The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
Compared to the 4x run-up in the stock, this 5% drop is trivial. It only shafts those who bought very recently, and those who did should have known that the stock is very volatile (especially in the upward direction.)
Making bank off this high stock price is one of the best decisions AMD had made in years.
Making bank off this high stock price is one of the best decisions AMD had made in years.
Anarchist4000
Veteran
For that matter it varies more by investor relations and PR than actual fundamentals. Take twitter for example, a company that's never been profitable but has billions invested in it. Last I checked they're still looking for a product to actually sell.
Come to think of it, a lot of the shares they're putting out there are probably for the GF deal.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Future viability does not mean future profits.
Stock price now reflects that whenever AMD makes a profit that profit will be spread over more shares.
That is why the decline happened.
As opposed to going bankrupt and doing zero profits? *ahem* Stock market logic...
What if AMD survives but dilutes stock such that any investment now will be worth half of what was originally expected?
It's not unreasonable to price in the expectations on whether or not a company will dilute shares or do buybacks within the investment window--which is pushed to a shorter horizon with AMD's supply of tomorrows not assured.
(edit: grammar corrected above)
One question we might have is whether AMD was planning this all along, or if this measure is indicative of how it is evaluating the financial upside of the Radeon group and Zen in the time window of its first wave of debt maturation. It was looking tight even before Polaris, and the WSA charges, and Zen's leading edge appearing to be more firmly in 2017.
Last edited:
Well, again, what would that investment be worth if the company bankrupts? Absolutely nothing. A penny tomorrow is better than two pennies never.
Well, you won't be able to squeeze even a penny out of AMD, today OR tomorrow, they just don't have that kind of cash on hand on short notice. You'd have to send in a repo man to seize some guy's AMD-enblazoned ballpoint pen and then liquidize it... More trouble than it's worth, I'd think!
You'd have to send in a repo man to seize some guy's AMD-enblazoned ballpoint pen and then liquidize it... More trouble than it's worth, I'd think! There's some element of herding and emotional reaction, possibly. I think there are some justifiable calculations for why an AMD that dilutes shares would see negative price pressure versus one that did not, all else being equal. It's not equal, but I think some of the "positives" can be read more ambiguously.Well, again, what would that investment be worth if the company bankrupts? Absolutely nothing. A penny tomorrow is better than two pennies never.
Depending on an investor's confidence or self-delusion, they may imagine they can time a bankruptcy in some undefined tomorrow versus a surprise devaluation right now.
Even with the simplified 1 penny tomorrow versus 2 pennies never, for an investor it is weighing AMD's one penny of return for X invested weighed against its still non-zero risk of failure and versus "investment Y that could have been chosen instead of AMD". Some risk/return threshold that made AMD the winning choice is potentially negatively impacted by a likely cutting of the return. The idea is that the risk also goes down, but AMD has been polyannish about how everything was turning around before opting to hurt its investors, so they may be justified in asking what risks AMD had to defray or artfully minimized in their disclosures.
Since AMD is a riskier and more volatile investment, it does attract a certain amount of shorter term or speculative investors with their own targets for return. One strategy is the idea that an investor can sucker some other speculator into buying into an even more optimistic risk/reward calculation that AMD has now dashed.
That more positive investor category, and the hedge on counting on selling to that more optimistic investor type, is a source of demand for AMD's stock that would be negatively impacted at the same time the supply of stock rises.
For at least some period of time, a dilution that impacts investors and hinders their ability to meet their goals or offload to others is a valid demerit to AMD's attractiveness.
That it had to be done at all is at the very least cause for scrutiny in case the tea leaves are trying to foretell something more dire than was originally calculated.
The sum of the dilution, hit to certain types of demand, and the specter of it being an indicator that earlier appraisals of AMD's performance were wrong is worth at least a short-term hit.
Longer term, AMD could manage things enough to restore confidence, but it would be laboring under the burden that it's already a poor risk without this occurrence and this would be the 1000th time it's disappointed investors or done something sleazy. Part of the price recovery was predicated on the idea that it wasn't in the position of still having to do this yet again.
Another good move; Screw these short term traders, getting the company back in black is better for everyone(except short term traders).
Silent_Buddha
Legend
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613...-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top
Well, according to Jon Peddie Research, AMD continues to claw back some market share from Nvidia. Q2 2016 represents their largest gain in desktop discrete market share since Q2 2010, but it still doesn't put above where they were in Q2 2014, just before their largest drop in desktop discrete market share. A combination of Nvidia shipping fewer units and AMD shipping more units. Total discrete desktop shipped units is roughly the same as Q2 2015, but there's been a radical change in market share.
I think this goes a long ways towards backing up the Mercury Research data that AMD tweeted about.
Regards,
SB
Well, according to Jon Peddie Research, AMD continues to claw back some market share from Nvidia. Q2 2016 represents their largest gain in desktop discrete market share since Q2 2010, but it still doesn't put above where they were in Q2 2014, just before their largest drop in desktop discrete market share. A combination of Nvidia shipping fewer units and AMD shipping more units. Total discrete desktop shipped units is roughly the same as Q2 2015, but there's been a radical change in market share.
I think this goes a long ways towards backing up the Mercury Research data that AMD tweeted about.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Is Q2 a calendar or financial one (which can be different)?
Just wondering because if it is calendar this suggests those consumers purchased older generation AMD cards because the initial batch of 480 were not available until the very last week of June and the initial batches were still sort of limited albeit better than the 1080 on launch day.
This provides a good picture of one of the largest retailers here in the UK who always do a good job of getting launch models: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18737717
1st one to post ownership is an AMD representative in the forums who received his on 28th June; ignore how many owners as not everyone posts, I think they had around 1500-2000 480 cards at launch (quite a few other retailers had minimal numbers over here).
Maybe North America would be quicker, but I am assuming it would still only be last week of June and also restricted to the launch batch.
Cheers
Just wondering because if it is calendar this suggests those consumers purchased older generation AMD cards because the initial batch of 480 were not available until the very last week of June and the initial batches were still sort of limited albeit better than the 1080 on launch day.
This provides a good picture of one of the largest retailers here in the UK who always do a good job of getting launch models: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18737717
1st one to post ownership is an AMD representative in the forums who received his on 28th June; ignore how many owners as not everyone posts, I think they had around 1500-2000 480 cards at launch (quite a few other retailers had minimal numbers over here).
Maybe North America would be quicker, but I am assuming it would still only be last week of June and also restricted to the launch batch.
Cheers
Anarchist4000
Veteran
I'd guess calendar as companies would all have different fiscal quarters. They were probably selling a bunch of 390s that were benchmarking strong at the beginning of that period as well. If the sales were 480s they must have been dumping a ton into a ethereum market somewhere. China, India, etc with low power bills that we don't have input from.
AFAIK those numbers aren't actual sale numbers, but somewhere up the chain (AIB level?), and Polaris was shipping before they actually went on sale
Thanks,
that though would still fall foul of the limited number available at launch, yeah launch day had more than say Nvidia 1080 but over the 1st two weeks it was still far from ideal even for AMD.
Overclockers had one of the largest amount available of Polaris at launch here in the UK, and that was around 2,000 units, but that did not refill very quickly compared to the ramping up of the 1070/1080 (same retailer) over 2 weeks.
AIB level, well there Nvidia would lead because look who has the most AIB models just out after launch so not sure if it would be that, which then is exacerbated by limited actual custom models for 480 -separate to the 'reference' model those AIB could also sell.
As you say would be great to know how those numbers are measured.
Cheers
DavidGraham
Veteran
Not quite I think. In Q2 AMD only sold 100K units more (a very humble amount), 90% of the their market share gain came from NV clearing out stocks to focus on Pascal (As has been told times and again). It's a number that is not worthy of any celebrations, market share in 1H 2016 is a 75% to 25% split.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's always nice to cherry pick the numbers that you like and ignore the ones that you don't.
The fact is that Nvidia had to correct for channel inventory. It's not like there was ever a shortage of Maxwell 2 cards from the consumer POV. It happens anytime a new generation of cards is coming out to replace an older one. If this is an abnormally large correction compared to the past then that would mean they overshipped cards into the channel compared to previous generational shifts.
They only sold 100k more units Quarter to Quarter. JPR didn't explicitly give the numbers for YoY which is more important from a unit shipment POV as you then can compare it with as little seasonal shifts as possible. And all the data is there to derive that yourself.
Q2 2015
- 9.38 million total discrete desktop units shipped by AIBs.
- Nvidia 81.9% market share versus AMD 18.0% market share.
- Nvidia 7.68 million discrete desktop units shipped by AIBs versus 1.69 million for AMD
- 9.44 million total discrete desktop units shipped by AIBs. Virtually the same as 2015.
- Nvidia 70.9% market share versus AMD 29.9% market share. The last time AMD saw a market share gain of that magnitude was in Q2 2010.
- Nvidia 6.61 million discrete desktop units shipped by AIBs versus 2.82 million for AMD. Since this is AIB shipments, this includes over a month of shipping Pascal based cards versus only 1-3 weeks worth Polaris based shipments.
AMD AIB shipments increased by 1.13 million units despite the impending release of Polaris. A 40.1% increase. AIB's aren't going to be able to stuff the channel if the demand isn't there because retailers won't buy the cards.
Nvidia AIB shipments dropped by 1.08 million units to correct channel inventory in preparation of Pascal. A 14.0% decrease. Channel corrections for Maxwell 2 based cards isn't made up by shipments of Pascal based cards.
Things of note. For Q2 2016, Pascal based AIB shipments were for 1080 and 1070 and started shipping to retailers in May. On the AMD side Rx 460, 470, and 480 would have started shipments to AIBs at the end of June. For 460 and 470 it may only represent a few days worth of shipments.
Personally I expect Nvidia to regain some of that lost market share in Q3 2016 as shipments of Pascal ramp up. But it's still remarkable none-the-less that AMD were able to claw back that large a chunk of market share in the face of both Maxwell 2 and Pascal.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
AIBs will need to start shipments well over a week before a launch in order to reach the various retailers around the world in time for launch. That is unless they want to ship via air, which no AIB is going to do unless its a dire emergency. So Polaris shipments in Q2 2016 will likely represent somewhere around 2-3 weeks worth of shipments for Rx 480 and less for Rx 470/460.
When compared to Mercury, which tracks shipments from AMD to partners, Q2 2016 is going to include over a months worth of Polaris shipments.
Regards,
SB
- Status
Similar threads
