Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Crooks laughing with their loot

2Q06 AMD institutional holding numbers are out. Guess what, those crooks who downgraded AMD loaded up their boat. AMD's institutional ownership reached 82.66%. These criminals.

Goldman Sachs (James Covello ): increased its AMD holdings by 53.88%
Merrill Lynch ( Joe Osha): increased its AMD holdings by 16.77%
Bank of America (Sumit Dhanda): increased its AMD holdings by 7%
UBS: increased AMD holdings by 33.36%

You have to understand that most of the small funds have low IQ folks that follow big firm analysts, such as Joe Osha and James Covello... Joe, James and Dhanda said sell, a lot of the smaller fishes dumped their AMD shares.

On August 15, the new institutional holdings are published. The low IQ dudes found the smart crooks have loaded up the boat. The low IQ dudes now thinks, hmm, why is DELL going AMD? Why did Joe's firm load up? ...

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember back Jan-Feb 06 AMD was being downgraded to SELL and I couldn’t figure out why. Intel was a BUY despite dismal numbers. B of A and Goldman Sach were the biggest offenders. Pumping Intel while they were selling out the back door.

3:06 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Explain to me why the 4 listed are crooks? From http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ud?s=AMD we find the most recent analyst actions for the 4 listed:

Goldman Sachs: upgrade 6/14/06 to in-line

UBS: upgrade 2/14/06 to neutral

Bank of America: initiate 11/8/05 at neutral

Merrill Lynch: upgrade 11/11/04 to buy

If you want to be pissed at someone, Caris and Co. downgraded AMD 3 times this summer from buy all the way to below average. Of course, in 24 pages of institutional holdings, I didn't see them with any AMD shares- so they put their money where there mouth is.

Keep yelling wolf. Or report facts, and be a valuable news source. I would truly value that. At this point, the only reason I keep coming around is the same reason people slow down to rubberneck at car wrecks. To see the spectacle.

3:12 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duh..

Any monkey can figure at 17 bucks AMD was probably a safe bet... Even I bought a few share. Feel for the flys that bought in the 20s and 30s..

3:19 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow im kinda surprised at the institutional ownership numbers, but meh...those are crooks ;)

3:32 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I remember back Jan-Feb 06 AMD was being downgraded to SELL and I couldn’t figure out why."

It was being downgraded to sell because it had a trailing P/E of >100 and it would take a ridiculous increase in earnings growth (~4X) to justify the price and be in line with a normal semiconductor industry multiple.

With a looming proce war with Intel and a stock price of >40 it was clearly over-valued at the time. It's not like AMD is a startup comany where very high multiples can be justified in the short term.

At it's current multiples (~22 trailing, ~16 forward P/E) the stock is now reasonably priced and worth buying if you believe AMD will grow revenue/earnings in the near future. The only issue is that earnings may soon come under pressure as F36 equipment depreciation starts hitting the books as well as financing on the ATI acquisition loan.

4:04 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Crap_Anthony said...

What about these known crooks ..you have discussed them here over and over again ..some time back there was also a plan to report these ass*oles to the SEC ..whats up with that ?

5:35 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SO Sharikou, when AMD was at >40 with a P/E of ~110, you thought it was a strong buy? How should have the institutional folk ranked the stock then?

If people sold when the stock was downgraded in Jan-Feb they would have saved a bunch of money and could essentially buy 2X the # of shares back right now. (Which is what I did, realizing the stock was way overvalue. Had I been smarter I would have purchased a bunch of put options back then too!)

8:14 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man I can't wait until you make the wrong libelous statement and someone sues you for being a liar. Karma is a beautiful thing.

I know your usual reply, it's the same pathetic tactic you used on the old Yahoo stock boards (I recognize your ridiculous libel and lies from there). "If I'm wrong, they can sue me! Therefore, I'm right!" or "If they sue me I'll get full disclosure and show that I'm right". Delusions of grandeur are a sure sign of insanity.

You are a kook, a crackpot, and a liar and everyone knows it.

