backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by wislam.. on Oct 23 at 7:09 PM

15% of its global workforce will be let go

AMD has officially announced its financial results for Q3 2012. The company didn't do well with revenue of $1.27 billion, which is a 10% sequential decrease and a 25% decrease year-over-year. AMD reported a net loss of $157 million including a loss of $.21 per share. The operating loss for the quarter amounted to $131 million.

AMD is set to begin a restructuring plan designed to reduce its operating expenses and position the company to be more competitive in the future. AMD says that a "significant portion" of its restructuring plan will be implemented in Q4 of 2012 and will include a workforce reduction along with site consolidations.

The chipmaker expects the restructuring to providing operational savings of approximately $20 million in Q4 and approximately $190 million in 2013. AMD plans to reduce its global workforce by approximately 15% and is largely going to be completed in Q4. Previous reports have estimated that AMD would lay off, as much as 30% of its global workforce.

“Our restructuring efforts are decisive actions that position AMD to compete more effectively and improve our financial results,” said AMD CEO Rory Read.  “Reducing our workforce is a difficult, but necessary, step to take advantage of the eventual market recovery and capitalize on growth opportunities for our products outside of the traditional PC market.”

AMD reports that its computer solutions segment revenue decreased 11% sequentially and 28% year-over-year. AMD believes that the sequential decrease was driven by weak consumer demand for computers and other devices. AMD also saw difficulty with its graphics processor unit with revenue decreasing 14% sequentially due to low unit shipments to OEMs. Operating income for that division was only $18 million compared with $31 million in Q2 of 2012.

“The PC industry is going through a period of very significant change that is impacting both the ecosystem and AMD,” said Read.  “It is clear that the trends we knew would re-shape the industry are happening at a much faster pace than we anticipated. Our restructuring efforts are designed to simplify our product development cycles, reduce our breakeven point and enable us to fund differentiated product roadmaps and strategic breakaway opportunities.”

Source: AMD



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 11:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
well if they employ 2000 people to manufacture 1000 widgets a day and demand for widgets drops to 2 a day its pointless and expensive to keep paying people to keep making 1000 widgets a day(Government jobs work this way but that's another post). That being said most intelligent employers (you know the 1 percenters?) treat the employees as an investment and cross train them in other aspects of the business so that they can be shifted easily from making widgets to other areas.

In this case i don't blame AMD at all the Obama economy is taking its toll on everyone.My reality is that if he gets re-elected and sits on his hands for another 4 years(an almost guarantee since he isn't any kind of a leader) i have doubts my family can stay solvent past 2013; i am lucky enough to have a good job but my wages are not keeping pace with the cost of living even ramen noodles are getting pricey.


RE: Yeah, right
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
There has been a recession across the western world that started before Obama took office. Can you really place all of the blame for Western economies on Obama? The fact is the global economy is shifting from West to East.


RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Right it started in 2006 when the Democrats obtained the majority in the house and senate. Its his economy because he made the economic problems worse by a few factors enhancing our economic demise by furthering what the Democratically controlled Legislative branch started.


RE: Yeah, right
By nolisi on 10/19/2012 12:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
And thus begins the game of shifting blame. When you can't pin it on Obama, blame it on the democratic congress.

Let's forget the fact that Clinton achieved a balance budget and a surplus and private sector job creation over the last half century has been better under Democrats than Republicans (42 million vs 24 million).

Meanwhile, the current Republican presidential candidate utters both of these statements: "government doesn't create jobs" and "if I'm elected, I'll create 12 million jobs- I know what it takes to create jobs."


RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And thus begins the game of shifting blame.


Not shifting the blame lies primarily where it belongs on the shoulders of the democrats.

quote:
Let's forget the fact that Clinton achieved a balance budget and a surplus and private sector job creation over the last half century has been better under Democrats than Republicans (42 million vs 24 million).


Who was in charge of the house and senate when those budgets were balanced? A surplus gained by over taxation and not cuts in government spending = over taxes.

quote:
Meanwhile, the current Republican presidential candidate utters both of these statements: "government doesn't create jobs" and "if I'm elected, I'll create 12 million jobs- I know what it takes to create jobs."


They are exactly right; Private industry produces the GDP government consumes it.


RE: Yeah, right
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile, the current Republican presidential candidate utters both of these statements: "government doesn't create jobs" and "if I'm elected, I'll create 12 million jobs- I know what it takes to create jobs."

