Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by Jospeh, Dec 5, 2012.
or can the stock possibly go any lower?
Sure. Wait long enough and the stock will go so low that you wont be able to buy them anymore at all. Laugh
Although I am around +10 thousand US in the 3 or 4 times I have purchased and sold AMD stock I am very doubtful that this is a good time to buy. The company is much weaker now than it was in the Athlon days before the ATI purchase.
Oh it can go lower alright. Hopefully it won't go low enough to get unlisted like jordan12 said...
I've been thinking the same thing for about the past 6 months, but it just kept going lower...
The time to buy would have been when it bottomed out at around $1.80 a share a few weeks ago.
I might pick up 100 shares or so anyway... I've made worse purchases.
The last time I purchased AMD stock was sometime in November of 2008. I purchased 2500 shares at 1.83 and sold it for 2.36 a few days later. I was happy with the return but highly scared of the volatility so I needed out.
Wait for December 31st. The fiscal cliff thing might push them lower.
I'm a newb to stocks what would be the easiest way of even purchasing some? also do you just pay the market price per share so if it's at $1.50 per share would that mean you would pay $1.50 for each share
$1.50 x 150 shares = $225?
wait till it increases in price
New value $2.50 a share
$2.50 x 150 shares = $375 and sell?
Count the number of times that a tech company has done an Apple-style comeback, multiply by the number of Steve Jobs available for AMD to hire, and the resulting number is the number of shares of AMD you should buy.
You missed the price you pay to purchase and sell stocks. For me I believe that is $9.99. Although a few years ago they used to not charge you if your entire order was not filled so your cost could sometimes be avoided. Now if you get a partial fill and then want to change your price you pay for 2 fees. On top of that you will pay taxes on your gain. If you held the stock for less than a year your rate is much lower than if you hold it for a year or longer (capital gains).
ive always wanted to own AMD stock, but i dont like gambling. The only thing I think would help AMD stock holders is if they are bought out by a major player like qualcomm
I never invest in tech stocks. For some reason board of directors choose totally inept people to run their companies. And often these people have a losing track record!
I have seen company after company put an idiot in place as CEO and that person runs it right into the ground.
It is beyond amazing how one person can do some much damaged and then gets paid million just to get rid of him(or her!).
Sell some "short" for now.
If it seems they will be finding some buyers for their intellectual property, then buy before announced, or you will miss the jump, and miss the profit.
This may not be the right forum but as someone interested in buying AMD stock, how would one go about purchasing the stock ? I am in Canada if that helps.
Not sure if it's a good time based on news like this: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1732649
I need for AMD to get back to $3.60 just to break even. *sigh*
Something my grandfather used to say to me, "Don't try to catch a falling knife". But he also said that your losses are set, and your profit is limitless. Personally, i believe that right now is a bad time to invest in any market, with the fiscal cliff coming up, Europe being screwed, a potential war with Iran, a costly chemical cleanup in Syria, and dont forget, N. Korea is launching a rocket into space on the 21st, so a possible conflict there.
Save you're money or invest in something else.
I can't think of any reason for AMD to exist, other than to prevent Intel from selling CPUs for higher prices. What special technology does AMD have that its competitors lack?
You might want to look into Microchip, MCHP, beause it produces the cheapest microprocessors, which aren't the same as everybody else's (not x86, not ARM), using old equipment (cheap), has no debt, and has a load of cash. Still, don't put more than 5% of your eggs in one basket, and I mean just your egg money (i.e., not all your money).
I was tempting to grab 500 share when their stock at $1.80 but kinda worry and now it's around $2.30
If I were to invest in AMD, it's not their technology that I would be concerned about, but rather their liabilities/debt structure. Every consumer of x86 owes AMD at least a couple of cents for forcing Intel to remain competitive in price/performance, but even with their stock at such a low price, I don't see a compelling reason to invest in AMD.
I support AMD in as much that I am not simply "blinded" by the Intel brand, but there is a big difference between spending on a consumer product vs. investing in a sound company. As far as cheap PCs for grandma goes, AMD has some compelling offerings for OEMs, but where the true value of their IP, and thus profit margins are, Intel's product offerings are compelling in both TCO, pp/w, and "industry" support.
AMD will probably be bought by a conglomerate of Chinese companies in a few years. With their stock price so low, there is no sense in issuing new stock in order to re-fund their current liabilities.
What happened to AMD is the same story that happens to many american companies that do great things but once the founder(s) retire and hand the company over to a board, the whole thing goes to hell.
No one there has the sense that the company is "their baby" and thus are more interested in thing that will give them a fat wallet instead of making the company strong.
If that happens, what happens to the current stock holders? I assume nothing at all, it stays the same, but just want to check.
