> As OP said, Intel profits dwarf AMD revenue.
> Can you show numbers that would support "eating one's lunch"?
It's imprudent to swallow bold, unsubstantiated assertions without even bothering to sniff test.
Lunch[1] is on me this time.
4,146 karma · joined September 7, 2015
> Can you show numbers that would support "eating one's lunch"?
It's imprudent to swallow bold, unsubstantiated assertions without even bothering to sniff test.
Lunch[1] is on me this time.
I may be long Intel, but this unqualified assertion without cite is certifiable bullshit at face value.
From the latest 10-Q filings for Intel[1] and AMD[2], this is what the numbers are saying for 2022 YTD:
(In millions) | INTC | AMD | Diff |
====================|=========|=========|=======|
Revenue | 49,012 | 18,002 | 36.7% |
Cost of sales | 27,646 | 9,802 | 35.5% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Gross margin | 21,366 | 8,200 | 38.4% |
Operating expenses | 17,900 | 6,787 | 37.9% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Operating income | 3,466 | 1,413 | 40.8% |
Net income | 8,678 | 1,299 | 15.0% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Adjusted net income | 3,580 | 1,299 | 36.3% |
- Intel's non-operating income (~80%/20% split between equity investments/interest and other) accounts for $5.098B and is 147% relative to operating income YTD! Adjusting this out of the picture tells a different story about pound-for-pound operations.
- Compared to AMD's $135M Q3 tax benefit, Intel recognized a massive $1.207B boon! Both companies swallowed operating losses this quarter (Intel -$175M v. AMD -$64M); without this tax benefit, YTD net income for both companies would have taken a hit. I keep this benefit in because Intel operates fabs, and much of that benefit was attributable to "a change in tax law from 2017 Tax Reform related to the capitalization of R&D expenses that went into effect in January 2022."
- Included in AMD's cost of sales and operating expenses are amortization of acquisition-related intangibles (Xilinx) to the tune of $1.005B and $1.499B, respectively. When this acquisition-related cost disappears, we can expect AMD's gross margins to substantially increase as you'd expect from a fabless design house.
Keeping it real.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000000248822000...
From FY21 10-K filing[1] p. 74, cryptocurrencies represented 23% of total net revenues, or 29.9% of total transaction-based revenues.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783879/000178387922...
Err, "perfectly healthy" may be a bit of a mischaracterization.
Quoting from the July 2019 FOMC statement[1] (my emphasis):
>> Although growth of household spending has picked up from earlier in the year, growth of business fixed investment has been soft.
...then the following September statement[2]:
>> Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports have weakened.
...and still the following October statement[3]:
>> Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports remain weak.
Look at the Fed Funds Effective Rate[4] circa 2019, then compare that to the Fed's balance sheet[5] around the same time.
I understand that little ~$500 billion bump in the 6 months prior to the start of COVID is the Fed averting crisis in a bond market that was approaching dangerously close to the sort of illiquidity levels which get sovereign nations into a lot of trouble.
I also understand that banks were supposed to be part of the machine that provide that liquidity, except regulations coming out of the Great Financial Crisis that imposed things like Liquidity Coverage Ratio and Supplementary Leverage Ratio requirements created an unintended incentive for banks to drop low-yield bonds from their now constrained balance sheets to optimize profits.
So the flow of capital towards "business fixed investments" tightened, capital which originates in the form of loans from banks, and interest rates is a knob the Fed can tweak...or something like that.
To be sure, I'm neither a banker nor an economist.
Also worth noting that the S&P 500 went through a -18% correction starting the end of September 2018 and didn't recover until May 2019.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFF
[5] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...
> This unique system of enlisting foreign nationals, primarily Asian men, to serve in domestic and food service positions would remain in place for the next 100 years.
> In 1901, President William McKinley signed an executive order allowing the U.S. Navy to recruit hundreds of native non-naturalized Filipinos to serve in domestic and food service positions. As a result of these territorial acquisitions and McKinley’s executive order, hundreds of Filipinos and other Asian nationals would join the Revenue Cutter Service in the ratings of steward, cook and boy.
> However, in 1947, the United States and Republic of the Philippines signed an agreement allowing the U.S. to once again recruit citizens of the Philippines for voluntary enlistment in the U.S. military. Enlisting Philippine nationals for domestic service on Coast Guard cutters continued for another 20 years, however, these men could choose to change to a non-food service rating or pursue an officer’s commission after gaining citizenship. Finally, in 1971, this practice was discontinued and all enlisted ratings were opened to Filipinos that qualified by means of education, prior experience and security qualifications.
Reminds me of this entertaining seminar[1] of a bunch of old school IMSA racers describing how they got "creative" racing around the rules to gain an unfair advantage.
...and quoting from FAA's FY 2023 budget submission[1]:
> For FY 2023, the FAA’s budget request of $18.6 billion represents an increase of 3.3 percent from the FY 2022 Continuing Resolution (CR) level. When combined with the $5 billion in advanced annual appropriations under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the total FY 2023 funding for FAA is $23.6 billion. This funding level allows the FAA to make continued investments to safeguard the most complex airspace in the world while transforming our aviation infrastructure.
What a joke.
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/F...
[1] http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://c.s...
What I don't see anyone talking about is the impact of dielectric moisture absorption[1], which is typically around 0.3-0.5% over 24 hours exposure for cheaper FR-4 on the market, let alone how this product intends to maintain sensor calibration over time.
I'd expect to see external corrosion impact at the solder joints first, especially around the battery terminals, but corrosion creep may happen alot sooner than that: vias in the b-parasite prototype are clearly tented[2], but that masking is superficial and won't protect against hygroscopic exposure from the inside; being open source certainly doesn't preclude hobbyists from making even worse material decisions either.