10:32 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou: I sometimes read your blog sometimes, mainly cuz its enterataining, but I can't figure out why you really hate intel so much. Conroe is a decent cpu, you really can't say anything bad about it, its a nice price and good performance..did intel cheat you out of money or are you paid by AMD to do this? You have to be paid by amd I bet you are, aren't you...spill it!

11:12 PM, August 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"libelous" its criminal that these b@st@rds can get away with these duplicitous activities and the stock market watchdog turn a blind eye.

2:27 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what these guys feel when they come to know that AMD has 50% market share in high end desktops.

See - http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/

4:32 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to this chart for the Society of Companies Better Than Intel, AMD is superior to Intel in terms of performance, and reliability:


Intel
---------> (Score 15)
AMD
----------------> (Score 48)

On the following chart, we can also deduce that Conroe is bad and K8L is good.

Bad<---------------------->Frags
*****^Intel ------- AMD ^
*****Conroe ------- K8L

Based on my own benchmarks (1138THX 6.9), I have created my OWN chart which compares the K8L to Intel's offerings (i386SX) and the numbers are startling:

Intel
-->6.4
AMD
---------->12.5

AND last but not least, Hector Ruiz scored an incredibly high 8 out of 10 on the 'Rich old coot but has a great smile' benchmark(v6.9), whereas Paul Otellini only scored 4, perhaps because he's not as old and not of Mexican descent, nor does he have 'Jesus' anywhere in his name (must be a terrorist).

Clearly, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would lay their money on AMD. According to my analysis, we must all "Sell" our Intel stock and "Buy" AMD stock.

We'll see YOU, dear reader, at the next shareholder meeting!

8:06 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD stock on the rise despite pressure from Intel terrorist.

8:18 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HP is killing Dell today, stealing even more market share. 4 million batteries recalled couldn’t help. CNBC news reported.

8:30 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Hey Dr, you had a previous post about the lack of demand for Conroe, so I went a looked at the numbers again.

I first looked at the Opteron 265, here.

Then I looked at the FX62, here.

It would seem thay cant make enough Opterons (past due), but look at the lack of intrest for the FX62, even with the price cuts.

Next I looked at X6800, here.

Then the E6600, here.

It would seem that there is a strong demand for the lower clocked Intel, which according to reviewers is a good overclocker, and with that overclocking is capable of beating the FX62, and at $350 seems like a hell of a deal.

Just a thought.

9:43 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you Google Woodcrest and VMWare you’ll discover 64bit VMWare won’t run properly. Intel engineers should be taken to the woodshed for this blunder.

10:37 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder what these guys feel when they come to know that AMD has 50% market share in high end desktops."

"We anticipate that our high end desktops will transition from 100% AMD to around 50/50 with the possibility of more growth from either side."

That's VoodooPC's estimate of their ratio of Intel/AMD share of their high end desktops. AMD has always had 100% with VoodooPC since they were always better, at least until Core 2 Duo:)

11:57 AM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to this chart for the Society of Companies Better Than Intel, AMD is superior to Intel in terms of performance, and reliability:


Intel
---------> (Score 15)
AMD
----------------> (Score 48)

On the following chart, we can also deduce that Conroe is bad and K8L is good.

Bad<---------------------->Frags
*****^Intel ------- AMD ^
*****Conroe ------- K8L

Based on my own benchmarks (1138THX 6.9), I have created my OWN chart which compares the K8L to Intel's offerings (i386SX) and the numbers are startling:

Intel
-->6.4
AMD
---------->12.5

AND last but not least, Hector Ruiz scored an incredibly high 8 out of 10 on the 'Rich old coot but has a great smile' benchmark(v6.9), whereas Paul Otellini only scored 4, perhaps because he's not as old and not of Mexican descent, nor does he have 'Jesus' anywhere in his name (must be a terrorist).

Clearly, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would lay their money on AMD. According to my analysis, we must all "Sell" our Intel stock and "Buy" AMD stock.

We'll see YOU, dear reader, at the next shareholder meeting!


omg. i've never seen the truth that was right before my eyes! i just ordered 100 amd cpus to replace my collection of gold coins... :D

12:38 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel Fanboys, listen-up.

