As always you make good points but I have to say, historically transparency and WSA are <>.
Lack of transparency in AMD isn't restricted to the WSA, but to every single subject you can think of. You just have to look on how few items are disclosed on their annual report. Revenue breakdown, COGS breakdown, margin forecast, margin per segment, roadmaps, all this isn't fully disclosed on AMD SEC fillings or even answered in the Q&A.
Look on how different companies deal with roadmap for example. We already know what Intel will launch in 2013, and we already know what Qualcomm will have in 2013. We had a good idea on how these products would work and the launch time frame. And they have been consistently delivering in the last few years. Now have a look at AMD. We don't know what AMD will launch in 2013 and how it will perform. Only Kabini is being disclosed, Richland, which comprises a significant part of AMD business, comparable to Brazos if you look at revenues, is a huge "?". And 2014? We already know where Intel will go, and Qualcomm, and even Nvidia for that matter. But can you say the same about AMD? No.
Same with forecasts. Intel gives revenue and margin forecasts for the entire year, AMD, pff, not even for the next quarter.
Just look on what Kumar tried to do at the last WSA Q&A. Have we been dealing with an honest and transparent company, they should step forward and mentioned that there would be no waiver and that all chips would go for GLF, but instead Kumar kept mum about the subject until directly inquired by an analyst.
I could spend the entire day recalling AMD quarterly calls and how they omitted important information from the investors, information that could change the perception from investors, but I think the point is already clear enough.
With the WSA AMD is just proceeding with their business as usual attitude, but this time what is really hurting is that the WSA is a potential liability worth many times the value of the company now. For example, how much is the new take-or-pay charge if AMD decide to not purchase chips from AMD? Are there safeguards to protect AMD from GLF delays or low yields? Are the purchase commitments a temporary relief or they are a new definitive level (I think they are not definitive, more on that later)? You can't really do a long term investing decision on AMD without answering these questions, and so far AMD still refuses to provide them.
I'm yet to see AMD cross the red line in lying straight face to investors, but the lack of transparency on these sensitive issues is almost on par with that.
By the way, that waiver was expensive wasn't it? At least it was good value..
You know, one of the jokes in the O&G sector is that the most profitable business of the world is a poorly managed oil company. I disagree. The most profitable business of the world is AMD foundry. No matter how much you screw up, your customer will still pay you a lot of money.