AMD's Stock Price Skyrockets 52% in a Single Day

[CommandMan7]

Quote

Investors liked something they saw in Thursday's earnings from Advanced Micro Devices, sending the Sunnyvale chip company's stock up 52 percent Friday.

 

Damn... 52% in a single day. AMD's market capitalization has gained $190,000,000. What could possibly cause such an event? 

 

 

Earlier today, AMD had announced a deal to license server chip designs to Chinese company Tianjin Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment. This single deal alone is expected to bring AMD over $300,000,000. AMD also announced 3 new semi-custom design contracts, with all three having a combined value of $1,500,000,000. These contracts are most likely the console refreshes from Microsoft and Sony in addition to Nintendo's next console. These new contracts have one important impact:

 

AMD IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE AGAIN!

 

In a single day, AMD raised its value $190 million, as well as announcing contracts worth a combined $1.7 BILLION dollars. This has been the best day, ever, for AMD since their public listing in 1979.

 

And this is all before Zen nor Polaris have launched. When that happens, AMD will be even better off.

 

Opinion:

I... don't know what to say. This hasn't happened before... ever. I do know, however, that this is amazing, amazing, news for anybody who values competition. 

 

Sources:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/04/22/investors-pump-up-amd-stock-despite-continued.html?ana=yahoo

http://wccftech.com/amd-stock-52-highest-percentage-gain-listing/

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD

[Agent181]

is it because of what they did with china and the consoles and new upcoming for zen

[PlayStation 2]

DID SOMEONE SAY 52

[Agent181]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Probably mostly had to do with a bailout from China.

yea, lol the 3 fanboys I know that bought up 100 stocks are going to be happy

[Enderman]

nice biased graph, 10/10 what they teach you not to do in elementary school

[CommandMan7]

12 minutes ago, Agent181 said:

yea, lol the 3 fanboys I know that bought up 100 stocks are going to be happy

100 stocks times 1.37 gain = $137. Not exactly living in luxury quite yet, but if AMD keeps growing the next few years they may have quite a bit of change in their hands.

[Agent181]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

nice biased graph, 10/10 what they teach you not to do in elementary school

lol I just noticed that too

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Then again they might be profitable in the server market with that 32 core Opteron from Zen.

oh well, at least they are making some money which might get them to do better products if they can ever do that

[CommandMan7]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

nice biased graph, 10/10 what they teach you not to do in elementary school

I don't see the problem... the axis don't change values or anything. 

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, CommandMan7 said:

I don't see the problem... the axis don't change values or anything. 

it changes the proportions...

or maybe you dont understand what bias is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph

you can learn all about it there

[Mark77]

Take a look at AMD's long-term chart.  Lol. 

[SurvivorNVL]

I'm glad I held on to those remaining 200 shares *_*

[CommandMan7]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

it changes the proportions...

or maybe you dont understand what bias is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph

you can learn all about it there

But... the scales don't change. The X-axis is in 7 day increments, and the Y-axis is in 50 cent increments. There's nothing misleading about that at all.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

But... the scales don't change. The X-axis is in 7 day increments, and the Y-axis is in 50 cent increments. There's nothing misleading about that at all.

The y axis starts at 2.5 and ends at 4

How can you not see that...

[CommandMan7]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

The y axis starts at 2.5 and ends at 4

How can you not see that...

Yes, but how does that make the data bias? Just because the Y-axis doesn't start at zero doesn't mean that it's biased. The graph clearly shows that the price has increased $1.37 in a very short period of time. It's not hiding anything, all the correct data is right there, and to the correct scale.

 

Straight from the wikipedia article YOU posted:

Quote

A truncated graph (also known as a torn graph) has a y axis that does not start at 0. These graphs can create the impression of important change where there is relatively little change.

Truncated graphs are useful in illustrating small differences. Graphs may also be truncated to save space.

The graph is not artificially creating an impression of an important change, because the 52% change IS significant already. Unless you're somehow saying that 52% is not a significant change, then the graph isn't bias.

[JefferyD90]

30 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

 

Damn... 52% in a single day. AMD's market capitalization has gained $190,000,000. What could possibly cause such an event? 

 

 

Earlier today, AMD had announced a deal to license server chip designs to Chinese company Tianjin Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment. This single deal alone is expected to bring AMD over $300,000,000. AMD also announced 3 new semi-custom design contracts, with all three having a combined value of $1,500,000,000. These contracts are most likely the console refreshes from Microsoft and Sony in addition to Nintendo's next console. These new contracts have one important impact:

 

AMD IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE AGAIN!

