Re: Intel Could Deal Serious Damage To Nvidia, AMD
Another comment from SA:
<<< Wow. To me, this article and the comments illustrate the virtues of evaluating data rather than in trying to act as if I can render an expert opinion on a business. I'm not an engineer and this article went way ver my head. But I am an investor who knows that the context here is about company analysis. It's not about judging INTC's ability to do damage to NVDA and AMD.
My company's quant model tells me to favor NVDA first, AMD as a close runner up and INTC, though not a bearish situation, in third behind AMD and INTC. I won't use the SA forum to plug my company's stuff. But looking at SA's quant ratings, I get pretty much the same answer. As has been noted, INTC is the "value" pick. But it's never about ratios alone. Ratios are or aren't good based on company performance and prospects and the totality of the SA ratings suggest that high valuations for NVDA and AMD are associated with strong fundamentals and expectations while INTC's ratios should be lower because they don't have fundamental support.
I understand the author is saying INTC will be much better going forward. I don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the author's technical arguments. But I do have expertise in use of SA content and in this respect, I notice that the author has, to date, published 122 articles on SA, 53 of which have been on INTC, 4 of which have been on NVDA and none of which have focused on AMD. There were 4 on TSM and other tickers have been covered 1, 2 or 3 times. That's a huge red flag. This alone tells me this article is likely not the work of of an industry analyst/expert objectively evaluating INTC, AMD and NVDA, and based on his analysis, coming out in favor of INTC. Instead, the picture I'm getting from the SA coverage data is of a doctrinaire INTC fan who, for whatever reason, is focused mainly on that company and pre-disposed to plug it. (I also see a lot of previously bullish ratings from this author on INTC.) I've been in this business since 1980 and I've learned over those years to be fearful of commentators who like to ride hard on a single stock.
I'm not a engineer. I'm just a guy making the best decision I can with the information I have And based on this, I'm rejecting this author's recommendation of INTC.
Might I be wrong in doing so? Of course. This is investing. All any of us can do is work with processes and probabilities. Regardless of whether my rejection of this INTC recommendation is later shown to have been right or wrong, I'm confident that this framework for evaluating ideas I see on SA will, over the long run, leave me far better off than I would be were I to try to pick sides in a debate like this, >>> |