Yeah, just don't ask him how he's going to do it.


RE: Yeah, right
By Mathos on 10/19/2012 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is, most employers aren't all that intelligent these days. They just fire people here, and send jobs over seas.

Obama isn't the one that I'd worry about. There is something in Romney and Ryan's Eyes. Something that gives me a bad gut feeling. You think things are bad now.. I don't think you've seen the beginning if he gets elected. I've always said, I would of voted for Ron Paul in an instant, without any regrets. I almost wish to god Clinton had got nominated last election.


RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 12:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is something in Romney and Ryan's Eyes.


What you see is the know how and experience to get the economy back they have a proven records doing this where Obama and Ron Paul do not. Watch what happens after the election when Romney wins by a landslide. The markets will respond positively because having a business friendly president breeds confidence in companies that the capital they have been holding on to will be better positioned to be used to make them more money rather then taxed away by government. People have short memories Reagan's policies not Clinton's lead to the booming 90ies where the fed had to increase interest rates to slow the economy down to avoid having the value of the dollar sky rocket and affect trade. Clinto was smart enough to realize this and played it towards the center. This kind of boom will happen again under Romney/Ryan.


RE: Yeah, right
By nolisi on 10/19/2012 1:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The markets will respond positively because having a business friendly president breeds confidence in companies that the capital they have been holding on to will be better positioned to be used to make them more money rather then taxed away by government. People have short memories Reagan's policies not Clinton's lead to the booming 90ies where the fed had to increase interest rates to slow the economy down to avoid having the value of the dollar sky rocket and affect trade.


Reagan was in office two terms, and then was succeeded by Bush Sr, who lost because of a recession.

But no, Republicans keep claiming "Reagan was responsible for the 90's" but not the recession that happened between him and Clinton.

The link everyone misses with the economy: Americans spend their disposable income (which is greater than most other parts of the world because incomes are higher here). But when jobs are off shored, Americans have less disposable income. Yet businesses don't reduce prices (how many cases have we had of price fixing over the last decade and a half). Over time this erodes the middle class, and then we have the bottom fall (middle class) out from the economy. Businesses still profit however, because they've reduced production costs.

Until cost of production rises overseas or politicians get tough on businesses who offshore by introducing a stronger tax/cost on bringing in products from overseas to discourage offshoring, the middle class will continue to shrink. I agree with the idea of reducing corporate tax rates, but I don't want to make a few CEOs in America with a slave-wage workforce overseas. I want American CEOs to develop American businesses, not Chinese business.

Make the coporate tax rate not only dependent on income, but also make it contingent on how much overseas employment you retain. The more you import from and employ in China and India, the higher the tax rate you have. This is how you level the playing field between small business and enterprises.


RE: Yeah, right
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Corporation are dependent on the american middle class anymore. They build products all over the world and sell products all over the world. Eroding the american middle class is probably A ok in their book as the middle class in China and India are going to be more important markets anyways. You have to remember that US corps consider themselves to be international the US is just another market to them.


RE: Yeah, right
By Mathos on 10/19/2012 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Thats interesting. I grew up while Reagan was in office. I have a very long memory. The Democrats didn't take majority in both houses until late 2007, and didn't have a controlling majority until 2009 shortly after Obama was elected. And lets not forget, currently the Dems are the Minority party in the house. We have deadlock as far as getting anything, done, because the republicans in the house and senate refuse to work with anyone that isn't in their party.

Thats interesting, considering George H. W. Bush was in office before Clinton. Reagans economy was being propped up by the cold war. The fight the commies nationalism, was a major rallying call that kept our economy going. Unfortunately the cold war ended in 1991, half way through HW Bush's admin. Interestingly enough, what else began in 1991? Saddam Hussain invades Kuwait, ah now we have another enemy to rally against. Don't get me wrong, Desert storm was a necessary evil, if he'd been left to take Kuwait he could of devastated the entire region with those resources, and the wealth from that area.

Lets note that after then of the cold war, and subsequently, Desert Storm, the economy started to slow very quickly. We started to see the idea of "trickle down" economics as a hoax, it wasn't working. The economic booms in the early and mid 90s were due to the internet becoming usable by the public, after NSFNet was decommissioned in 1995. This caused the dotcom boom of the mid to late 90s. Not to mention, the major purpose of NAFTA was to remove tariffs on the import of OIL from Canada and Mexico, which is historically where we get most of our oil imports from. Which is what kept gas prices in control during the 90s in the US, the first period when price per barrel went over $90.