 

In a single day, AMD raised its value $190 million, as well as announcing contracts worth a combined $1.7 BILLION dollars. This has been the best day, ever, for AMD since their public listing in 1979.

 

And this is all before Zen nor Polaris have launched. When that happens, AMD will be even better off.

 

Opinion:

I... don't know what to say. This hasn't happened before... ever. I do know, however, that this is amazing, amazing, news for anybody who values competition. 

 

Sources:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/04/22/investors-pump-up-amd-stock-despite-continued.html?ana=yahoo

http://wccftech.com/amd-stock-52-highest-percentage-gain-listing/

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD

AMD is what the market calls a "dead stock rising" or a Zombie Stock, as I like to call it.

 

What is the first and underlying reason that investors buy stock is hopes to sell it later, at a higher price.  When companies have cash and are doing well for themselves, the company has more buying power, this means that the chance the company will buy their stocks back from the investors will rise.  And, typically, when companies buy their stocks back, they buy in large portions driving the price up (they're buying more than people are selling).  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TYPICALLY.  Look at Dell a few years ago, they bought all their stocks back, and notice how rich the investors were, and how (generally) cash poor Dell has been since (although they're recovering VERY quickly).

 

What happens with a Zombie Stock is when the company doesn't have a lot of cash, isn't making a lot of money, and yet some how people are still interested in buying the stock.  This isn't typical, especially for long periods of time.  If you go back, AMD hasn't been profitable in the last 18 months, yet (almost like clockwork) 16 of the 18 months their stock price has INCREASED.  In other words, the company is dyeing but the stock is thriving.

 

In AMD's case I really feel like its 2 things that are driving these prices.  First is all the talk about AMD being acquired, which I'm sorry isn't going to happen.  AMD doesn't have many tangible assets that a company would be after.  Quite literally the AMD brand is their most tangible assets.  (Their x86 license will be discontinued if they are bought, and Intel bought the AMD64 extension license outright so there is no real competition there)  But the second thing that AMD really has going for it is their stock price is LEGITIMATLY under valued.  They are the worlds 3rd biggest CPU company only behind QUALCOMM and Intel.  They are easily in 40% of consumers devices.  Nearly every single Vegas casino digital slot machine and ATM has a AMD G series chip in it, at least half of the "normal computers" (like the ones you get for less than $500 at Wal-Mart and Target, the ones that 75% of the people in America buy) have a AMD CPU/APU, and this isn't including their foothold in the graphics segment where they saw a 8% increase last quarter on the steam survey.  In other words my second point is that AMD's stock is probably approaching what it is actually worth right now, I'd say somewhere around $5-$8 per share sounds about right.  It has just been abnormally low for the past few months.

 

This really isn't as much of a TechNews story as it is a EconNews story.

 

 

EDIT: Another quick point, as a part of their earnings report, they have to include the prices of their stocks as well as how many shares they own as part of their assets.  So if they said they had 1 million stocks on Jan. 1 valued at $1 a share, then turn around on April 1 its worth $2 per share, they gained 1 million dollars.  But if it happens in reverse, they have to report it as a loss as well.  This is actually what kinda caused AMD's land slide.  They said, "Hey we made money this quarter, but next quarter we're probably going to lose money."  And they did.  Then the next quarter the stock prices continued to drop even more than they expected, and that cause AMD to lose money again, and then again, and now you see the dead spiral they were in.

 

This is why a lot of people kept saying "It looks bad for AMD, but its really not".  They were making enough money to cover the cost of their operations, but they were losing their total value (assets minus debts) because the stock prices were going down.  But now that the prices have kinda hit rock bottom, AMD will start to resurge.

 

I suspect this next quarter will be their best quarter in 5 years, maybe even more.

[JefferyD90]

24 minutes ago, Agent181 said:

yea, lol the 3 fanboys I know that bought up 100 stocks are going to be happy

I like to play in the stock market, I buy what I know.  Back in December I bought just under 1000 shares for $2.08 a share.  Right now, I'm pretty happy with my return.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

Yes, but how does that make the data bias? Just because the Y-axis doesn't start at zero doesn't mean that it's biased. The graph clearly shows that the price has increased $1.37 in a very short period of time. It's not hiding anything, all the correct data is right there, and to the correct scale.

 

Straight from the wikipedia article YOU posted:

The graph is not artificially creating an impression of an important change, because the 52% change IS significant already. Unless you're somehow saying that 52% is not a significant change, then the graph isn't bias.

That's called a biased/misleading graph...

This is the stuff you get taught in elementary school.

 

This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase

That is called bias and misleading.

 

500% =/= 50%

[CommandMan7]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

That's called a biased/misleading graph...

This is the stuff you get taught in elementary school.

