4 ms·

AMD properly noted potential volatility due to cryptocurrency mining their SEC filings. [1] >The demand for our products depends in part on the market conditio

AMD properly noted potential volatility due to cryptocurrency mining their SEC filings. [1] >The demand for our products depends in part on the market conditions in the industries into which they are sold.... for example, our GPU revenue has been affected in part by the volatility of the cryptocurrency mining market...If we are unable to manage the risks related to the volatility of the cryptocurrency mining market, our GPU business could be materially adversely affected. That's from their most recent one, but similar statements are in prior ones as well. [1] https://ir.amd.com/sec-filings/filter/quarterly-filings/content/0000002488-22-000078/amd-20220326.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=auto&width=auto&preload=false https://ir.amd.com/sec-filings/filter/quarterly-filings/cont...

paulmd 5y ago
NVIDIA noted it too. This is about their earnings calls where they gave estimates of the magnitude of the crypto sales, and did what I consider (and really, most people who looked at it seriously) to be a massive massive undercount, by a factor of like 3-10x. AMD was underselling it too though (in 2017-2018 it was a huge factor, not so much this time) and they had a huge inventory overhang lasting years as well... ctrl-f "inventory" in their late-2018/early-2019 earnings call transcripts. https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/01/30/advanced-micro-devices-amd-q4-2018-earnings-confer.aspx https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/01/30/ad...
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It is not about the earnings call. The SEC notice specifically cites 10-Q filings in 2018 as the reason for their action. Earning calls may have been deficient as well, but it's their filings that got them in trouble. Earnings calls are not intended to be anywhere near as comprehensive as a Q-10 filing. They will typically last a shorter time that it would take to merely read the Q-10 itself. Further, earnings calls are not a legally mandated requirement, some companies may not have them at all. This makes them less susceptible to SEC scrutiny. As for AMD, they were making similar comments to what I quoted above in their 2018 filings, NVidia was not. AMD downplayed it a bit in an informal non-regulated setting but gave better information in the 10-Q does. For NVidia's 10-Q, it was barely a mention that some earnings were impacted crypto, and they did not (per the SEC & a quick read through of their 2018 10-Q's) sufficiently note that it's gaming growth was still driven to a material extent by crypto, thereby exposing them to even more downside risk than what had already occured.

paulmd 5y ago

NVIDIA noted it too. This is about their earnings calls where they gave estimates of the magnitude of the crypto sales, and did what I consider (and really, most people who looked at it seriously) to be a massive massive undercount, by a factor of like 3-10x. AMD was underselling it too though (in 2017-2018 it was a huge factor, not so much this time) and they had a huge inventory overhang lasting years as well... ctrl-f "inventory" in their late-2018/early-2019 earnings call transcripts. https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/01/30/advanced-micro-devices-amd-q4-2018-earnings-confer.aspx https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/01/30/ad...

ineedasername 5y ago
It is not about the earnings call. The SEC notice specifically cites 10-Q filings in 2018 as the reason for their action. Earning calls may have been deficient as well, but it's their filings that got them in trouble. Earnings calls are not intended to be anywhere near as comprehensive as a Q-10 filing. They will typically last a shorter time that it would take to merely read the Q-10 itself. Further, earnings calls are not a legally mandated requirement, some companies may not have them at all. This makes them less susceptible to SEC scrutiny. As for AMD, they were making similar comments to what I quoted above in their 2018 filings, NVidia was not. AMD downplayed it a bit in an informal non-regulated setting but gave better information in the 10-Q does. For NVidia's 10-Q, it was barely a mention that some earnings were impacted crypto, and they did not (per the SEC & a quick read through of their 2018 10-Q's) sufficiently note that it's gaming growth was still driven to a material extent by crypto, thereby exposing them to even more downside risk than what had already occured.