What happens if a Dell notebook burns up with the new replaced Sony battery?

2:14 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Dr. Yield, PhD, MBA said...

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Lot's of talk about crooks, but no one seems to be willing to address that there was very little downgrade activity in Q2. Check the Yahoo! link and see for yourself. If you wish to claim manipulation, try correlating (big PhD word, I realize)downgrades and upgrades in Q2 with changes in position by the analyst's firm. The firms you show didn't even downgrade AMD in the timeframe you refer to. Yellow journalism at it's height?

If anything, I would argue that AMD's fundamentals in Q2 did not support the valuation at the time (go read a book on financial analysis and valuation, it's not challenging for anyone with a quantitative background). Analysts that did not point that out to their institutional clients were closer to criminal than the flip side- they weren't minding the store. You could certainly argue that AMD is a buy now, based on its current multiples and FCF, but... I haven't run the numbers, especially with the debt from the ATI deal.

As to AMD's institutional ownership reached 82.66%. being a bad thing, why? Insitutions buy huge amounts of stock. They buy more, demand increases, price increases. This a problem how? Criminal? Do explain- and if you wish to claim market manipulation, go back to the top of this post- demonstrate correlated downgrade/buying behavior. It really is amazing that most of the readers here don't seem bothered by the lack of logical data analysis here.

3:26 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel Fanboys, listen-up.

What happens if a Dell notebook burns up with the new replaced Sony battery?


Then we all blame it on the LCD manufacturer, dummy!

And if THAT fails, we blame it on the DVD drive manufacturer.

You're not gonna be able to pin this on the CPU, ever!

Sheesh. You should know that about us by now.

3:33 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo another flie hoovering around shit says

"Clearly, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would lay their money on AMD. According to my analysis, we must all "Sell" our Intel stock and "Buy" AMD stock"

You are a sucker who will be working for a long time. When it comes to stock AMD and INTEL are day trading plays. AMD was a buy, it ain't a good one now. INTEL is still a buy.. but if it moves a few more points neither is it a good buy. If you had to pick one stock today you can do a lot better then INTEL or AMD, but if you had to pick one for a 10 year run.. its a no brainer.

4:04 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some idiot wrote

"What happens if a Dell notebook burns up with the new replaced Sony battery? "


LOL its because it will have the new AMD turion turd.

4:33 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What happens if a Dell notebook burns up with the new replaced Sony battery?

QUOTE from Information Week Tech

“Indeed, Levy does not expect Dell to be the last manufacturer to issue a battery recall, given its an industry-wide problem. " I would expect to see more recalls in the months to come," Levy said. "Dell won't be the last."

6:58 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then we all blame it on the LCD manufacturer, dummy!

And if THAT fails, we blame it on the DVD drive manufacturer.

You're not gonna be able to pin this on the CPU, ever!

Sheesh. You should know that about us by now. "

Haha very funny...

I can't wait to hear from Sony's side, "They asked us to make a super-duper dense power to volume ratio for the @#$! power hungry Core Duo..." This reminded me of deadly Ford SUV and Firestone tires combination.

Everyone involves (including Intel) will get some guilty-by-association.

I am going to wait for the finding for the consumer watch-dog. What if they find out the Sony batteries were pushed to the design limit power-to-weight/volume ratio???

Two cores for laptop is asking for trouble. I personally favor for 90nm single core to reduce the static current leakage.

-Longan-

8:55 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo another flie hoovering around shit says

"Clearly, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would lay their money on AMD. According to my analysis, we must all "Sell" our Intel stock and "Buy" AMD stock"

You are a sucker who will be working for a long time.


You are a sucker who missed my oh-so-clever and witty humor.

You seeeeee, I was pointing out the hilarity of the situation by making fun of benchmarks, CEO's, market analysiseseses, comparing Apples to oranges (or was it PC's?) and all sorts of funny little things.

You, on the other hand, mistook my attempt at subtle humor and took me seriously! Hah hah! Jokes on YOU, pal!

