Sorry to hear that Michael... last nite I thought about it and instead of buying more stocks, I bought some puts. Not like I made much from the puts, they were $12.95 marks, but at least I didn't go into the red. I still have my longs, so now I'm just buffering til I see what happens. Maybe AMD is the stock to forget for a while as they get their shit together.
I remember like yesterday being on another thread with some of you. I will have to look this up when I have a moment, but back in this past mid December 2006, the AMD CEO was at a presentation/meeting and made some very bullish comments. AMD stock surged & jumped to nearly $24 & was looking very strong from a technical standpoint. Ironically, the day before this happened, a well known analyst that followed this sector put a huge downgrade to strong sell on AMD. He looked like a fool in this very moment, but he came out again the next day defending his research and analysis. Now here we are three months later and the stock has tanked some 50%.
Its ok. My line of no-return was at 12.96. I can see the single digits in the near future now and then this thing can bounce into the pinks alongside Delta airlines.
On the arguments below, this is a market where a significant technical weakness can see severe degradation of market share ... its not cars or refrigerators. Also the EPS on yahoo of -0.34 isn't stellar. The chart is very cool ... the definition of catching falling knives. Best of luck.
There is not any price advantage on any AMD processors; it has to cut another 20% or more to be competitiveness with Intel. More downside for AMD
I think there is on laptop processors, and a few desktop ones. But you're right: Intel is intentionally squeezing AMD on pricing, in a very predatory way. They are taking away one of the pillars of AMDs competitiveness. I have no doubt about this. At the same time, Intel is trying to compensate for this by opening up a competitive advantage with AMD on laptop processors, to justify higher pricing. Intel will soon be using a 45 nm chip in its latest laptop processors. Intel also laid off some 10,000 people, cutting massive costs from the company. Everything they've done in the last year has been a shot across the bow of AMD that they are prepared to go to a sustained war on pricing and new product pipeline. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The entire PC market is fairly weaker since the window Vesta came out; and i just finished a report on semiconductor sector which shows significant weakness. The irony is that Vesta is not a killer application everyone must need; even if it is true; Vesta still didn't waste enough PC resources to push everyone upgrading their hardware.So; where does the PC growth come from? We need multi-threads OS from ground up which Vesta is not, to take advantage all these dual-core processors. Apple's iPhone, Blackberry maybe are the only hopes for this sector.
My two cents.... If any of you have seen Vista you'd know that the biggest upgrade needed for most PCs will be graphic cards. Vista runs fairly well other than that. Sure, a fair amount of memory and a decent processor are required. I sometimes upgrade and build computers for people when I have the time. When they bought their computer, even recently, most comp stores don't scrimp on the memory or processor because those are the things people know about. Every Joe Schmoe off the street tells me that their computer has 2 gig of memory and a 3+ gig processor. The cheap box computers that you buy for $600 come with a great processor and at least a gig of RAM. That is plenty for Vista, but they also come with an on-board 126MB (or less) graphic card, because most people don't know the difference. Unless they are into 3D gaming they would never be able to tell. Then vista enters the world. The average computer will be able to run Vista, but only after they upgrade to at least a 256MB (and preferrably higher) video card. So to make a really long story just a bit shorter. The decision to buy ATI was probably a good move. AMD was getting squeezed by Intel. When I build computers for people and I ask if they want an AMD or an Intel platform, they always say that they heard AMD is better. Then I tell them the price difference and they always go with Intel. When it comes down to it folks, Intel offers more product utility for the price. Combine with that the fact that there are many apps out there that won't run properly on an AMD system. That said, I do find it odd that Apple is at highs right now while AMD is at lows.
Yea, both my Apple's have Intel Duo and Xeons.. Love em to death. Cannot stand windows, but need it for trading. It is truly amazing how AMD is still in business all these years. Have they ever been profitable?? IBM is also working on some chips to bring to the public. Intel is just a household name. Its like Yahoo! auctions playing catchup with eBay... Ain't going to happen..