Now lets move forward to George W Bush. Shortly after taking office, we get hit by one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern US history. Note that terrorists have been around for a long time, and aren't just a recent development, the technology is just more advanced now. Ah, now we have another perceived enemy to distract us. Except, this one doesn't have a home nation, we can chase these around forever, taking out cell leader after cell leader. Now, lets talk about skyrocketing fuel prices, due to a combination of over extended military needs, back lash from attacking two arab nations, and Bush, encouraging Americans to show their patriotism by buying American made SUV's, light trucks, and heavy trucks, that was with a tax subsidy offered. Which drove up demand for Oil and gas even more. Ironic idea's coming from a Texas oil man. Throw in pushing Ethanol blending into Gas, to cut dependance on foreign oil. This was of course done with a subsidy to big corn growing companies. Worked OK until we're at our current problem. Corn prices skyrocket, inflating the price of Ethanol, animal feed stock, food, and food additives (high fructose CORN syrup). BTW, this whole ethanol boondoggle started before Obama ever took office. Haven't even brought up the housing bubble and collapse either. That one was created by completely unregulated banks, and predatory lending practices.

Everyone likes to romanticize the reagan era, but they don't look and see the truth of things. Much like Texans like to romanticize how Texas was so much better off before they joined the US. But, when you look back at Texas history, you realize the period when Texas was an independent republic, were the worst times in Texas history. And nice rating down my post before actually replying.


RE: Yeah, right
By web2dot0 on 10/19/2012 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Obama economy? Plz.
Please pretend that what you are saying is all true (the reality distortion field in full effect).

Do you really think Romney's economic policies are going to get us back to health? What exactly is he proposing other than what Bush ALREADY done?

Tax cuts
- Wow ... genius. I mean who ever thought of this idea?

Increase defense spending
- I thought we are against big gov't? I guess military doesn't count.

Increase deficit by $8Trillion dollars and using some magical potion, all that will be offset by Mitts economic policies of closing the tax loopholes and spur economic growth because "small businessses and big corporation" will like being in America once again ....
What are those "6 independant review boards" that approve Mitts plan? Care to tell us about it? Just saying ... It'll be a hoot!

I don't know about you, but $8T worth of loopholes .... that's alot of loopholes.

If you can't see this as a snake oil's salesman tactic, then I guess no argument will persuade you to change your mind.

But don't worry, Obama will win, and if America gets back on its feet again, blame it on Obama. Because it's all his fault for getting us out of his mess.

Then you can go and elect another Republican into office. We still love you buddy.

:->


RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
If Obama wins America will go too far down the road towards the poor house to turn back. Mr halve the deficit (we all know how that turned out) or my favorite $800B for 7 million new jobs...net gain in jobs? 0. Real winner you picked out there! Now that your warm fuzzy from voting for the first black president has cooled can we get some adults back in the white house?


RE: Yeah, right
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
The deficit was primarily caused by the bush tax cuts and the great recession dropping tax revenue. Starting two extremely expensive wars also didn't help.


RE: Yeah, right
By xti on 10/19/2012 2:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
you cant keep your family solvent past 2013...and that's...the presidents fault? Awesome.


RE: Yeah, right
By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
You probably don't pay taxes lucky you! I happen to be middle class and $2000-$4000 a year in taxes just from Obamacare is going to pretty much break me and my family.


RE: Yeah, right
By Mathos on 10/19/2012 5:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thats interesting as well. So how many kids do you have? Because I know plenty of middle class families that pay close to nothing in taxes at the end of the year, due to EITC, meaning they get close to all they paid in back or more. Last I figured up, since I have no children. Making about 20k a year. I pay about 1800 in taxes between SS, and regular payroll tax. And it's been that way since before Obama was elected. I may get $30ish back at tax return time btw. Being middle class implies that you're making at least 40k+ per year, so how exactly does that 2k tax liability hurt you? Unless you're of course living well beyond your means.

Which means you're talking out of your rear. I've never used unemployment. I'd like if I didn't have to take a 20% tax hit off my 401k in the event of a job loss, that way I wouldn't have to worry about using unemployment. But, that would make too much sense. On the other hand, it would encourage people to start saving in 401k's, which would lessen the strain on the SS and Unemployment systems.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki