A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations

A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/te...gy&oref=slogin

On Oct 7, 5:28*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/te...l?_r=1&ref=tec...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...l-engineering/

"This sort of financial engineering makes a lot of sense to
consultants and investment bankers. But it often does little for
customers and the overall health of the combined companies."

"Mostly it is the bankers who win from these deals."

Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. Wahoo! Ride 'em cowboys. More
productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
generate fees for themselves.

And so it goes.

Robert.

On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:13:28 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert Myers
wrote in
:

On Oct 7, 5:28*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/te...tml?_r=1&ref==
tec...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...s-financial-e=
ngineering/

"This sort of financial engineering makes a lot of sense to
consultants and investment bankers. But it often does little for
customers and the overall health of the combined companies."

"Mostly it is the bankers who win from these deals."

Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. Wahoo! Ride 'em cowboys. More
productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
generate fees for themselves.

And so it goes.

Robert.

Well, nice try, but you are wrong.
Given technical capabilities, and a huge capictal injection to
make creative ideas come true, could make AMD a lot more powerfull.
That will surely shake Intel a bit.

Whatever the outcome, I am glad competition stays alive.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Robert Myers wrote in

Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. Wahoo! Ride 'em cowboys. More
productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
generate fees for themselves.

And so it goes.

Well, nice try, but you are wrong.
Given technical capabilities, and a huge capictal injection to
make creative ideas come true, could make AMD a lot more powerfull.
That will surely shake Intel a bit.

No, Robert is right. AMD should just give up - they cannot compete
with mighty Intel, and are just wasting the world's resources. They
do not contribute. They are leaches.

Whatever the outcome, I am glad competition stays alive.

No one really cares about the price/performance, according to Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/te...l?_r=1&ref=tec...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...l-engineering/

"This sort of financial engineering makes a lot of sense to
consultants and investment bankers. But it often does little for
customers and the overall health of the combined companies."

"Mostly it is the bankers who win from these deals."

It's in a blog, so it must be true.

Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. Wahoo! Ride 'em cowboys. More
productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
generate fees for themselves.

Gosh, you are smart. Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out that
AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the best
interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they have a
benevolent streak toward bankers.

And so it goes.

Go Intel!

On Oct 8, 10:12*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/te...l?_r=1&ref=tec...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...rom-amds-finan...

"This sort of financial engineering makes a lot of sense to
consultants and investment bankers. But it often does little for
customers and the overall health of the combined companies."

"Mostly it is the bankers who win from these deals."

It's in a blog, so it must be true.

There is nothing that appears *anywhere* that must be true just
because someone has said it. This blogger is not self-selected as so
many are, but appears in the New York Times.

Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. *Wahoo! *Ride 'em cowboys. *More
productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
generate fees for themselves.

Gosh, you are smart. *Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out that
AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the best
interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they have a
benevolent streak toward bankers.

There are plenty of people who would agree that corporate management,
often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do not
act in the best interests of shareholders. If only I could be
parachuting to earth, my half billion dollars in hand, while the
company I "managed" heads for a hard crash.

As it is, I only wished to offer another perspective. Take it or
leave it.

One more thing. You are not smart enough to be sarcastic about how
smart I am. *I* am not the subject of this forum. Leave off with
that stuff and stick to the topic, Mister.

Robert.




And so it goes.

Go Intel!

On Oct 8, 6:53*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:


Well, nice try, but you are wrong.
Given technical capabilities, and a huge capictal injection to
make creative ideas come true, could make AMD a lot more powerfull.
That will surely shake Intel a bit.

Whatever the outcome, I am glad competition stays alive.

Nothing lasts forever, including Intel. When looking at business
decisions like this one, it's fair to ask how well the people spending
the money understand the business. I'm not sure how well anyone
understands this business, and you have to be careful about "sexy"
businesses like high-end computer chips, computers, airplanes, and
airlines. People want to own a piece of the action just like they
want to own race horses. To someone, AMD is a prize. That doesn't
say anything about the validity of their judgment or of the long-term
prospects for AMD.

To borrow a phrase from one frequent and knowledgeable poster to
Usenet, "What's changed?" A fresh infusion of capital to a company
that's burning money just allows the company to burn money longer.

Neither will anything change the fact that we are arguing over an
industry that is, apparently, mature. Scavengers are starting to pick
at a carcass. Hardly a cause for celebration.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:12*am, chrisv wrote:

Gosh, you are smart. *Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out that
AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the best
interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they have a
benevolent streak toward bankers.

There are plenty of people who would agree that corporate management,
often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do not
act in the best interests of shareholders.

So? The fact that things are "sometimes wrong" is evidence that
something is "wrong" with this deal?

Sorry, but it's not.

On Oct 9, 9:47*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:12*am, chrisv wrote:

Gosh, you are smart. *Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out that
AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the best
interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they have a
benevolent streak toward bankers.

There are plenty of people who would agree that corporate management,
often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do not
act in the best interests of shareholders.

So? *The fact that things are "sometimes wrong" is evidence that
something is "wrong" with this deal?

Sorry, but it's not.

Now *you're* an expert? I don't think you pay attention to what you
write. You were sarcastic that I had the nerve to question AMD's all-
knowing management. I pointed out that the kind of criticism that
both I and the blogger offered is fairly common. Whether it's
accurate criticism of this deal or not is beside the point. As usual,
everyone who doesn't agree with you and cheer for AMD is an idiot--at
least from your point of view.

If you already knew what the blogger said or if you had some
subatantive response, you didn't say so. Instead, you did what you
usually do: ridicule and bluster.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:

chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
chrisv wrote:

Gosh, you are smart. *Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out that
AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the best
interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they have a
benevolent streak toward bankers.

There are plenty of people who would agree that corporate management,
often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do not
act in the best interests of shareholders.

So? *The fact that things are "sometimes wrong" is evidence that
something is "wrong" with this deal?

Sorry, but it's not.

Now *you're* an expert?

I fail to see how my usage of elementary logic implies that I'm an
"expert", Robert.

I don't think you pay attention to what you write.

Yeah, well you also think that we'd all be better-off if not for AMD.

You were sarcastic that I had the nerve to question AMD's all-
knowing management.

"All-knowing"? Nice straw man.

I pointed out that the kind of criticism that
both I and the blogger offered is fairly common.

Oh, is that what you were "pointing out", Robert? It seems to me that
you agree strongly with statements like "Mostly it is the bankers who
win from these deals."

Whether it's accurate criticism of this deal or not is beside the point.

Beside the point of your trolling, you mean? I mean, what else can
you call stuff like "Takes off cowboy hat and waves it. Wahoo! Ride
'em cowboys."?

As usual,
everyone who doesn't agree with you and cheer for AMD is an idiot--at
least from your point of view.

Nope. It's your anti-competition nonsense that I object to.

Would you like to guess, Robert, which brand of CPU that I've been
using in my PC's the last 15 years or so?

If you already knew what the blogger said or if you had some
subatantive response, you didn't say so. Instead, you did what you
usually do: ridicule and bluster.

How ironic.