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

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Like seeing what everyone has installed on their phone?

When the FTC bans IBM, AMD, Nvidia, and Intel from selling their top tech to China, that's not an action that should be taken lightly.

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I would think that AMD's Lawyers have already looked into the matter to ensure that they aren't violating any US laws and/or trade deals. Especially if, as you say, the US already shot down a deal IBM tried to make. AMD would have already seen that and been given the heads up on what to look out for.

AMD can afford lawyers? And further, you vastly underestimate what lengths the FTC will go to when at the behest of the NSA.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

AMD can afford lawyers? And further, you vastly underestimate what lengths the FTC will go to when at the behest of the NSA.

With $300 Million USD at stake? I would damn well think AMD can afford lawyers.

[JefferyD90]

13 hours ago, Agent181 said:

and zen isnt even out yet so should be going up more

I sold.  I do feel like between now and July prices will steady out, or go down.  After July it will increase back up.

[Tomsen]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Within 2 months, this deal will be undone. It's a vital U.S. security interest.

You wanna make a bet?

If I was you, I would be looking into things to make sure I wasn't mixing up things..

[LukeTim]

On 4/23/2016 at 6:53 AM, Enderman said:

The y axis starts at 2.5 and ends at 4

How can you not see that...

A graph that omits the origin is not inherently misleading. It's pretty common, especially when dealing with mostly quite small changes as stock prices usually are.

[Sakkura]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Within 2 months, this deal will be undone. It's a vital U.S. security interest.

Yeah, right after Jim Keller joins Intel.

[Syfes]

Dang, should've invested in those stocks for real after all .

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Within 2 months, this deal will be undone. It's a vital U.S. security interest.

I will mark this down in my calendar. Can't really argue for or against the deal getting undone since it's pure speculation at this point. See you in two months. 

[Lays]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

AMD can afford lawyers? And further, you vastly underestimate what lengths the FTC will go to when at the behest of the NSA.

Being as they are a large company with millions at stake, I'd assume they'd have lawyers on retainer, or even in-house ones.

 

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

With $300 Million USD at stake? I would damn well think AMD can afford lawyers.

dis ^

 

[Prysin]

9 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Within 2 months, this deal will be undone. It's a vital U.S. security interest.

and within 2 months we will know PatrickJp93 was "wrong for the first time in 2016"

[DocSwag]

21 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

The U.S. government would never allow it. AMD, Nvidia, and Intel are all legally barred from selling their high end stuff to China. If AMD tried to license Zen, the FTC would stomp on the deal with just as much force as when IBM tried to directly license Power 8 to (iirc) Huawei 2 years ago.

Could I see a source for the power8 deal? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's just a little hard to believe the Chinese company would want anything to do with a crappy bulldozer architecture. I just want to confirm the facts

[pango3001]

AMD is gonna make me rich.

[spartaman64]

On 4/23/2016 at 1:35 AM, Enderman said:

You clearly have never seen how smart the average person on this planet is...

 

I never said this graph was misleading to me, I said the graph is misleading in itself

The point of a graph is to see data without something like this

 

Which the average person cannot understand

im confused so you think the graph is going to mislead people into thinking that amd's stock price increased 500% when the title clearly says 52%

[79wjd]

22 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

im confused so you think the graph is going to mislead people into thinking that amd's stock price increased 500% when the title clearly says 52%

People have a tendency to not read, and even if they do read the title, a person is far more likely to remember something they see (an image) rather than something they read. So when someone tries to recall the information in a week there is a very good chance they will have forgotten the exact number, but the graph will be more memorable and thus they will likely "remember" a larger increase as the graph shows a >50% increase. 

 

Edit: I worded that horribly, I apologize. 

[AyeJayKay]

Not sure why we're arguing about graphs but thought I'd chime in.

 

@Enderman is actually correct about misleading graphs. The raw data is indeed correct and the graph shown does show the raw data, how can that be biased? By using various techniques such as favorable labelings or even the spacing between data points. 

 

Why this matters or how it is related to the topic of AMD growth I'm not sure but misleading graphs do exist and can skew interpretations of data.

