Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 25 Oct 2018.
Tbh I think the problem is investors started to believe AMD really were solid competition for Intel. They should be, this should have been a really good quarter, they should be making a fortune - Intel despite all it's problems announced record profits. I think investors are just very disappointed in AMD.
They are also very jumpy at the moment when it comes to tech companies:
I have nothing to add, I just wanted to point out how the article headline crops in the forum front page.
Yep. Nvidia stock tanked at the same time - but apparently the tech news world only likes to **** on AMD?
Nvidia hasn't published its third-quarter earnings; its last report was 2Q2019 (its financial year is one year ahead of everybody else's, 'cos Speshul) in August, which was reported right here including the news that 'Investors, though, appear unimpressed: Nvidia's share price has slipped 3.51 percent in pre-market trading, after dipping as low as six percent below market close, on release of the earnings, thanks largely to lower-than-expected projections for its third quarter revenue.'
But sure, it's a conspiracy against AMD. Let's go with that. I await my cheque from Intel/Nvidia/George Soros/The Moomins for my part in it.
I knew those Swedish walking marshmallows were up to no good!
No conspiracies needed, Nvidia has dropped from $289 to $198 this month and you don't see that being reported on sites like bit-tech, hexus, guru3d, kitguru etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that it is just the stock market doing its usual silly dance and due to that isn't really news worthy to normies, but it does raise some questions if sites write about the drop in AMD stock without pointing out that the currently bearish market will have reacted to the negative AMD news in an exaggerated fashion.
There's a difference between a stock fluctuating in response to financial reporting from the company and stock fluctuating due to "external" events. As you say, the markets being volatile isn't really newsworthy, unless that volatility is in direct response to the company's own reporting.
The problem is that without mentioning that the market is currently in a very volatile negative phase when it comes to tech it makes it unnecessarily look like a doom & gloom type article.
Except the current bearish market has no direct impact on what just happened to AMD's stock. Here, let's use some pictures, starting with Nvidia's share price over the last five days.
Sure enough, there's a downward trend there, from $231.10 at the start of the chart to $198.29 - representing a pretty steady loss over the period of, what, 14%?
Now let's look at AMD for the same period:
Isn't that interesting: they're not the same shape at all. See that massive cliff edge it fell off? That'd be the earnings call. Not the "bearish market," which makes a shape like Nvidia's graph: the earnings call. Sure, maybe it was made worse by the current state of the market - but AMD had actually, as the graph shows, been riding the market quite well up until that point.
Over the same five-day period, AMD lost 28% of its value. That's double what Nvidia lost in the same market, and damn near the entirety of that loss occurred right after the earnings call. What conclusion can we draw from this? Well, we can draw the conclusion that the losses were caused by news presented in the earnings call - just like the article says. No conspiracy, no "hurr durr AMD bad" (I don't own a single Nvidia product since selling my 9800GT, and my desktop is and has been for the past five years an AMD A10-5800K), just accurate, factual reportage. Want my next report on AMD's earnings to not end with "holy crap did the stock take a massive boom-boom?" Arrange for AMD's graph to look more like Nvidia's graph.
This guy gets it.
This guy still doesn't.
As for why no sites have reported on Nvidia's share price dropping as part of a bear market, they have - the financial ones. Do you really want my three articles a day to be nothing but "Intel share price rises 10% on no news", "AMD share price drops 5% on no news," "Nvidia share price stable?" 'cos if you do, please do let @Dogbert666 know - that'd be so much easier than what I do now. (Hell, I could write a shell script to do it for me!)
I'll report on what Nvidia's share price does following its earnings call following its earnings call, just like AMD.
Then you misunderstood every single word I posted.
A bullish market for tech stock would have been more forgiving of the numbers AMD announced than the bearish market that is going on which punished the numbers AMD released excessively.
Since you did not mention that the market is currently crap for tech stock it makes it look like yet another the sky is falling for AMD article.
And no, I certainly do not want you to waste your time with writing an Nvidia stocked dropped 10% for no reason article, a quick throwaway line about the market currently being an unforgiving hellhole for tech stock to contextualize the 27% drop in this one would have been more than sufficient.
