They weren't as impacted by the recent vulnrabilities, Intel is likley going to lose quite a bit of marketshare (Intel currently has ~95%+ of the server market). If AMD can break into the server market with even a 10% showing, then their golden.
I disagree, i do think we may have a misunderstanding on experts. The system identifies experts as people who say things such as " I work at AMD and things are going well" or " Google probably won't have a good quarter, source: I work at Google"
There are other methods, but it typically will pick out people who work at a given place, are holding a large amount of an asset, or have some expertise in the field (say CPU design). As they are literally the best sources of info there is a high correlation with movements in price within roughly 45 days, aka at predicting quarterly results.
> "I disagree, i do think we may have a misunderstanding on experts."
I have no problem with "experts" in general, but I do think we have a misunderstanding with regards to experts in the field in question.
What incentives are in play for the experts behind that website to be honest? Let's conduct a role play. Consider that I'm the expert in question, and I decide I want to short the stock for a company (i.e. bet that the stock price will fall rather than rise). In this situation, what would be the best advice I could give on this website to make sure my bet works out? I would mark down my "confidence score" (which is effectively what the website publishes) in order to maximise my chances of making money. The financial health of the company is secondary. The financial health will have some influence on how likely the bet I placed is likely to succeed, but it's not the only factor at play.
Benjamin Graham (Warren Buffett's mentor) summed up the most obvious path for a successful investor to take by stating "The intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.". Taking this a step further, without knowing the financial position of the "expert" you're getting advice from, how do you know if the "expert" is in the market to buy, to sell, or is neutral? I would suggest to you that you don't know that, and with that in mind any advice you get from an anonymous investor is advice to be taken with a large dose of salt.
Just in case you think I'm just describing a hypothetical situation, there have been high profile cases where investment firms were caught betting against the advice they gave their clients. For example:
In other words, it pays off doing your own research into the financial health of a company, to determine whether a company is currently undervalued or overvalued. Should be noted that this approach works best by taking a long term approach when buying stocks, as you may have to weather some short term market irrationality.
Do you realize that your chart indicates that it would have been a very bad idea to buy AMD stock in late December? How can you make recommendations off such bullshit charts with a straight face? Maybe cherry-pick a better example to sell people on your product next time.
I don't understand your statement really. It did say it would be a bad idea to buy right now (and the past month), but in my comment I said don't buy, but soon probably yes.
The charts I didn't share are the uptrends in promotor scores compared to Intel. I.e. more people are promoting AMD over Intel. This will lead (in time) for the system to predict a buy, as soon as the process drops (it's been steadily going up).
Maybe you’re missing the context that the stock is up 30% since December? Your graph indicates that it was a bad idea to buy in December, therefore it’s pretty safe to say it’s worthless for making investment decisions on.
I bought AMD about a 9-12 months ago, and sold it for what I paid last week. I was just happy it got back to my purchase price. I was expecting a bump with their recent return to relevance. The market yawned apparently. I am also slowly getting out of all my positions of individual companies and into indexes.
That's a good thing if you're into value investing for long-term returns. If a strong or strengthening company is selling for less than it's worth, then it's basically on sale. Such irrationalities are bad for short-term trading though unless you find a way to exploit such tendencies consistently.
I have no idea, and I have no idea if AMD is actually a good value at the moment. I'm still learning about accounting and investing in my free time. I'm mostly talking about the concept of stock price stickiness despite market changes in general.
It was worth it before the Ryzen premiered. Now all the current and future profits are already incorporated in market price. Currently, you stand a better chance of earning money if you short the AMD stocks. The old "buy the rumor, sell the fact" rule.
