5 ms·

The author is shorting Nvidia stock (as he / she discloses at the end of the article). So, while this article attempts to be objective, I just don't believe it

The author is shorting Nvidia stock (as he / she discloses at the end of the article). So, while this article attempts to be objective, I just don't believe it can be.

chadmeister 8y ago
Yeah, this disclosure should really be at the top of the article. Until AMD puts out a new graphics card NVIDIA is still going to sell at monopoly prices. Prices have barely begun to approach msrp and that's 2 years after initial release of this series of cards. NVIDIA could just as easily delay release of their next gen cards until this inventory clears or AMD forces them to make a move. I wouldn't be too worried about their balance sheet right now.
feefie 8y ago
Agreed. The author's bias makes this unethical, in my opinion. I wish HN didn't promote posts like this.
- cookingrobot 8y ago
  There’s a point of view that short selling is important & ethical because it creates an incentive to find problems with companies and expose them. Hopefully they’re honest when they do it, but that applies to people pumping a stock too.
- batbomb 8y ago
  If that's how you feel, then you need to block about half of everything on Seeking Alpha
  - joejerryronnie 8y ago
    Most of what I see on Seeking Alpha is people cherry picking charts and statistics to support a pre-existing hypothesis. Many times authors continually double down on clearly wrong opinions and just say "oh well, the market is crazy".
- dv_dt 8y ago
  The bias should lead to more caution, but the disclosure was made. The disclosure would have been more ethical if it had been at the beginning - especially because of the likelyhood of people not reading to the end of the multi-paginated format.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  Surely if we're going to start accusing people of anti-NVidia bias we should include Charlie from SemiAccurate so he doesn't feel left out. He did coin the term "Bumpgate" after all. https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-defective/ https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-de...
  - nooknook 8y ago
    The article is citing the SemiAccurate report directly. I actually read some of the SA authors other work on the topic, and he's done some detailed analysis. This one was interesting. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4181940-asian-aib-read-gpu-mining-picture https://seekingalpha.com/article/4181940-asian-aib-read-gpu-... It seems he has been tracking the AIB monthly revenue data out of Taiwan as well as trying to reconcile 2017 numbers with what Nvidia/Amd have reported on mining.And in Nvidia's case he seems focused on the CEO attributing gaming revenue strength in q1 entirely to Fortnite/PUBG when gamers had virtually no access to cards. So, the way I read it is he took the SemiAccurate report as evidence that CEO has gotten it wrong, and that this explained the very vague 'not for a long time' comment at Computex.
- dirtyaura 8y ago
  I disagree. It is in no way unethical: Disclosure was made and the reader can use his judgement. In contrast, many post on HN are veiled promotions of products by startups, and a clear disclosure is often missing.
Analemma_ 8y ago
Shorting a stock does not make automatically make negative opinions about it invalid any more than going long makes positive opinions invalid. The whole point of shorting, and the reason why it's legal, is to give people incentive to find overvalued stocks and thus correct valuations. It's like people with a negative outlook on a company can't win: if they short, they're accused of being biased. If they don't short, they're accused of tossing out accusations with no skin in the game.
- softawre 8y ago
  Totally agree. This guy has his money where his mouth is. That's who I'd prefer to get information from.
simonsarris 8y ago
Totally disagree with you, and agree with Taleb: To write a piece like this and be worthwhile one must put their money where their mouth is. The disclosure is all that's required. I don't trust any writing on stocks/markets where a person does not have a position. This person is an investor or trader, unlike the forecasters/prophets/charlatans on day-time stock shows. You don't have to believe this author, but you at least know they are taking their own thesis seriously and stand behind it if they are wrong. It would be nice if SA put them at the top of the article though.
qop 8y ago
That's like saying someone who writes an article about how elections work can't be objective because they voted once.

The author is shorting Nvidia stock (as he / she discloses at the end of the article). So, while this article attempts to be objective, I just don't believe it can be.

chadmeister 8y ago

Yeah, this disclosure should really be at the top of the article. Until AMD puts out a new graphics card NVIDIA is still going to sell at monopoly prices. Prices have barely begun to approach msrp and that's 2 years after initial release of this series of cards. NVIDIA could just as easily delay release of their next gen cards until this inventory clears or AMD forces them to make a move. I wouldn't be too worried about their balance sheet right now.

feefie 8y ago

Agreed. The author's bias makes this unethical, in my opinion. I wish HN didn't promote posts like this.

cookingrobot 8y ago
There’s a point of view that short selling is important & ethical because it creates an incentive to find problems with companies and expose them. Hopefully they’re honest when they do it, but that applies to people pumping a stock too.
batbomb 8y ago
If that's how you feel, then you need to block about half of everything on Seeking Alpha
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  Most of what I see on Seeking Alpha is people cherry picking charts and statistics to support a pre-existing hypothesis. Many times authors continually double down on clearly wrong opinions and just say "oh well, the market is crazy".
dv_dt 8y ago
The bias should lead to more caution, but the disclosure was made. The disclosure would have been more ethical if it had been at the beginning - especially because of the likelyhood of people not reading to the end of the multi-paginated format.
Symmetry 8y ago
Surely if we're going to start accusing people of anti-NVidia bias we should include Charlie from SemiAccurate so he doesn't feel left out. He did coin the term "Bumpgate" after all. https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-defective/ https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-de...
- nooknook 8y ago
  The article is citing the SemiAccurate report directly. I actually read some of the SA authors other work on the topic, and he's done some detailed analysis. This one was interesting. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4181940-asian-aib-read-gpu-mining-picture https://seekingalpha.com/article/4181940-asian-aib-read-gpu-... It seems he has been tracking the AIB monthly revenue data out of Taiwan as well as trying to reconcile 2017 numbers with what Nvidia/Amd have reported on mining.And in Nvidia's case he seems focused on the CEO attributing gaming revenue strength in q1 entirely to Fortnite/PUBG when gamers had virtually no access to cards. So, the way I read it is he took the SemiAccurate report as evidence that CEO has gotten it wrong, and that this explained the very vague 'not for a long time' comment at Computex.
dirtyaura 8y ago
I disagree. It is in no way unethical: Disclosure was made and the reader can use his judgement. In contrast, many post on HN are veiled promotions of products by startups, and a clear disclosure is often missing.

Analemma_ 8y ago

Shorting a stock does not make automatically make negative opinions about it invalid any more than going long makes positive opinions invalid. The whole point of shorting, and the reason why it's legal, is to give people incentive to find overvalued stocks and thus correct valuations. It's like people with a negative outlook on a company can't win: if they short, they're accused of being biased. If they don't short, they're accused of tossing out accusations with no skin in the game.

softawre 8y ago
Totally agree. This guy has his money where his mouth is. That's who I'd prefer to get information from.

simonsarris 8y ago

Totally disagree with you, and agree with Taleb: To write a piece like this and be worthwhile one must put their money where their mouth is. The disclosure is all that's required. I don't trust any writing on stocks/markets where a person does not have a position. This person is an investor or trader, unlike the forecasters/prophets/charlatans on day-time stock shows. You don't have to believe this author, but you at least know they are taking their own thesis seriously and stand behind it if they are wrong. It would be nice if SA put them at the top of the article though.

qop 8y ago

That's like saying someone who writes an article about how elections work can't be objective because they voted once.