piles of money, ATI has been making small amounts of money with lower share. In no way can you spin that as "Nvidia is dominating". More like: both companies are reacting to the economic situation, but Nvidia is feeling it much worse. The fact that the rest of AMD is losing money is irrelevant to who is doing better in the graphics market right now. And then there's the fact that Nvidia's Q1 share is an anomaly due to the mass dumping of inventory into the market, and will almost definitely not be replicated in subsequent quarters. Same thing goes for the AMD CPU division's massive share gain this quarter -- not gonna be permanent. The general rule when talking about changing market share is: wait another quarter to see if there is a trend, but of course fanboys of any color will jump on any information that they see as helping their beloved companies.

It is relevant because ATI isn't ATI but AMD.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SirPauly

It is relevant because ATI isn't ATI but AMD.

Exactly and while it may look like the Graphics division made a profit that's only because it no longer includes things like administration/marketing/etc. which are now included in other sections of AMD's financial report.

So you have to look at the company as a whole. Just like you look at NVIDIA as a whole.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow, to increase discreet desktop marketshare like that when 4XXX got so much publicity is simply amazing.

answer:

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
And then there's the fact that Nvidia's Q1 share is an anomaly due to the mass dumping of inventory into the market, and will almost definitely not be replicated in subsequent quarters. Same thing goes for the AMD CPU division's massive share gain this quarter -- not gonna be permanent.

@OCGuy
That tidbit has been posted before not only by HurleyBird but I guess you missed it.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilan29

@OCGuy
That tidbit has been posted before not only by HurleyBird but I guess you missed it.

:roll:

Using a quote from the Inq as ammunition is like using an old paper bag for a condom.

There is no "dumping". Those are products sold. Not to mention they still had over 60% of the market the previous quarter.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: error8
Nvidia is just going to be crushed, Wreckage, there is no way around it. You have to admit the truth for once. Ati with it's fantastic directx 10.1, widely used in almost all games and the massive AA performance, which will just increase in the next generation, GDDR5, with massive bandwidth, will take all Nvidia's shares. Next year, in May, Nvidia will probably own 10% of the market, at the most. Sorry, it's just the truth.

:laugh:

Damn, you nailed the Wreckage fanboyism perfectly :thumbsup: we could use some blatant Ati fanboys here as well to balance the forums

(I am assuming this was sarcasm, of course)

 

[AmberClad]

Guys, the personal jabs do not belong in this forum.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: error8
Nvidia is just going to be crushed, Wreckage, there is no way around it. You have to admit the truth for once. Ati with it's fantastic directx 10.1, widely used in almost all games and the massive AA performance, which will just increase in the next generation, GDDR5, with massive bandwidth, will take all Nvidia's shares. Next year, in May, Nvidia will probably own 10% of the market, at the most. Sorry, it's just the truth.

:laugh:

Damn, you nailed the Wreckage fanboyism perfectly :thumbsup: we could use some blatant Ati fanboys here as well to balance the forums

(I am assuming this was sarcasm, of course)

LOLL



You have a day off for thread crapping after my warning.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29

@OCGuy
That tidbit has been posted before not only by HurleyBird but I guess you missed it.

:roll:

Using a quote from the Inq as ammunition is like using an old paper bag for a condom.

There is no "dumping". Those are products sold. Not to mention they still had over 60% of the market the previous quarter.

I suppose Fudzilla at least qualifies as using a new paper bag...:laugh:

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Idontcare


I suppose Fudzilla at least qualifies as using a new paper bag...:laugh:

Fudzilla is one of the guys from the Inq. :shocked:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
There is no "dumping". Those are products sold. Not to mention they still had over 60% of the market the previous quarter.

I never said anything about the actual amount of market share NV has. However, are the market share gains due to nV reducing inventory or the failure of the 48xx series?

I guess we'll know for sure in the next couple of quarters.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Wreckage
There is no "dumping". Those are products sold. Not to mention they still had over 60% of the market the previous quarter.

I never said anything about the actual amount of market share NV has. However, are the market share gains due to nV reducing inventory or the failure of the 48xx series?

I guess we'll know for sure in the next couple of quarters.

Well they still had over 60% the previous quarter. What do you make of that?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Well they still had over 60% the previous quarter. What do you make of that?

They've done very well is what I make of it. The 8800 series was untouchable for a while...I had 2 myself. Again I'm not questioning the actual number...just whether the gains made were due to reducing inventory or a sales failure of the 4800 series.

Here's something on the inventory sell off form the earnings call:
http://www.bnet.com/2462-14061_23-300136.html

"We have actually a couple of situations -- we have inventory that we completely wrote off in a prior period. We also have inventories that we wrote down to market value. Some of those inventories in both categories were sold during the quarter, some of which we had gains on, some of which we had losses on. It turns out that the losses we experienced on the sale of that inventory plus some of the other products actually offset that by a greater amount, and so on a net basis, it was actually a negative impact to the quarter."

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Well they still had over 60% the previous quarter. What do you make of that?