So, in other words, AMD is a sure thing, since Jim Keller is, at the very least, the Steve Jobs of CPU engineers. He just left Apple in August to become an AMD corporate vice president and the new chief architect of AMD’s microprocessor cores:
This guy alone makes buying shares in AMD a no-brainer. He designed the DEC Alpha, the AMD Athlon and Athlon 64 and the Apple A5 and A6 ARM chips in the ipad and iphone, and now he's in CHARGE of AMD's processor division, with the full resources of AMD at his disposal. The last time his designs were being used in AMD CPUs, AMD hit $40 per share (back in 2006).
I'd say the chances of Steamroller, or whatever ends up coming out after Piledriver, being a kick-ass CPU just went up exponentially. Normally, one man wouldn't be enough to turn things around at a whole company, but in this case, I'd say it's kind of like Luke Skywalker joining the Rebel Alliance. If it were anything else, I'd laugh at the suggestion Intel will be in for serious competition again from AMD, but in this case, I'd say the 'galactic empire' (Intel) just might be having to deal with a resurgent AMD once again.
In this instance, I'd say AMD's fortunes have turned around 180 degrees, and their prospects have very suddenly become MUCH brighter.
I own 2000 shares of AMD already.
I did not know that but with a history like that, he has my vote.
AMD's survival strategy is meeting a sales target much smaller than it's made in several years. Debt problems are coming up next year and even in the best case, AMD may still be overpriced, especially with any more loss of x86 markets. And that seems likely given its roadmap competitive position, mostly due to financial woes. It's in a vicious cycle.
The question you have requires research. The stock moves on changes in prospects, news, products and the market in general. If you don't want to do research, save yourself money since you'll likely lose it, or just invest in an index fund. anubis44 is giving absolutely horrible investment advice. Fandom is almost never a good reason to invest, especially when a company is in very poor shape and still shrinking.
FWIW, even with a superstar processor architect hired (who is not from an x86 background), it would take 3-4 years, at least, for products influenced by such a person to come through the pipeline. If Dirk Meyer hadn't screwed up so badly post-K8, it would be worth noting AMD's loss from his "leaving".
Thank god... This is the first bit of real, tangible good news to come from AMD in 2012.
It may be good news for the investors, but the company still has a lot of problems. The enthusiast following for AMD is gone and the desktop line continues to drop further behind Intel with each passing disappointing architecture. For this reason they are moving towards the mobile platform, but this is a completely different ballgame and will require restructuring. There is a very big difference between selling hardware manufacturers $50-250 chips and $10-30 chips. And they are still further behind ARM in this market than they are Intel in the desktop market. What's worse is their strategy seems to be that they intend to buy ARM chips and then repackage them inside their custom cores. This does t things.. Strengthens their competition and puts them in a place where they have to do something they are unfamiliar with.
They really need a strong product release to get their company back on the map, but it doesn't seem they have anything viable in road map. For these reasons, among many others, I would not invest in AMD currently. And I think the overall future of AMD is grim.
Eh, fuck the enthusiast following; it didn't do shit for AMD's bottom line during their Athlon heyday, and it surely wouldn't rescue the company now. Pandering to the wet dreams of nerds is also an extraordinarily expensive endeavor.
The enthusiast crowd gets AMD product recommendations, product recognition, news articles/publications, etc. They currently sit on 4.5% of the x86 server marketshare this year, down from 5.2% last year. They are slowly backing out of the desktop market after years of abuse from Intel and they are getting into the low-power CPU market where the company currently lacks a lot of credibility. In order to tap into this market they are licensing/buying technology from ARM for every CPU they will sell.
As far as a stock is concerned it may be OK for short sells, but thinking the company will one day be what it was or will become profitable through this transition is very hopeful. Even if they redesign their processors from the ground up to become competitive they are years away from the competition in every market and lack a lot of the resources necessary to pull it off. Their game plan and intentions are on the table, yet they lack the resources to get it to market before their competition can counter and most likely continue to sell superior products by the time AMD is ready to launch.
I guess, but AMD doesn't have a design license for ARM processors. It will be selling the same Opteron Cortex A50-series designs as nearly everyone else (Apple and others with design licenses will likely have tweaked models). His hiring could make some of the ARM transition less painful, but it does little to nothing for AMD's x86 business. Even if he were a closet x86 whiz, products coming under his expertise would be 3-4 years out. According to Rory Read, ARM-based Opterons aren't coming until 2014, and it's nothing to get excited about. ARM occupies a tiny niche of the server market, and that isn't changing much.
For AMD to hang its hopes on ARM server products saving the company, you may as well write the company's obituary now (as some are). If it hopes to capture consumer products, take a look at nvidia, another ARM licensee which has dedicated significant resources to ARM products with mediocre success at increasing revenues*. Even if there weren't several dozens of other ARM licensees, a few of which could target the volume micro-server market, and even if AMD somehow got 100% of all segments of the ARM server market to itself (at ARM chip prices), it's still not enough to make up for the losses in x86. And it's best to not ignore that AMD does in fact have competition in the segments ARM is trying to target.