 

This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase

That is called bias and misleading.

 

500% =/= 50%

But the graph is clearly labeled with numbers... are you even reading the axis, or just glancing at it for a moment?

 

The graph clearly illustrates an increase from 2.6 to 4.0. IT'S LABELED ON THE Y-AXIS. HOW IS THAT MISLEADING.

 

You say, "This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase".

 

2.6 to 4.0 is a ~ 52% increase.

 

52% = 52%

[xentropa]

27 minutes ago, Mark77 said:

Take a look at AMD's long-term chart.  Lol. 

They were like 40 dollars 10 years ago.

[JefferyD90]

12 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

But the graph is clearly labeled with numbers... are you even reading the axis, or just glancing at it for a moment?

 

The graph clearly illustrates an increase from 2.6 to 4.0. IT'S LABELED ON THE Y-AXIS. HOW IS THAT MISLEADING.

 

You say, "This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase".

 

2.6 to 4.0 is a ~ 52% increase.

 

52% = 52%

This is correct, it is NOT a misleading graph.  Misleading would have to NOT include numbers, showing JUST the graph itself.  This is a "broken graph" and it is actually, scientifically, incorrect.  You have to put the break in the graph when it doesn't start at 0 or when it skips any numbers.

 

This is a example of a scientifically accurate line graph:

This is a example of a misleading graph:        

[Enderman]

11 hours ago, CommandMan7 said:

But the graph is clearly labeled with numbers... are you even reading the axis, or just glancing at it for a moment?

 

The graph clearly illustrates an increase from 2.6 to 4.0. IT'S LABELED ON THE Y-AXIS. HOW IS THAT MISLEADING.

 

You say, "This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase".

 

2.6 to 4.0 is a ~ 52% increase.

 

52% = 52%

Maybe you don't undertsand the fact that graphs are supposed to be visual representations of data? 

 

Look, I can make biased graphs too!

Yeah no, this is called a biased graph.

 

I see it's hard for you to comprehend the difference between biased and incorrect...if the axis was 0 to 2.7 then this graph would be incorrect.

But it's not, so it is a correct misleading graph.

 

When you go into marketing you will learn about all kinds of strategies like this to convince people with misleading images. But for now, keep trying, and eventually you will understand the difference between a biased and a non-biased graph.

 

 

 

Here, have some practice, see if you can get better at realizing when a graph is biased or not:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

answers:

Spoiler

OBVIOUSLY yes

yes

no

yes

 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

14 minutes ago, Enderman said:

That's called a biased/misleading graph...

This is the stuff you get taught in elementary school.

 

This graph illustrates a 500% increase not a 50% increase

 

That is called bias and misleading.

 

500% =/= 50%

 

How'd you get 500% from that? 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Maybe you don't undertsand the fact that graphs are supposed to be visual representations of data? Or maybe your elementary school taught you wrong...

 

Look, I can make biased graphs too!

Yeah no, this is called a biased graph.

 

I see it's hard for you to comprehend the difference between biased and incorrect...if the axis was 0 to 2.7 then this graph would be incorrect.

But it's not, so it is a correct misleading graph.

 

When you go into marketing you will learn about all kinds of strategies like this to convince people with misleading images. But for now, keep trying, and eventually you will understand the difference between a biased and a non-biased graph.

 

 

 

Here, have some practice, see if you can get better at realizing when a graph is biased or not:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

answers:

  Reveal hidden contents

yes

yes

no

yes

 

Re-read the Wikipedia article you posted before. and Google "AMD stock price"

[JefferyD90]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Maybe you don't undertsand the fact that graphs are supposed to be visual representations of data? Or maybe your elementary school taught you wrong...

 

Look, I can make biased graphs too!

Yeah no, this is called a biased graph.

 

I see it's hard for you to comprehend the difference between biased and incorrect...if the axis was 0 to 2.7 then this graph would be incorrect.

But it's not, so it is a correct misleading graph.

 

When you go into marketing you will learn about all kinds of strategies like this to convince people with misleading images. But for now, keep trying, and eventually you will understand the difference between a biased and a non-biased graph.

 

 

 

Here, have some practice, see if you can get better at realizing when a graph is biased or not:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

answers:

  Reveal hidden contents

yes

yes

no

yes

 

Regardless, you're acting like AMD's stock prices didn't soar.  50%+ in one day is UNHEARD OF for a company that has been publicly trading as long as AMD has been.

[Enderman]

Just now, Pohernori said:

 

How'd you get 500% from that? 

You take the minimum, then divide the maximum by the height of the minimum

i estimate its about 5x higher at the peak, just by eye

definitely a bad graphical representation