They've done very well is what I make of it. The 8800 series was untouchable for a while...I had 2 myself. Again I'm not questioning the actual number...just whether the gains made were due to reducing inventory or a sales failure of the 4800 series.

Here's something on the inventory sell off form the earnings call:
http://www.bnet.com/2462-14061_23-300136.html

"We have actually a couple of situations -- we have inventory that we completely wrote off in a prior period. We also have inventories that we wrote down to market value. Some of those inventories in both categories were sold during the quarter, some of which we had gains on, some of which we had losses on. It turns out that the losses we experienced on the sale of that inventory plus some of the other products actually offset that by a greater amount, and so on a net basis, it was actually a negative impact to the quarter."

Am I the only one that finds it kinda odd that they sold stuff that was valued at zero plus some stuff that was marked down to market value and still managed to come out with a loss on it? If they gave away for free the stuff valued at zero and sold the market value stuff at market value then they would have broke even. I guess the "marked down to market value" stuff wasn't really marked to market value after all.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

"We have actually a couple of situations -- we have inventory that we completely wrote off in a prior period. We also have inventories that we wrote down to market value. Some of those inventories in both categories were sold during the quarter, some of which we had gains on, some of which we had losses on. It turns out that the losses we experienced on the sale of that inventory plus some of the other products actually offset that by a greater amount, and so on a net basis, it was actually a negative impact to the quarter."

Am I the only one that finds it kinda odd that they sold stuff that was valued at zero plus some stuff that was marked down to market value and still managed to come out with a loss on it? If they gave away for free the stuff valued at zero and sold the market value stuff at market value then they would have broke even. I guess the "marked down to market value" stuff wasn't really marked to market value after all.

Could it be current market value versus what it was originally made at?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Well they still had over 60% the previous quarter. What do you make of that?

They've done very well is what I make of it. The 8800 series was untouchable for a while...I had 2 myself. Again I'm not questioning the actual number...just whether the gains made were due to reducing inventory or a sales failure of the 4800 series.

Here's something on the inventory sell off form the earnings call:
http://www.bnet.com/2462-14061_23-300136.html

"We have actually a couple of situations -- we have inventory that we completely wrote off in a prior period. We also have inventories that we wrote down to market value. Some of those inventories in both categories were sold during the quarter, some of which we had gains on, some of which we had losses on. It turns out that the losses we experienced on the sale of that inventory plus some of the other products actually offset that by a greater amount, and so on a net basis, it was actually a negative impact to the quarter."

So they sold of old inventory (probably 65nm stuff?) at such low prices it hurt their profits? I think that would qualify as 'dumping' inventory.

Over the last two quarters they've lost something like $350 million now? Clearly the Radeon 48x0 cards are a failure.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Idontcare

"We have actually a couple of situations -- we have inventory that we completely wrote off in a prior period. We also have inventories that we wrote down to market value. Some of those inventories in both categories were sold during the quarter, some of which we had gains on, some of which we had losses on. It turns out that the losses we experienced on the sale of that inventory plus some of the other products actually offset that by a greater amount, and so on a net basis, it was actually a negative impact to the quarter."

Am I the only one that finds it kinda odd that they sold stuff that was valued at zero plus some stuff that was marked down to market value and still managed to come out with a loss on it? If they gave away for free the stuff valued at zero and sold the market value stuff at market value then they would have broke even. I guess the "marked down to market value" stuff wasn't really marked to market value after all.

Could it be current market value versus what it was originally made at?

That decrease in value would have been captured in the initial mark-down/write-down.

Let's create a fictitious example, and I know how much we loves to hate car analogies so here goes...you walk into a Ford dealership (stop laughing, could happen) to buy a car for $30k cash.

You leave the dealership with an asset valued at $30k, it cost you $30k to procure it.

3 months later you report your quarterly earnings/losses to your shareholders (wife/family)...you include the fact that cash on hand decreased $30k, net assets increased $30k.

You further inform them that unfortunately because you bought a Ford instead of a Toyota the market-value (not the same as depreciated value) has declined some 10% over the past 90 days...so net assets take a $3k write-down in your market-value reassessment.

But good news! You also tell them you sold the Ford for $25k, cupholders were not where you liked them, so cash on hand increased $25k and assets decreased $27k (the marked down value you listed).

All told for the quarter your net cash on hand decreased $5k (bought car for $30k, sold it for $25k) and your net assets didn't change, but for some reason there's all this commotion on your balance sheet over mark-downs and selling for losses, etc.

But it begs the question...if the "market value" of the car was $27k as you claimed, then why did you sell the car for only $25k? Isn't $25k the market value? Shouldn't the original marked-down to market-value adjustment have been to mark it down to $25k?

I suppose if the market value was rapidly falling then the timeline could have been such that the gap between marking the assets to market versus the date of sale would have resulted in a negative delta in valuations.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
But it begs the question...if the "market value" of the car was $27k as you claimed, then why did you sell the car for only $25k?

Because it's a Ford and no one wanted to buy it?

It is an interesting question though...who sets the market value? Nvidia or their partners?