[1] https://www.ipc.org/sites/default/files/test_methods_docs/2....
[2] https://github.com/rbaron/b-parasite/blob/main/img/resized/i...
Just in case the sarcasm wasn't abundantly obvious, the precise term used was simple asphyxiant with the following regulatory meaning[1]:
>> Simple asphyxiant means a substance or mixture that displaces oxygen in the ambient atmosphere, and can thus cause oxygen deprivation in those who are exposed, leading to unconsciousness and death.
[1] https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/19...
In my previous remark, turns out that the root of the error was in too quickly and incorrectly concluding (admittedly having never purchased these bonds before and only learning of them this year as we went into a bear market) that both the fixed and inflation rate components were subject to change every six months.
It wasn't until I saw your follow-up today and attempted to revisit details without bias that I noticed this linked chart[1] which made it immediately clear what critical bit of conditional detail I had missed, that is, the fixed rate component is determined at the time of initial bond purchase and persists unchanged for the life of the instrument...whoops!
To be fair, my original remark was in response to your assertion that "the current rate of 9.62% is the lowest it's ever been, and its never changed drastically." Even with my now corrected understanding, this assertion still doesn't stand in my mind given the linked table demonstrates that the prevailing 9.62% composite rate approaches historically high levels independent of original purchase date, and although variable returns ranging from 0% to 10+% depending on issue date is agreeably not drastic to someone as young as me, it's nevertheless pretty subjective, e.g. if you bought between 05/20-10/20, you'd have seen variable APY ranging from 1.06% to 9.62%, which is objectively pretty volatile.
[1] https://www.treasurydirect.gov/files/savings-bonds/i-bond-ra...
Recommend doing the math yourself as a sanity check using the composite rate formula in conjunction with historical fixed and semiannual inflation rate tables. The implication is that either the composite rate formula or the historical composite rate table is in gross error, where the latter is much more likely given a naive understanding of what the instrument's intent is.
I think you mean as a supplement to the current QT campaign?
The intent of QE is to stimulate the economy by injecting liquidity into the markets; increasing the limit on annual I bonds purchasable by individuals does the exact opposite of what QE objectively intends by locking that liquidity back up at the Treasury.
At face value, the nominal return on I bonds may be net positive (and perhaps even attractive to some investors in this bear market), but the real return is effectively net zero by design; it's a naive mistake to conflate growth with increase in purchasing power. Besides, when the Fed cut stimulus checks during COVID, their intent was for you to spend, not save by giving it right back to them to hold.
Did it really?
According to this fairly recent GAO report[1], the Poseidon's mission capable rates have missed their minimum 80% target since 2015, trending downwards (Table 1); only the first 2 out of 7 years were satisfactory (Figure 7), and yet those years' metrics were based on Increment 1 low-rate initial production lot that were "not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission" and "not effective for wide area anti-submarine search" that they were originally intended for[2].
Even in early years when maintenance staff was stacked balls deep at well over 100% (Figure 5), persistent supply issues plagued the platform, trending upwards (Table 5). To be sure, this outcome was entirely predictable; e.g. picking on Northrop Grumman's Electronic Support Measures system[3] that the Bloomberg article calls out as just one example: if you knew how the sausage was made, then this 2006 GAO report[4] which highlights certain risks "of particular concern" surrounding ALQ-218 development is all of sudden prescient in that it took so long to get the underlying system to acceptable maturity on the Growler that it became a very real commercial obsolescence sustainment risk by the time the Poseidon's full-rate production decision was made!
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104533
[3] https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...
[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/parsing-html-the-cthulhu-way/
> You will end up saving half of not more of the tuition and boarding expenses compared to spending all four years at a major university...
> And you STILL end up with a diploma from a Major university.
Schilit et al on Financial Shenanigans is instructive here.
Management might try playing this game to reach future bonuses staked to earnings targets.
Microsoft did it in the late 90s with unearned revenue reporting as a way to avoid bringing additional regulatory attention to their anti-competitive practices.
Enron did it in the early oughts using undisclosed reserve accounts to smooth income while manipulating the energy markets after landing huge windfall profits in its trading division to the tune of over $1 billion.
USRobotics did it when they merged with 3Com in 1997 by not booking over $600 million in revenue during a two-month stub period---instead reporting $15.2 million, compared to $690.2 million in the preceding quarter---for 3Com's benefit after the merger closed.
A few months ago, Broadcom announced plans to acquire VMware for ~$61 billion in cash and stock[1]. Speculating, suppose VMware were to pull a similar stunt into the merger, but rather than using it to conceal bad faith projections circa 2019, a variant of the 1997 USRobotics+3Com merger playbook were to pan out undetected.
There's a part of me that (perhaps naively) wants to believe this press release isn't really about some weak $8 million penalty, but a warning shot to both VMware and Broadcom that the SEC is watching very closely.
[1] https://www.broadcom.com/company/news/financial-releases/602...
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1124610/000119312519...
I'm not a diabetic, but is there really anything on the market even comparable to what the researchers here are suggesting, that is, dissolved (not swallowed) insulin pill delivery with performance equivalent to rapid-acting injection?
> black ball: a technology that invariably or by default destroys the civilization that invents it.
At least for the analog domain, Gray et al[1] has been the standard entry-level gateway drug for longer than I care to remember.
There's a normative and substantial laboratory aspect to ABET-accredited[1] undergraduate engineering programs.
From Criterion 7:
>> Modern tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories appropriate to the program must be available, accessible, and systematically maintained and upgraded to enable students to attain the student outcomes and to support program needs.
[1] https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/cr...