(That's me being facetious again. If you don't know what I meant you shouldn't be playing with stocks, dear, you might hurt yourself.)

9:13 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Battery's don't heatup unless they have a serious load "short circuit" placed on them.. Unless Dell fixes this cause be it cpu/motherboard/charging circuitry more problems will occur.

1:31 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger DBA said...

Intel has good news, better news and bad news.

The good news is, quad-core Kentsfield is out (engineering sample?). The better news is, the quad-core can be overclocks to 4.75 GHz. The bad news is, the benchmarks do not show huge difference when comparing to a dual-core 3GHz Woodcrest(strange ?).

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33751

3:42 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CitiGroup just moved AMD from HOLD to a BUY. I guest they got all the shares they needed.

8:10 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Battery's don't heatup unless they have a serious load "short circuit" placed on them.. Unless Dell fixes this cause be it cpu/motherboard/charging circuitry more problems will occur.”

I agree completely, which is why I posted….

"What happens if a Dell notebook burns up with the new replaced Sony battery?”

Probably the new batteries load threshold has been moved up or fused better, but I don’t think Dell is out of the woods yet.

8:20 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BofA just raised the target price from $19 to $23 this morning and the stock is at $24.16 as I type. What a gutsy call.

8:26 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From c/net
“Dell, the last of the big four server makers to accept Advanced Micro Devices' chips into its product portfolio, is expected to announce Thursday that it's expanding its partnership with the chipmaker to include new AMD-based servers, desktops and laptops. “

I think Dr. S. should get kudos for calling this one months ago. Dell should have switched sooner.
This is old news released again few hours ago, Dell must be in big trouble.

8:49 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calling Intel "one high-quality turnaround story," Cowen and Company initiated coverage on the shares Wednesday with an "outperform" rating.

The firm also initiated coverage on rival Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD - news - people ) at "neutral," saying the company's recent market gain momentum has likely peaked.

As for Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ), "we expect the company's pending, massive product refresh to curb market share losses and that ongoing organizational changes will improve focus on the core PC businesses," said Cowen analyst John Barton in a report Tuesday.

Specifically, he cited Intel's product launches for notebooks, desktop PCs and servers as well as 64-bit support.

The analyst forecast gains in Intel's share price as the company's turnaround becomes more evident. "We expect Intel's manufacturing lead and ability to offer complete platform solutions to result in competitive advantages," he said.

And Intel's momentum will come at AMD's expense, according to the analyst, who said Intel's "broad product refresh cycle will close the performance and architectural advantage" that drove AMD's gains.

Moreover, Barton expects AMD to feel pressure from Intel's aggressive pricing.

With AMD's market gains likely to slow in the face of Intel competition, the analyst said he thinks AMD is facing "an uphill battle" in the coming quarters.

11:00 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CitiGroup just moved AMD from HOLD to a BUY. I guest they got all the shares they needed.

Why those dirty scoundrels. The last time they did anything bad against AMD, was, well, um... they upgraded it from sell to hold in 2004. Wow! Those bastards.

11:22 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Azary Omega said...

Intel has good news, better news and bad news.
The good news is, quad-core Kentsfield is out (engineering sample?). The better news is, the quad-core can be overclocks to 4.75 GHz. The bad news is, the benchmarks do not show huge difference when comparing to a dual-core 3GHz Woodcrest(strange ?).
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33751


so lets see.... intel went from Hot pentiums to Hot quad core, core, core's in one year? wow way to go intel!

11:59 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so lets see.... intel went from Hot pentiums to Hot quad core, core, core's in one year? wow way to go intel!'

110W is better than FX-62's 125W.

That's 4 cores, 1 cpu. 4x4=2 probably less power hungry FX's, though still probably power hungry chips.

12:28 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"110W is better than FX-62's 125W.

That's 4 cores, 1 cpu. 4x4=2 probably less power hungry FX's, though still probably power hungry chips."

Hello Mr. "I'm ignorant as to how AMD and Intel represent TDP". Shut now, k?

