Huh? Sorry you can't brush it off so easily. It was fairly widely
reported in the specialist press.
Oh dear. You have to be _really_ careful when posting. I took the
$46 million as fact and was pondering what might be going on at IBM.
I wanted to acknowledge that what _I_ was engaged in was pure
speculation.
It was a major technology fix - AMD backed the wrong horse for Cu/SOI and
couldn't make the bloody thing work. Whatever its value to IBM it was a
considerable *added* expense to AMD, who were drowning in red ink, for a
project which was 3months past due delivery with no viable route to
completion.
That it was a significant and painful expense to AMD is hereby fully
acknowledged.
Different item - this was an initial payment to put out a fire, before and
over and above the technology exchange agreement they struck later. BTW I
haven't seen where IBM is acting as a foundry for AMD???
google
IBM AMD foundry "East Fishkill"
for a veritable cornucopia of speculation, including the possibility
that IBM has a stake in the Dresden facility. I can barely keep track
of it, and I don't know what the latest and most "authoritative"
speculation is.
Hmmm - whatever... it seems to be working if so.<shrug>
For a version of my exact logic, plucked from the sea of speculation
produced by the search proposed above, see
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/1566591
<begin quote>
To compete with an 800-pound gorilla like Intel (Quote, Chart), you
have to be a 800-pound gorilla - or at least join forces with one.
That's the thinking at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) (Quote, Chart),
which Wednesday said it is teaming up with IBM (Quote, Chart) to
jointly develop chip-making technologies for use in future
high-performance products.
<snip>
IBM said it is more than happy to lend a hand in making chips with
AMD. Big Blue's microprocessor division has also had a bone to pick
with Intel with the advent of Xeon and 64-bit Itanium processors
making bigger and bigger waves in high-end systems.
<snip>.
All of the saber rattling is an attempt to get the attention of Intel,
which is focused on three major process transitions - 130nm
lithography, 300mm wafers and copper interconnects.
Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Ben Lynch says Intel's competition
will have to deal with the No. 1 chipmaker's improved performance as
its top-line has slowed.
"A key element of Intel's continued competitive advantage has been
ongoing leadership in semiconductor process technology," said Lynch.
"We expect the company's relative scale and aggressive investment
budget to allow Intel to retain its technology competitive advantage
over most, if not all, of its peers."
<end quote>
Intel can and will spend extravagantly on process, becuase it
understands that leadership in process technology is essential to
staying king of the hill. IBM has incredible depth of talent in
process, but insufficient volume on its own to stay there. AMD has to
go out of house for process, and if it really wants to compete with
Intel, there has to be some place for it to go to than can compete
with Intel. Cooperation in depth between AMD and IBM seems like a
natural for both of them.
Windfalls are always nice. I doubt that the figure was arrived at by such
cynical means.
IBM microelectronics has been losing money. It just got "merged" with
the systems division, although the heads of both divisions are somehow
supposed to keep their jobs and their titles (?). The pressure on IBM
microelectronics to generate revenue has been intense. So intense, I
was speculating, that it is not inconceivable that it took mere money
in return for something of incredible value. The old IBM would have
laughed in your face had you proposed such a deal and told you not to
let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
If IBM _didn't_ get more than just money out of such an opportunity,
it was a grotesque mistake on their part. As it is, I think IBM did
get more than just money out of the deal, but neither AMD nor IBM is
going to be forthcoming as to just what.
"Hostile takeover" of whom? The fact that the collaboration has been so
successful for both AMD and IBM gives the lie to your third option IMO. As
for IBM being overpriced, when you have the kind of IP portfolio they own,
your in the catbird seat. The industry, Intel excepted as far as is known,
is beating a path to their door.
That being the case, what get get by building a one-year chart with
IBM, INTC, and AMD at
www.bloomberg.com suggests that whoever is
running IBM is doing a lousy job of realizing value for stockholders.
I don't follow capital markets closely enough to know who does these
things how these days, but if IBM is sitting in the catbird seat and
the best it can do in the equity markets with its current management
is what it has been doing, then it sounds like leveraged buyout time
to me.
RM
I want to hear that it's fitting into the