When AMD originally spun off its foundry business in 2008, the resulting Foundry Company (as it was called back then) was 55.6% ATIC owned and 44.4% AMD owned. Since then the Foundry Company has been rebranded Global Foundries and has been on a march towards independence. Plans for additional fabs and the acquisition of Chartered Semiconductor both strengthened GF as a player in the foundry space. A closer relationship with ARM and its partners has also been a key element of GF's strategy.

AMD has been divesting itself from Global Foundries over the past few years and today announced that it has aquired the remaining shares of the company from AMD (approximately 14% of the company). Global Foundries is now completely independent of AMD, and AMD is now a regular partner/customer of GF's.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • animekenji - Monday, March 5, 2012 - link

    I think that was the idea, like when General Motors cut Delphi loose. It enabled them to buy parts from more than one source and allowed Delphi to sell parts to other car makers. Cutting GF loose from AMD is going to have similar benefits for AMD and GF.
  • iwod - Sunday, March 4, 2012 - link

    It would means AMD have got those Extra Money to make them look better on the balance sheet. After all they spend a fortune to acquire ATI.

    GF, or AMD 's Foundries were never able to complete with Intel anyway. They were always one node behind so in terms of strategic decision this doesn't make any difference whether AMD owns it or not.

    Lets just hope they get back on track and start giving some competition to Intel.
  • Beenthere - Sunday, March 4, 2012 - link

    That acquisition of ATI is looking pretty good right now with over 30 Million APUs sold and many billions more APUs to go. <LOL>

    Now days being the first to transistion to a smaller nm design doesn't mean what it did back in the days of 90 nm CPUs. As you see there are smaller changes now like 45 nm => 32 nm => 28 nm. AMD's goal is to maximize the core performance and not worry about the trace size transition so much.
  • Exodite - Monday, March 5, 2012 - link

    Strictly speaking the node transitions are roughly the same on a dimensional scale. Looking at areal density from previous nodes...

    130nm->90nm (48%)->65nm (52%)->45nm (48%)->32nm (51%)->22nm (47%)
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    Good post
  • chizow - Monday, March 5, 2012 - link

    How is it looking good? You have a case of the incredible shrinking company where the combined market cap of the two firms is now smaller than what they bought ATI for (6B) in 2006. And now they don't even have a fab. What did ex-CEO/founder Jerry Sanders say again? "Real men have fabs" or something to that extent. He must be hating what he's seen his company become over the last few years.

    While I do think it was a good move overall to divest their foundries, GloFo and its various transactions has been all that's been keeping AMD afloat for the last few years.

    Between the cash infusion from the original sale in shares to ATIC, to the various write-downs to make their balance sheet look better, to the non-cash gains to make their P&L look better. Its going to be harder for AMD to mask their operating difficulties in a quagmire of accounting transactions going forward.
  • Targon - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link

    Market cap means NOTHING when it comes to the health of the company. People speculate, and hype will drive stock prices higher or lower. You have companies out there that lose millions of dollars per year that have had a higher market cap than companies that are profitable, just because of hype.

    People look at how well the company is REALLY doing around here, and only people who listen to hype pay attention to market cap. More to the point, people claim that because Apple has the largest market cap, they are doing better than any other company out there, yet if you look at the FINANCIALS, they don't have the income or net profit of many other companies out there.

    If AMD is profitable and makes a product that sells well, that is what it comes down to. At this point, AMD is doing VERY well in the $550 and under range when it comes to computers. Slower CPU than Intel, but with MUCH MUCH MUCH better GPU performance, and better quality of components for AMD based machines in that end of the market. I've seen MANY Intel machines fail, not because of the CPU being bad, but because in the $550 and under system price range, the chipsets and other components SUCK.
  • chizow - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link

    Seriously do you even know what market cap is or how its calculated?

    That's a direct function of shareholder value. AMD and ATI prior to acquisition were both trading ~$20 per share. Today, its ~$6 per share and its been below $5 for a significant period of time.

    That means if you were a shareholder in the company, your shares are worth FAR less today than in 2006. There's no getting around that and it should be obvious why.

    AMD has consistently lost money far more than it has posted a profit and even when they've been profitable (like last year), it was due largely to non-cash paper gains relating to divesting their interests in GloFo.

    And please don't even talk about company health? Seriously? Look at their balance sheet and you'll see a mountain of debt and very little cash or convertible assets.

    I think AMD's CEO has the company pointed in the right direction but the end result may not be the AMD you've grown to love (or hate).
  • CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Yes, not just the sizable asset losses indicate the same, but the 10+ plus employee firing round.
    There's nothing left but hope for more Arab oil money from Dubai.
  • MySchizoBuddy - Sunday, March 4, 2012 - link

    ATIC which is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi of U.A.E is already developing a fab in Abu Dhabi. I wonder who bought the rest of the shares.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now