I was originally responding to this, you'll recall:
As the graphs show, Nvidia's stock did not "tank at the same time" - nor anything like it. That is, quite simply, false. (Yes, I'm aware that you didn't claim that, but if we're talking about the need to contextualise things let's contextualise how this very discussion began and how it was framed.)
I also disagree that the market is bearish for all tech companies, as you've claimed. Let's turn to pretty pictures again:
That's a five-day chart for Intel. It's higher now than it started - and we're talking AMD's biggest competition, now that it seems to have largely given up on the highest end of the graphics market. Strange that the company you'd most directly compare AMD hasn't seen the same market effects.
Apple - volatile graph, but it's actually bouncing in low-single-digit-percentages. That sounds pretty stable t'me.
Microsoft. Note that it went up while AMD was going down. Also note that you could pretty much overlay it on the Alphabet chart and easily forget which is which - now there's an indication of what the underlying market is actually doing, without input from the respective companies.
Hitachi - slight slide, but nothing like what we've seen in AMD.
JD.com - again, it's low, but by single-digit percentages.
HP, Inc. Less than five percent down on the five-day period we're measuring.
So, if we're looking at an anti-tech market, how do we explain those graphs? Sure, there are plenty of tech stocks that are down significantly on a five-day graph - but, as you can see, plenty that aren't. Not small ones, either.
I entirely stand by my article: AMD's share price did, indeed, slide significantly and completely beyond current market trends on the issuance of its latest quarterly report. That is not a "the sky is falling" article, that is wholly accurate reportage. Hell, I even contextualised it by pointing out that the drop, while massive, failed to wipe out the company's 52-week gains - i.e. it's still worth more now than it was a year ago, which is hardly bad news.
May I direct your attention to my very first post in this thread:
Complete with source...
So yeah, it is fair to say that investors are currently punishing any bad news from tech companies excessively.
And no, I never said all tech stocks.
Those don't seem to have any qualifications to them that I can see. As I say, the market certainly isn't crap or bearish for Intel, AMD's main competitor - perhaps I should edit the article to add contextualisation that points out how much Intel gained while AMD was slipping 28 percent?
(I won't, obviously, for the same reason I didn't mention how much Nvidia had lost in the same period - it's irrelevant to the central point, which is that AMD issued an earnings call and a bunch of investors sold.)
Looks like we may have found the core of the misunderstanding...
I meant in general, not without exception.
I agree that some tech stocks are behaving in a bearish fashion, but that others are stable while still more are behaving in a bullish fashion. Nvidia is behaving bearishly; Intel is behaving bullishly, despite still releasing parts which are affected by the Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities and being excoriated for it, still not having a permanent chief executive, still having its former chief executive, allegedly sacked for dipping his pen in the company ink, under investigation for insider trading, being four years late to its 10nm platform, currently battling rumours that it has cancelled its 10nm platform altogether 'cos shrinking is hard let's go shopping, hitting issues with meeting demand that are leaving some customers with no choice but to buy AMD parts instead...
There's been more bad news out of Intel lately than there has out of AMD, prior to the "yeah, we're not going to hit our targets" filing on which this article reports, yet its stock price is sitting pretty.
I'm not saying I can't see where you're coming from with regards to mentioning that the market conditions are being unfavourable to some technology companies, but I do take offence to your claim that "it does raise some questions if sites write about the drop in AMD stock without pointing out that the currently bearish market will have reacted to the negative AMD news in an exaggerated fashion" - in case you were wondering why I'm arguing my point so vociferously.
Please do clarify exactly what those questions might be, and perhaps we'll get to the root of the matter.
Ones like this:
That's not a question. Sure, there's a question mark at the end, but that's a statement (and an untrue one at that.)
I'm asking you what questions you feel have been raised by my article. Have the courage of your convictions, man: stop being implicit and start being explicit. What questions, exactly, have been raised in your mind?
Not here to get into an argument, but to point out that every time an image is posted, it's linked to in the article comments using the server's internal IP address - https://10.20.101.60:4008/index.php?attachments/50888/
Someone should probably take a look at that...
Separate names with a comma.