YKhan said:
up
Don't worry, Wall Street knows it too. You're the only one that isn't
aware of it.
For the past year, INTC has tracked the sector, down about 10% over the
past year. AMD has outperformed the sector, up about 10% over the past
year. If there is reaction to recent news from Japan, I don't see it
in the chart. AMD had quite a nice gain from September to December of
last year, but most of that gain is gone. AMD _is_ selling at about
twice the P/E of INTC, which means there's considerable optimism built
into the current price. Whatever explains that price, I doubt it is
the prospect of AMD suing Intel.
I'm not much of a chart reader, but if it's obvious to Wall Street, it
should be obvious in the chart. Build your own at
www.bloomberg.com.
Even in a downturn, we're talking about tens to hundreds of billions of
dollars in sales here. Most of it currently going to Intel, obviously.
Is it a wonder why so many startup companies always try to get into the
x86 market, despite having to compete with Intel? Some firms (eg. VIA)
make steady income in this market with less than a 1% marketshare in
it. It's related markets, like chipsets and peripherals are also huge
money makers for companies.
google "etrade AND broker" and go crazy.
Please do explain this "efficient market theory" of which you speak. I
guess one of its theorems is "The x86 market is efficient only if Intel
makes the majority of x86 processors"?
google "efficient market theory" (exact phrase). The first hit gives a
concise and accurate explanation.
There is something seriously wrong with your grasp on reality -- that's
how my mind works? Seriously, Robert that's how everybody's mind works.
There is not a single person who wouldn't describe what you were
suggesting as anything other than collusion. There is no such thing as
coming to an agreement about rules of engagement between two companies
-- those rules already exist, they are called the competition laws.
You're supposed to compete with your competitors, freely, fairly, and
to your fullest extent possible.
I have been very slow to learn some things about life. One thing I
have learned is not to challenge how others perceive reality. Another
thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as how "everybody"
thinks.
When you say "there is not a single person..." you are either unaware
of how unlikely it is that such a statement would ever be true or you
are unaware of how unpersuasive bluster is in argumentation.
The circumstances are this: Intel believes its business practices are
legal. AMD believes otherwise. Both are presumably reading the same
law. That means there is a difference in interpretation of the law.
The two companies could agree as to specific interpretation of the law
with respect to specific business practices. _Then_ if Intel continued
with practices it has agreed are illegal, a lawsuit for AMD would be a
cake walk.
Why not just sue Intel now? No guarantee that AMD will prevail, even
with a judgment from Japan. Relief, if any, would be far into the
future. A carefully-drafted agreement, which need not be illegal,
could give AMD the level playing it wants sooner rather than later.
RM