* side note: Apple, Samsung and other very high volume vertically integrated ARM processor makers have largely killed the hopes of "striking it rich" on ARM products in the CP space. Just something to think about when considering AMD's ARM folly, as in what *are* they thinking.
I hope he can pull AMD out of it's nosedive, as we'd all be paying more for procs and GPUs if AMD didn't exist. But, while Steve Jobs understood some of the challenges engineers face, Steve Jobs wasn't an "engineer." He was "just" a penultimate consumer with good vision and a great salesman. People knew "Steve Jobs." They don't know "Jim Keller."
As it is, I think Synergy and Trinity (I think that's what the "strategies" are called) have some benefits in the desktop space, but unlike Apple which has enjoyed great branding over the years, the history of AMD is as a lower-priced alternative to Intel, so while I hope AMD survives, their outlook in the next couple of years doesn't look too good.
Intel enjoys great product branding, and they've established this over the years with branding even in the consumer space. Like Microsoft, sometimes their products are not the best, but Intel has historically had the inertia to recover from one or two bad product cycles. AMD doesn't have this "fat reserve" and to me, the outlook doesn't look too good after Bulldozer and Piledriver.
I think for AMD to pull out of this they need to scrap their current platform similar to what Intel did with Netburst. It's a flop.
Right now their Radeon series of graphics cards and GPU intensive budget APU's for laptops or HTPC's are enough to keep them afloat.
I don't think their stock is too much of a risk since there are a lot of companies that would gladly buy them up for ~$1 a share. Maybe IBM, Motorola, or Samsung. So a limited downside with the possibility of a major upside.
Well, Intel didn't really scrap Netburst - they kept improving it, constantly, until Core was ready. AMD is surely in the early design stages of the successor to Bulldozer, but they still need to pour cash into Steamroller/etc in order to remain viable until the next architecture, whatever/wherever it may be, is ready for market.
Not only is simultaneous design an expensive and necessary stance for competition with Intel, but Intel no doubt has a leg up on next gen already anyways. AMD's best option, IMO, is to walk away from the x86 market entirely and go strictly mobile/ARM + GPU spaces. They'll come out of it a smaller company, but they'll be leaner and meaner, and as far as the bottom line goes that's all that matters.
I know nothing about stocks, but I do know the 8-core FX series would have potential to go somewhere if it weren't for the damn 125W TDP. If that CPU were around 60-70W I'd say watch out.
Intel's Core arch is actually based off of the Pentium 3 core. Intel literally scrapped Netburst for an older Arch and saw improvements. AMD could take a hint.
Yup. I think that the original idea for Netburst would be a longer pipeline operating at higher clocks than AMD was projected to be able to do. But the longer instruction pipeline created problems whenever branch prediction failed and the long instruction pipeline needed to be flushed.
Netburst and Hyper-threading where a TDP flop couple, as as soon as you loaded up the CPU, you'd see power-use increase way over idle, while the Athlons would have needed just a small bump in wattage to do the same thing at lower clocks and using less power.
It really wasn't so long ago that GHz was king from a marketing standpoint, but the internet-driven availability of information, some provided right here, years ago destroyed the notion that all a CPU needed to do was be able to achieve peak GHz for short periods of benchmark time without regard to TCO.
The x86 ISA has been around for so long, that unless Intel or AMD have an unknown "CPU wonder kid" hidden in their companies, the advancements we will note as enthusiasts will be driven by improvements in manufacturing processes and the design choices they make in terms of having a large die, SMP optimization, and what they want to do with it all those transistors to play with.
As was said earlier, while enthusiasts can be vocal and accurate and astute, chip design committees rightfully don't lose any sleep over us.
IMHO, the more the market price for AMD slips, the more likely that a buyout could occur. If that were to take place, the US market reporting would have a leak, report on the leak, and the stock price would go up for the home investor.
My gut problem with investing with AMD are as follows:
Assets vs. Liability: (debt structure - debt "costs" while even "out of market" assets like land holding or bonds can "make" money).
Competition: AMD competes with both nVidia and Intel and is losing on both fronts on the high-end. The questionably narrow IGP space advantage has been a failure as consumer awareness of the "Windows Experience" has been eroded by the poor economy and lack of Microsoft followup.
ARM isn't going to save the company: In the ARM space, you need to remove your thinking about what Apple is doing with the retina iPads and their quads. Pricing for non-Apple markets served by ARM would be driven by commodity-pricing at the consumer level.
There is a lot of research left for cache coherency, bus protocol designs, etc..., for many-core systems. If they can push the research further for having 100+ ARM cores on a bus, they might future proof themselves.
That is a gross oversimplification. If it were easy to scale P6 as far as it has been, Intel would have done it over a decade ago and we'd have never seen Netburst in the first place.