12:43 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why those dirty scoundrels. The last time they did anything bad against AMD, was, well, um... they upgraded it from sell to hold in 2004. Wow! Those bastards."

You miss the point, Its the joe public Intel and AMD investor that gets to pay for these guys crap calls .

1:06 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

Could someone elaborate on the heat generated by the extra cache on Kentsfield vs an IMC, and how it effects the TDP?

Thanks.

2:25 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger symbiansn said...

Conroe is still a weak foundation for technology. It's not future-proof but a short-term fix for Intel's woes instead, even Anand knows that.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=9

"This does not change the fact that the AM2 memory bandwidth is really greater than Core 2 Duo or the fact that AM2 scales better in memory, exhibiting a steeper slope in performance increase as memory speed increases than does Core 2 Duo. That just means as Memory Speed increases AM2 will benefit more and Intel will eventually need to move to an on-processor controller."

5:37 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous enumae said...

symbiansn said...

"Conroe is still a weak foundation for technology."

If thats the case, and I am not trying to bash AMD, why is Intel able to beat AMD?

Gaming is about 15-20%, and almost everything else is about 20-30%.

That sounnds like a pretty good foundation, or, should I say... a step in the right direction?

"It's not future-proof but a short-term fix for Intel's woes instead, even Anand knows that."

Nothing is future proof, how about a processor that will live its 2 year life and be replaced, or is that what you meant?

Here are a few statements from the article you linked to.

1. Perhaps the most interesting statistics are that the huge increases in memory bandwidth brought by AM2 make almost no difference in AM2 performance compared to the earlier DDR-based Athlon64.

2. Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance...No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD.

The one question I have, and maybe someone could answer this, is what kind of performance could we see if Intel took Conroe and added an IMC?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can elaborate on that.

9:39 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger N4CR said...


110W is better than FX-62's 125W.

That's 4 cores, 1 cpu. 4x4=2 probably less power hungry FX's, though still probably power hungry chips.


As MMM said, Intel and AMD measure TDP differently. AMD uses absolute maximum and intel uses some more real life 'average maximum' which is often over 10-20w less than an AMD type TDP rating from memory... AMD lists the total absolute max and intel states average max or something like that. It's just different so you can't compare them much. As you could see back in the P4 days when a prescott system could use a few hundred watts with a similar TDP to 'XX00' AMD cpu but the draw from the AMD system would be in the easy 30W+ or so less usage bracket with same components. Sometimes the margins would be close to 100W. I don't have the time or sanity to link anything for you to read to back me up as I'm going from memory but it seems to be correct. (got home from work at 2am.. it's 3:46am now :(

8:52 AM, August 18, 2006  
Blogger symbiansn said...

"If thats the case, and I am not trying to bash AMD, why is Intel able to beat AMD?"

That's the least one should expect. Too bad the advantage they bring to the table will be short-lived.

"That sounnds like a pretty good foundation, or, should I say... a step in the right direction?"

"Nothing is future proof, how about a processor that will live its 2 year life and be replaced, or is that what you meant?"

Conroe just shows Intel is expending too much funds with stopgap fixes instead of bringing top-to-down solutions like leadership in 64-bit performance and bus interconnect technology.

"1. Perhaps the most interesting statistics are that the huge increases in memory bandwidth brought by AM2 make almost no difference in AM2 performance compared to the earlier DDR-based Athlon64."

AM2's DDR2 bandwidth in addition to K8L will make a difference.

"2. Probably the hardest conclusion for many will be the fact that increasing memory speed, increasing clock speed, and increasing CPU speed alone will not be enough for AM2 to catch up to Core 2 Duo in performance...No doubt AMD will find a solution, but it is now clear this will not be an easy fix for AMD."

K8L and AM2 will trash Core 2.

"The one question I have, and maybe someone could answer this, is what kind of performance could we see if Intel took Conroe and added an IMC?"

That will be less of a performance increase than what is possible with AMD64. Intel bloated their core logic with cache and a stopgap fix read-ahead logic.

8:28 AM, August 19, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home