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

RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Hydrofirex on 7/19/2007 11:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
EBITDA


This must be what it's like when finance majors have a cat-fight.

However, I must inject another perspective which implicitly agrees with the position that if AMD doesn't have enough cash to pay interest payments, let alone paychecks, they will be going into bankruptcy. Fact.

IBM, say what? Which is to say: a downward spiraling AMD is a perfect buyout for IBM. If they were to step in and basically turn AMD/ATi into a consumer division it would create a company much more the revenue and net worth equal of Intel - not to mention one with an equally good R&D department. The more I've thought about this over the last few months the more I've realized it's the perfect opportunity. Only IBM has the diversified revenue stream to maintain a segment that could potentially need to take losses like these for sometime while it comes up with a rebuttal to the Core 2 architecture, and perhaps realizes the promise of Fusion. (I think this is the future.)

I'll go a step further and say that AMD cannot compete against Intel. Not in the Long Term. I know they have managed to pull this off before, but think about it. Intel is an $8.7 Billion giant. Meanwhile, AMD is a $1.3 Billion hobbit. Regardless of which earnings figure you want to use, or how much you think AMD can borrow, this industry is driven by the ability of a firm to invest gonzo amounts of cash into research and fab development. In fact, this is the primary barrier to entry for competitors and a big reason there are only really a hand full of established players. (Sun, IBM, Intel, & AMD would be the major 4?)

Moral of the story is that AMD might be more valuable to all of us if she did enter bankruptcy. If IBM does this I would hope that they just wrote AMD a check as-is and let these very clever engineers do their jobs without having to worry about loosing them eventually...

HfX


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By melgross on 7/20/2007 12:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
IBM has NO interest in going back to the consumer business. They are doing very well now without it.

AMD is basically screwed.

They laid off people in R&D. What does that say?

With Nehalem, Intel will be going back to Hyperthreading, will use ODMC, and their equivalent of Hypertransport (forget what they call it).

Where does that leave AMD? Barcelona is late out of the gate, and crippled as well.

Phenom may not be much better.

They have the worst process tech (paradoxically, it's what saved then during Intel's Netburst run, and decline).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/20/2007 9:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Intel has had the best manufacturing process technology since the beginning, this is what kept Intel from slipping further during netburst.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 12:59:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
if AMD doesn't have enough cash to pay interest payments, let alone paychecks, they will be going into bankruptcy


I think you are confusing losses with cash burn rate...they are NOT the same thing. AMD still has plenty of money. Look closer at what some of those numbers!
$255 Million Depreciation
$414 Capex
Accounts Payable dropped by $380 Million
They wrote off the rest of the 90nm inventory (they are now on 65nm only) for another $30 Million

quote:
AMD cannot compete against Intel. Not in the Long Term

It's funny, but that's what most said in July of 1999...at the time, AMD competed with Intel in only a single area (discount desktop and mobile) and they had no OEM contracts at all.
Today, AMD competes with Intel in all segments (including chipsets and graphics), has contracts with ALL OEMs, and has vastly greater revenue share than they did. That's 8 years to go from a nothing company to a major rival in an industry with perhaps the highest barriers to entry that there are!
In addition, the anti-trust suit has forced Intel to back off from most of their "shady" marketing practices (and don't forget that the suit is still pending and may represent as much as a $4-10 Billion settlement).


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By jdun on 7/20/2007 1:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the balance sheet as of March 07. I assume that they have already sold a number of assets to keep making payroll and interest payments.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=amd


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By defter on 7/20/2007 2:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you are confusing losses with cash burn rate...they are NOT the same thing. AMD still has plenty of money. Look closer at what some of those numbers!


Actually if you look at those numbers, then the cash burn rate is actually HIGHER than losses.

In Q2 AMD paid $2.2B to take $1.8B loan. They also paid back $500M of their old loan, thus they got $1.3B of extra cash.

However, current results show that their cash increased only by about $400M (1594-1167). Which means that $900M just dissapeared....

Now they have $1.6B of cash with $5.3B of debt...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 12:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, current results show that their cash increased only by about $400M (1594-1167). Which means that $900M just dissapeared....


You missed the part where they paid off much of their short-term (expensive) payables...$358 Million (short-term payables has reduced from $695M to $337M).
Also, $500M of that "dissapearing money" was spent on Capex for the conversion of Fab 30 to Fab 38.
In addition, the EU is giving AMD 262 Million Euros this quarter...($362 Million USD)
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2194633/ec-appro...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Phynaz on 7/20/2007 10:49:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They wrote off the rest of the 90nm inventory (they are now on 65nm only) for another $30 Million


I'd really like to know why you make this up.

They are still producing 90nm chips on 200mm wafers, as from this quote from the conference call.

"Fab 30 winds down output of 90-nanometer 200-millimeter material in the second-half and, as a result, we’ll ship an expanded mix of 65-nanometer CPUs from 300-millimiter wafers in the second-half of this year"


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By wordsworm on 7/20/2007 11:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't GPUs and Itaniums (albeit Intel) also being produced using 90nm? Can a fab change from a CPU manufacturer to a GPU manufacturer?


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 12:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aren't GPUs and Itaniums (albeit Intel) also being produced using 90nm?

Yes...
quote:
Can a fab change from a CPU manufacturer to a GPU manufacturer?

