backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by Targon.. on Jul 31 at 4:24 PM


Robert J. Rivet, AMD Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Source: AMD)
Just a day after Intel's Q2 performance report, it's now AMD's turn

Yesterday, DailyTech reported on Intel's Q2 earnings. The company posted Q2 revenue of $8.7 billion USD, operating income of $1.35 billion USD and net income of $1.3 billion USD.

Today, it's archrival AMD's turn with regards to financial performance for the quarter. AMD recorded revenue of $1.378 billion USD, an operating list of $457 million USD and a net loss of $600 million USD.

This compares with revenue of $1.216 billion USD and operating income of $102 million USD for Q2 2006.

"While we made solid progress in the second quarter across a number of fronts, we must improve our financial results," said AMD CFO Robert J. Rivet. "We achieved a 12 percent sequential revenue increase, improved the gross margin and won back microprocessor unit and revenue market share."

AMD appears to have worked out problems that it had in late 2006 with OEM/channel processor distribution and attributes 38 percent sequential increase in microprocessor unit shipments to orders from Toshiba, an increased adoption of AMD-based platforms and strong initial sales of the ATI Radeon HD 2000 graphics family.

"We continue to focus on realigning our business model and reducing our capital expenditures and cost structure in the second half of the year," said Rivet.



Comments     Threshold


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

Encouraging
By Warren21 on 7/19/2007 5:49:56 PM , Rating: 4
It's good to see that their revenues are increasing QOQ, even if they reported such high losses; their business is increasing.




RE: Encouraging
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 7/19/2007 5:59:16 PM , Rating: 4
Q2 is traditionally the weakest quarter for the semiconductor industry.

Often -- though I'm not saying AMD did this -- when the higher ups know a quarter is a financial disaster, the company will go through large pains to pad as much of the next quarter's losses into the current quarter.


RE: Encouraging
By qrhetoric on 7/19/2007 6:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not like there's anything illegal about it; that's just done to manipulate investor's psycology a bit


RE: Encouraging
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 8:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not illegal, but not honest and open either.


RE: Encouraging
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 12:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably not illegal, but not honest and open either

But it is the standard for most all companies...


RE: Encouraging
By christojojo on 7/20/2007 9:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. G. K. Chesterton English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936)


http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32968.html

It is something people tend to forget when things are in their favor.


RE: Encouraging
By gramboh on 7/20/2007 1:03:40 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on the methodology. It has to comply with accounting GAAP or it is legal/fraud (earnings manipulation). If you can juggle orders/contracts to max out your losses in a quarter you know is going to be poor, that is fine, but playing games with numbers (e.g. deferrals, early write-offs/recognition) is accounting fraud and illegal. Audit firms do not knowingly sign off on reports if this type of thing is detected.


RE: Encouraging
By bunga28 on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Encouraging
By TomZ on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Encouraging
By TomZ on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Encouraging
By cheetah2k on 7/19/2007 10:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Tomz, it seems with you that every 1 point rating, you are downrated 2.

Down-rating Tomz points - so true, its amazing! lol


RE: Encouraging
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 12:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for every dollar of revenue, it cost them about 1-1/2 dollars?

Your comparison of Revenue vs COGS is highly inaccurate. The vast majority of those costs have nothing to do with production, they are finance and acquisition costs...they are also not ongoing costs.


RE: Encouraging
By defter on 7/20/2007 2:40:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The vast majority of those costs have nothing to do with production, they are finance and acquisition costs...they are also not ongoing costs.


Of $600M loss, only $78M were related to ATI acuisition. "Finance" costs include things like interest payments, how they aren't ongoing costs? AMD paid $99M in interest payments in Q2, they will definitely pay similar amounts in the near future (unless they take additional loan in which case their payments would increase).


RE: Encouraging
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 11:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Of $600M loss, only $78M were related to ATI acuisition

No...
Acquisition related costs were $94 Million (not counting interest payments)...down from $113 Million last quarter. (page 3)
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...

Interest payments are scheduled to reduce over time, and as revenue increases (k10 release, increased seasonal revenue) the amount can reduce quickly from early payoff.


RE: Encouraging
By RW on 7/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Encouraging
By HaZaRd2K6 on 7/19/2007 11:26:01 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong. If AMD goes under, who else is going to have the cash to go up against Intel? Sure Richard Branson has cash coming out his ears and he's in almost every other market, but he's not stupid. It would take a ridiculous amount of cash to start a company that could compete with Intel to the scale that AMD is (not to mention researching technologies/buying AMD's IP).

So no, there would not be competition, there would be monopoly.


RE: Encouraging
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 12:17:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If AMD goes under, who else is going to have the cash to go up against Intel?

Samsung...they have far more cash than Intel, and they are kicking Intel's butt in the rest of the semiconductor space. Adding AMD would make them the number one powerhouse by a large margin.


RE: Encouraging
By gramboh on 7/20/2007 1:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting and good point. I could see it happening. What is the speculation on AMD's take out share price range?


RE: Encouraging
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 1:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is the speculation on AMD's take out share price range?

A good question...I personally don't see anyone at AMD (or the rest of the shareholders) settling for anything under the high 30s/low 40s at the moment.
That would put the cost into the $20 Billion range, though Samsung does have over $50 Billion available to them.


RE: Encouraging
By Treckin on 7/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Encouraging
By wordsworm on 7/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Encouraging
By Spivonious on 7/20/2007 9:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, capitol refers to the actual building where a legislature meets (federal or otherwise).

I was unaware that it was a solely American word, but after looking it up in the dictionary, I see that it is. Education FTW!


RE: Encouraging
By Tsuwamono on 7/20/2007 2:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
its not, canada uses it to. but our building is called Parliament


RE: Encouraging
By wordsworm on 7/20/2007 11:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, we don't refer to our capital as the capitol. Google it and it'll ask you, "Did you mean Ottawa capital?" Of course, maybe you're referring to the theatre company, Capitol, which is in Ottawa? If you find a legitimate publisher refer to Ottawa as the capitol, please let me know. I tried to find it but failed.


RE: Encouraging
By deeznuts on 7/20/2007 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If AMD goes under, who else is going to have the cash to go up against Intel?
How about the one company that is probably most central in helping AMD compete, IBM.


RE: Encouraging
By TomZ on 7/20/2007 1:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Doubtful, I don't see any incentive for IBM to invest in competing in the x86 market against Intel. Most likely investors would be private equity investment firms that would take over AMD, reorganize them, return them to business efficiency, and then profit based on the resulting capital gains in turning around the business.

I thought you worked at an investment company - why do you think IBM would be interested in getting involved?


RE: Encouraging
By Phynaz on 7/20/2007 3:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
IBM already has an X86 license, and used to produce X86 cpu's.

They apparently don't want to be in that busniess, and wouldn't gain anything by doing so.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














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