I am shorting NVDA and you should too

>>1696725
At what price would you buy back into it again in 2017?

>>1696730
I think that right now, something like $85 would be a pretty fair price. That's around where it went after their last earnings report and I think that price reflects their earnings and growth. However, I would probably want it to be a bit lower for me to buy. I would buy after it oversold to somewhere around $75 or so. I also wouldn't bet against the tape while it is going down though... if it starts to crash like I think it will, then I would cover and buy once that trend started to reverse.

Down to $108.48. I think it will close under $100 on 1/3

File: 1475212392430.jpg (59KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 620x388px

>>1696725

tfw investing is now big data, inception

>>1696725

Yeah. Given amd are likely to have a mid / high range card early next year, even if it sucks and doesn't take market share, it still put deflationary pressure on their pc gpu pricing. Their recent spike was due to AI / cloud, and them raising prices if pc gaming parts and having no competition.

Even if amd take no market share, they will drive mid / high end prices down, eating into the next earnings report when people will 'expect' another crushing quarter. Now is the AI / cloud going to grow enough in the near term to offset the loss of the pc gpu revenue? I doubt it given the volumes involved.

>>1696830
I agree. Competition is another one of several factors that strongly indicate NVDA is far overpriced. Also, like you said, their earnings next quarter are not likely to impress people a whole lot. They absolutely crushed their earnings last quarter so I think anything less than that in the next quarter will be seen as a disappointment and drive the value down.

>I think
>I think
>I think
>I think
>I think

Who gives a shit about you and your babby tier analysis?

go be a cancerous phone poster elsewhere.

>>1696853

Exactly, the share price is based on 'expected future earnings', and after last quarter people expect a fucking lot. They won't get another quarter where they can jack prices & not have a competing product. All AMD need is a mid range / high end card, at the right price, and Nvidia will have cut their prices. Even if Nvidia sell more cards they would make less money, now will AI / Cloud offset that? Doubt it, when you consider PC GPU is 60%+ of Nvidia's revenue, and data-centre, auto, AI, is 20 - 25%.

Not to mention long term, on the actual tech level, AMD are way better positioned to take advantage of new API's and grow PC gaming share in 2 - 3 years when DX12 is the standard and every pc game is written to the metal like on consoles (where every dev on every AAA game has spent the last 4 years writing direct to AMD GCN metal), they will spike in performance. AMD won't ever get market dominance because their marketing game sucks, but they can go from their 5% back to the 30% they had if their long game plans out.

>>1696869
lol why are you lashing out? My points were reasonable and logical.

What is it about AMD and Nvidia that attracts so many financially retarded autists?

Is it just gaymen in general?

File: 1482987631428.jpg (485KB, 1000x710px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1000x710px

What's acutally going to happen.

>Tuesday, January 3rd, 6am
>a weary fund manager has to put a few billion to work from first quarter inflows
>his eyes glaze over as he flips through a few of his analysts' reports
>NVDA comes up a few times as a tech recommendation
>still owns a few hundred thousand shares at a cost basis in the $50s after unloading a third up near $120
>pulls up a chart and decides the recent $15-20 pullback is enough
>hmmm, probably at least another $30-50 from here with this economy
>starts buying at the market at the open

>>1696730
>At what price would you buy back into it again in 2017?

Right now? NVDA isn't worth more than $65 to $75. That would put them in a reasonable PE and PEG ratio compared to their growth.

>>1696799
>Down to $108.48. I think it will close under $100 on 1/3

I opened a short position last Monday when it ran up 6%.

I'm sitting on a ok gain right now, but I think this puppy will drop MUCH MUCH further.

>>1696725
I mean you can short anything almost, after new years everything drops for a month. This phenomenon has a name but I dont member.

>>1697013
It's teenage spillover from /g/ and /v/ and yes, it's the gayman angle. Just look at this retard go on and on about GPUs: >>1696876


>>1697004
Your "points" are just uninformed opinions based on the aforementioned gayman theory hence the constant usage of >i think. Guess where your feelings and thoughts factor into the market. I'll give you a hint; it starts with "n" and ends with "owhere".

>>1697020
Their PEG is still well under 2 if you look out further than next year, which is what you traditionally do when analyzing a growth stock. Not that it matters to you and your arbitrary pts based on nothing more than feels and whatever you find in the depths of your ass.

sage grows in all fields.

>>1697016
I like that the fund manager is "weary" lol

Anyway, I don't think any analyst in their right mind would recommend NVDA to a fund manager. In looking for tech stocks they will undoubtedly choose something less volatile and with a PE ratio that is closer to earth than the moon. Fund managers aren't dumb and they don't just throw money around without doing extensive research about what they are investing in. They will see that NVDA's growth was factored into its price down at $85 or lower, and they will stay away. Buying NVDA is literally a gamble right now. There is no reason at all to think it will rise. Professional investors do not like risk and I seriously doubt they will make such a risky stock pick when there are tons of MUCH better looking picks out there both inside and outside of the tech sector.

>>1697038
>Your "points" are just uninformed opinions based on the aforementioned gayman theory hence the constant usage of >i think. Guess where your feelings and thoughts factor into the market. I'll give you a hint; it starts with "n" and ends with "owhere".

Lol chill out dude. You still haven't told me why I'm wrong at all. All you did was attack me for my semantics. Guess where my semantics factor into the market? I'll give you a hint; it starts with "n" and ends with "owhere".

ITT: Sour grapes

ITT: role playing

>>1697020
I'd say it's worth something on the high end of that range or slightly higher, but it would not surprise me at all to see it go below that range before bouncing back up.