[bigneo]

Finally, the AMD's master plan is becoming reality in the gaming industry - RIP nVIDIA and all the fanboys

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, bigneo said:

Finally, the AMD's master plan is becoming reality in the gaming industry - RIP nVIDIA and all the fanboys

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, AMD's market value may have climbed to over $3 billion, but Nvidia is still at nearly $20 billion. 

[Lethal Seraph]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 10:54 AM, patrickjp93 said:

The U.S. government would never allow it. AMD, Nvidia, and Intel are all legally barred from selling their high end stuff to China. If AMD tried to license Zen, the FTC would stomp on the deal with just as much force as when IBM tried to directly license Power 8 to (iirc) Huawei 2 years ago.

US govt wouldn't unless they can get something else in return, like a backdoor on those chips. 

[Notional]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the stock graph what so ever. You can change the time span on it, and it contains all the numbers you need, without even looking at the graph. If people are too dumb to understand such a simple graph, then I'm sure they have absolutely no use for the information it holds, as extremely dumb people shouldn't be in the stock trading market to begin with.

 

Page up and page down of graph nonsense. Graphs should always be made to suit the need of the user. In this case the smaller changes are the important ones. Not a 5 year span. Having it start on 0 would make the graph less detailed and/or much bigger. It makes no sense. Learn to read a graph. You should have it in math class in 4-5th grade in elementary school. I guess they are more qualified for stock trading than people whining about the graph in here

[Okjoek]

The graph could go back a little further, but that's just to change the perspective, not the facts.

I root for the red team so this is good news to me.

[allindaze]

On 4/23/2016 at 3:01 PM, Enderman said:

Yeah!  You get it!

 

I know this whole graph thing is over but I just wanted to make sure you got this. You need to be aware that the people looking at stock charts are not necessarily concerned with what the price is. The graphs are designed to illustrate the PERCENTAGE change in price, not the actual price. If a stock jumped from $1 to $1.50 that's not much to you or me but to a stock trader that's tremendous and the graphs are created to illustrate the change in an exaggerated way. That way a move in the price of a stock that's trading at $100 will be interpreted similarly to a stock trading at $1... in terms of percentage change.

[xentropa]

On 4/23/2016 at 5:03 AM, Fooshi said:

I desperately wanted to invest some cash in AMD when it was at its low point around 1.80-ish  earlier this year.

Someone please ELI5 how to stocks.

In stocks there is a primary market, and secondary market.  Primary market, you trade with the company directly.  Secondary market, you trade with a financial institution who owns the stock of a particular company.  In the primary market, there is a minimum purchase required (1 million dollars usually) and a minimum hold time.  In the secondary market, there is no limitations but the financial institution may charge fees.  For all of us (probably), we trade in the secondary market.

 

To trade in the secondary market, you have to get a brokerage account.  Not all brokerage accounts are the same, some are reputable, some flat out suck.  Reputable ones can fill your order instantly, but usually charge higher transaction fees.  Ones that suck might not have the stock available to you, place limitations, or cannot buyback your stock in time, but usually have smaller transaction fees.

 

Each brokerage account handles transactions differently.  I used Fidelity for a while.  You deposit money into the Fidelity account, type in the symbol you want to buy and *click*.  They charge 20 dollars per transaction and takes a total of about 1 week to "settle."

 

 

[spartaman64]

17 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

People have a tendency to not read, and even if they do read the title, a person is far more likely to remember something they see (an image) rather than something they read. So when someone tries to recall the information in a week there is a very good chance they will have forgotten the exact number, but the graph will be more memorable and thus they will likely "remember" a larger increase as the graph shows a >50% increase. 

 

Edit: I worded that horribly, I apologize. 

so instead of reading the numbers on the graph they are going to take a tape measure and be like the ratio between the axis and the bottom and the axis and the peak is 500 to 1 so this graph indicates 500% increase and I also covered my eyes when clicking on this post to not see the 52% in the title

[79wjd]

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

so instead of reading the numbers on the graph they are going to take a tape measure and be like the ratio between the axis and the bottom and the axis and the peak is 500 to 1 so this graph indicates 500% increase and I also covered my eyes when clicking on this post to not see the 52% in the title

No, they're going to take a look at the graph and when they try to recall the information they're going to remember what the graph looked like, which at a cursory glance indicates an increase FAR greater than just 50%.