AMD Stock Broke All-Time Record for the Company, Peaked at $49.10 per Share

[Vayra86]

You are forgetting one key thing from back then - process advantage. Intel was anything between a node to 3 ahead of AMD. The gap was at its widest with FX, although Phenom II wasn't that bad. Here the situation is nearly diametrically opposite!

The process advantage will even out over time though, so its really going to be a battle of architectures more than anything.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

Financially?
They aren't even close to 2010 - their best year recently.

2000 was excellent, with huge earnings (was better than today).
Years 1997-1999 (so the period 20 years before Zen) ended with a loss.

I should have been more specific, share price wise they're back to where they were 20 years ago.

 

[notb]

I should have been more specific, share price wise they're back to where they were 20 years ago.

You were very specific by saying "financially". Financially AMD is still pretty bad.
Financials are revenue, profit, costs, cashflow, debt etc - things that appear in the financial statement.

Stock price is a figure that describes market expectations. So we shouldn't really praise the fact that stock costs as much as when it peaked during dotcom bubble (and just like then - flying high over fundamentals).

 

[Imsochobo]

Financially?
They aren't even close to 2010 - their best year recently.

2000 was excellent, with huge earnings (was better than today).
Years 1997-1999 (so the period 20 years before Zen) ended with a loss.

it's a difference.
they don't have to invest in fabs and don't get the earnings from fabs either.
so their margins is what you'd have to compare.

 

[notb]

it's a difference.
they don't have to invest in fabs and don't get the earnings from fabs either.
so their margins is what you'd have to compare.

But didn't they use the fabs internally only?
A part of a company that doesn't sell outside doesn't contribute to revenue (and profits). It doesn't matter if you spend millions on an external contractor (like TSMC) or on a internal team/production facility.

If they did lend the fabs, then you're right: totals won't say if the CPU business got better.
But we can still compare company vs company (as a whole).
AMD deliberately changed their structure, so it should have led to higher margins. And have it?

They have been losing money for most of their history, but they had periods of profitability as well. What I meant earlier was: AMD today still hasn't matched 2011 (in terms of profitability) and 2006 (in both profitability and debt). And that's despite all the goodness and saving 7nm gives them (or at least some people think it does).

Currently AMD is trying to lower their debt which consumes some of the earnings. But even with that in mind their margins (both gross and net) are very, very low. It's not a healthy business.
They need to raise their prices - something they're deferring to gain market share. IMO it's happening much slower than they hoped.

 

[yeeeeman]

ok. no matter what. but core2 was big imprevement in cpu architecture. and ryzen too. for few hundred bucks 8core 16 threads with great IPC.

Core 2 was a big improvement in ipc and efficiency compared to amd products at the time also. Zen is just catch up to skylake core, so nothing spectacular. Its merits are low price and chiplet arch.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

You were very specific by saying "financially". Financially AMD is still pretty bad.
Financials are revenue, profit, costs, cashflow, debt etc - things that appear in the financial statement.

Stock price is a figure that describes market expectations. So we shouldn't really praise the fact that stock costs as much as when it peaked during dotcom bubble (and just like then - flying high over fundamentals).

Ok, then maybe I should have said, it's really good to see that their stock price is back to where they were 20 years ago, obviously they're still not rolling in the dough since the had to lease their HQ back in 2016 to raise nearly $170m - but they're on their way back to start making some money again after all those years of languishing.

I don't pay close attention to stock markets nor am I well up on all this stuff as it has zero interest to me.

Next time I'll just say "looks like AMD is starting to do better"

 

[Space Lynx]

@notb I actually agree with notb on this one, AMD while the stock is high is still financially in a bad spot. Their profit margins are extremely low still. Why do you think Nvidia does not want their chips in the consoles? AMD is practically making no money there, for them it is more of a power move in regards to well if people code for us more often maybe it will translate to PC. Problem with that is 70% of PC market gpu is still nvidia, so programmers still won't go for that, nvidia gets priority on drivers still cause that's where the most loudest voices are coming from if something goes wrong. It's also why we continually get bad ports with frame caps, etc, as all current consoles are also AMD gpu

If you look at actually net profit amounts from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia, AMD is not only last... it's abysmal. They win our hearts cause they cut costs, but that also means they make less money. So it's a double edged sword.

 

[notb]

Ok, then maybe I should have said, it's really good to see that their stock price is back to where they were 20 years ago, obviously they're still not rolling in the dough since the had to lease their HQ back in 2016 to raise nearly $170m - but they're on their way back to start making some money again after all those years of languishing.

What I'm trying to stress is that stock price has no implication for a company. It has no value.

AMD neither earns nor loses anything from the fact that their stock costs $50 instead of $5.

In normal situation stock price is an indicator of how well a company is doing, true. But this is not the case of AMD.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why it is like that. And also, why this stock is so volatile. We see huge reactions to things like showing new products or waves of good review. This should not happen normally.
Maybe millions of PC enthusiasts are creating a bubble. Maybe large investors are speculating. No idea.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

What I'm trying to stress is that stock price has no implication for a company. It has no value.

AMD neither earns nor loses anything from the fact that their stock costs $50 instead of $5.

In normal situation stock price is an indicator of how well a company is doing, true. But this is not the case of AMD.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why it is like that. And also, why this stock is so volatile. We see huge reactions to things like showing new products or waves of good review. This should not happen normally.
Maybe millions of PC enthusiasts are creating a bubble. Maybe large investors are speculating. No idea.

Right, I get what you're saying now. It's probably your last sentence about the enthusiasts causing a bubble of sorts, but again as I said I'm definitely no expert as you can probably tell.

 

[mtcn77]

What I'm trying to stress is that stock price has no implication for a company. It has no value.

AMD neither earns nor loses anything from the fact that their stock costs $50 instead of $5.

In normal situation stock price is an indicator of how well a company is doing, true. But this is not the case of AMD.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why it is like that. And also, why this stock is so volatile. We see huge reactions to things like showing new products or waves of good review. This should not happen normally.
Maybe millions of PC enthusiasts are creating a bubble. Maybe large investors are speculating. No idea.

I think there is more to it. Last year they restructured a debt by issuing more shares; it didn't alter the share prices quite so succinctly. Afterwards, it started to soar. Maybe the market took note of positive reception towards AMD's share bounce back.