31–40 of 221 posts
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
Yes we do, that's literally what a marketcap is. People who are sure it isn't correct can beat against it and profit in the correction.
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
* Yes, something is worth what someone is willing to pay. But we know Mr market is temperamental and irrational, so really what I'm saying is, in the long term / low pass filtered version, do we really think Tesla is worth more than the next 10.
* Re anecdotes in which market cap is correct - this doesn't prove anything. E.g. a random number would be correct some of the time also.
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
Yes we do, that's literally what a marketcap is. People who are sure it isn't correct can beat against it and profit in the correction.
I mean in theory. In practice:
- You have to use a very specialised definition of "we". Specifically, it's what people think, weighted by how much money they control. So wealthy people have an outsized say in market cap. Controllers of hedge funds, pension funds, etc an even more outsized say.
- People's pricing can be based on how they expect other people to price the stock in the future rather than how much they think it is truly worth based on the fundamentals of the business. If someone's price is based on this, then it is no longer a reflection of how much they think it's worth.
I suspect they were going to have a quarterly loss, or close to, no matter what so jammed as much future/high potential loss into that single quarter as they could as well.
Now that they appear not to have a dominant position (Samsung sells more chips! AMD is worth more!) this will blunt some opposition to the juicy handouts just passed by the US Congress and may cause some opposition to any attention the newly awake antitrust division might direct to them.
Intel isn't in a near death position like Apple was, they are rather in a more extreme version of Microsoft's directionless drift and sag in the second half of the Balmer era. And like Microsoft, Intel has a lot of resources available to use to get back to the top of the dogpile. Like Microsoft they've been squandering those resources for years, but perhaps this symbolic milestone will cause them to finally feel the tang of fear.
Otherwise they'll continue to float around on residual habits, like GE.
Intel is still much bigger company. Intel revenue 73.39B AMD revenue 18.88B TSMC revenue 58.43B
The devil is in the details, just looking at revenue won't reveal the full picture. - DCAI, revenue down 16%, operating income down 90% - NEX, revenue up 11%, operating income down 60% - AXG and IFS are operating loss - Only mobile has rev and op income up And the CEO has clearly mentioned next quarter will be even worse and then they expect things to improve; not sure about the improve part though. CFO clearly menti…
My point is that Intel is huge company. It's going down fast, but it has still time to correct.
I remember the first computer that I ever built (it was cheaper to do it yourself back at the dawn of globalization). I used an AMD 386 rather than an Intel 386. Simply for the youthful reasons that I liked AMD's logo better, and I've always tended to root for the underdog. I'm not much of a PC gamer, and so I haven't built a machine from scratch or thought much about individual components in decades. But there's a s…
I remember the first computer that I ever built (it was cheaper to do it yourself back at the dawn of globalization). I used an AMD 386 rather than an Intel 386. Simply for the youthful reasons that I liked AMD's logo better, and I've always tended to root for the underdog. I'm not much of a PC gamer, and so I haven't built a machine from scratch or thought much about individual components in decades. But there's a s…
Not having to worry about 3D drivers working on a kernel update is such a nice thing.
Of course, when I started, Linux was very much the underdog, and not on billions of devices.
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
Things are worth what others are actually willing to pay, there is no such thing as a metaphysical true worth. So yes, Tesla is actually worth whatever the market cap is.
I've also heard the argument that Tesla's network of chargers brings more value, but...there will also be more competitors in that space in the near future (and today).
So, it seems shortsighted to believe that "market cap" is going to remain as high as it is today.
So I'm very much in camp AMD. But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?
Yes we do, that's literally what a marketcap is. People who are sure it isn't correct can beat against it and profit in the correction.
1) I'm confident that in the long term, company X will grow in value. I invest $1000 and will wait however long it will take, 10 or more years. I risk these $1000 only, but can earn multiple of it.
2) I'm confident that in the long term, company Y will decrease in value. I can short it with $1000, however either I risk much more than $1000 or I can't set the timeframe (because of forced liquidation). I also can't earn more than $1000. In the long term, I'm also exposed to inflation. Effectively, it's possible to short only in a short timescale, which is super risky.
The two betting options are very asymmetric, which IMHO favors overvaluation of certain hyped stocks, since there's no reasonable (not extremely risky) way to bet against them.