Yes...or DRAM, or chipsets, etc...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By wordsworm on 7/21/2007 2:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
I therefore find it confusing as to why people would be suggesting that the fab is worthless. You mentioned that they're converting it to 65nm/300mm. Nonetheless, I don't see how they concluded that its fab is useless.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 2:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I therefore find it confusing as to why people would be suggesting that the fab is worthless


In fairness to defter, he is probably going by older prices for Fabs. Back when Fab 30 was first being built, a new Fab was costing in the $2 Billion range...now it's closer to $4 Billion (in fact just the upgrade to Fab 30 is $2.2 Billion).

You are correct though, Fab 30 is FAR from worthless as an asset...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 12:56:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are still producing 90nm chips on 200mm wafers

You are correct, I made an error. The $30 Million write-down was for the remainder of the 939 chips.
Currently,
All output from Fab36 (the vast majority) is 65nm.
Fab 30 is being converted to 300mm and they are selling off the 200mm equipment. There will continue to be a dribbling output of 90nm from Fab 30 while they do the conversion.

BTW, as a suggestion to you, you might try to focus more on the discussion than on trying to flame people (specifically me). For example, if you had made this post more in the tenor of a correction than a flame, you might not get modded down so much (it was a good catch after all).

Just a thought...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By jdun on 7/20/2007 1:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
The cross license x86 agreement between AMD and Intel prevent AMD from getting bought out by a third party or going to a fab light. If either one happen AMD will lose the x86 license which means they can't produce chip using the x86 architecture. In other words they would be out of the CPU market.

IBM is the only other company that can produce the x86 architecture. However, I do not know if the x86 is their own or licensed from intel.

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/...

Yes AMD is paying Intel royalties.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 1:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cross license x86 agreement between AMD and Intel prevent AMD from getting bought out by a third party or going to a fab light. If either one happen AMD will lose the x86 license which means they can't produce chip using the x86 architecture. In other words they would be out of the CPU market


This is a common misconception...
The agreement does indeed allow Intel to cancel a 3rd party's access to x86, however you are forgetting that this is a CROSS-licensing agreement. Intel use just as much of AMD's IP as AMD uses of Intel's in their chips.
What that means is that if Intel chose to cancel the agreement, they would ALSO have to stop selling their OWN chips as the 3rd party would own a good portion of those rights.
AMD does not pay Intel royalties, and Intel does not pay AMD royaties...that's the whole purpose of the agreement!


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By jdun on 7/20/2007 1:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Read the license.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 1:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read the license

I assume you mean the royalty AMD had to pay on the older 586 chips as part of this settlement?


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By defter on 7/20/2007 2:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The agreement does indeed allow Intel to cancel a 3rd party's access to x86, however you are forgetting that this is a CROSS-licensing agreement. Intel use just as much of AMD's IP as AMD uses of Intel's in their chips. What that means is that if Intel chose to cancel the agreement, they would ALSO have to stop selling their OWN chips as the 3rd party would own a good portion of those rights.


True, but we aren't talking about Intel cancelling the agreement. We are talking about situation where the agreement is cancelled automatically if AMD is purchased by another company.

In that case, Intel retains all rights to use ex-AMD's IP, but company that purchased AMD will not get rights to use Intel's IP.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 3:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, but we aren't talking about Intel cancelling the agreement. We are talking about situation where the agreement is cancelled automatically if AMD is purchased by another company

Not the case here...if you re-read the contract, there is a provision for 3rd parties to receive the same rights that AMD had as long as Intel agrees. If Intel doesn't agree, then the contract is nullified.
quote:
Intel retains all rights to use ex-AMD's IP, but company that purchased AMD will not get rights to use Intel's IP

That is NEVER the case (it violates contract law because IP rights and licenses are considered assets of a company).


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Phynaz on 7/21/2007 7:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're making stuff up again.

Having sold a company I founded, I can tell you there is no such case law.

If you think there is please post a link.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 7:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're making stuff up again

Still the flame machine, eh?
quote:
Having sold a company I founded, I can tell you there is no such case law

LOL! Now that was truly amusing (thank you!)...it's sort of like saying that since you've flown on a jet, you're qualified to repair it.
quote:
If you think there is please post a link

No need for case law, this is about the basic requirements of a contract (Contract Law 101).
There are 3 basic requirements for any contract...Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration (please look it up). In this hypothetical case, by withdrawing their IP, Intel would be withdrawing any consideration from the contract rendering it null and void.

Do you really think that a company that owns the patents and IP of AMD would be prevented from collecting revenue on it?


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Phynaz on 7/22/2007 1:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Never said anything about it.

I said it would be perfectly fine to write a contract in which conditions could be set in which party A would lose the rights to party B's IP without it affecting the rights of party B.

I'm still waiting for you site a law that would prevent two parties from entering this agreement.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/22/2007 5:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never said anything about it

Never said anything about what?
quote:
I said it would be perfectly fine to write a contract in which conditions could be set in which party A would lose the rights to party B's IP without it affecting the rights of party B

I can see that you're still having trouble...the contract you are describing is not a legal one because something must be given by both parties. This is called Consideration. In your description, party A no longer recieves consideration while party B does...that makes the contract null and void.
See if the following definitions of Consideration help you at all...
http://www.lawteacher.net/Contract/Agreement/Consi...


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Treckin on 7/20/2007 2:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but AMD has to ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL!!!!!


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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