Re: A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations

On Oct 8, 10:12=A0am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations:
> >>
=A0http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/technology/07chip.html?_r=3D1&ref=
=3Dtec...
>
>
>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/who-benefits-from-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. =A0Wahoo! =A0Ride 'em cowboys.
=A0Mor=
e
> >productive capital to those who know nothing other than how to
> >generate fees for themselves.
>
> Gosh, you are smart. =A0Only 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 cor****ate 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!