Master your fundamental research. Join 79,012 investors who trust our platform and content.
Save 54+ hours of fundamental research with free access to Stock Card.
We only ask your name and email address.
|
Jerome Powell and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve have a North Star – a 2% target for the U.S. inflation rate. I mean, it's more than a North Star. It's their religion, their obsession, their reason for living. They do everything possible to reach the 2% target inflation rate. The U.S. Federal Reserve isn't the only bank in love with the 2% target inflation rate. Canada, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Colombia, and Israel are other economies after the 2% target. It seems so much the global economy, daily news, conversation on social media, and everyday investors' decisions are based on or about this elusive 2% inflation target. What's so magical about a 2% inflation rate? Who says a 2% target is right, and what happens when we finally reach the 2% target? What do we, the individual investors, should know about the inflation target? Let's talk about that!  I'm Hoda Mehr, founder, and CEO of Stock Card, and on this blog and its accompanying YouTube channel and Podcast show, I share detailed fundamental analyses and interesting investment stories.
This post is part of a series I started a few weeks ago to fundamentally research companies to manage my real-money portfolio. I've already researched Canopy Growth (CGC), Fastly (FSLY), Snap (SNAP) , Shopify (SHOP), Airbnb (ABNB), Unity (U), JD.com (JD), NVIDIA (NVDA) and several others. I'll continue with this series for a few more weeks. Remember, this content is for education and sharing ideas and not advice to buy or sell any securities. Sign up for a free account on Stock Card to get notified of these blog posts, YouTube videos, and Podcast shows every week. We only ask your name and email address when you sign up. As an investor, fintech founder, and economist by training, I'm fascinated by the 2% inflation target and all the action it brings to the stock market. The story of where the target comes from and its presumably magical power is worth our attention. From outside the Federal Reserve and in the media and the minds of the good citizens of the nation, we assume the 2% inflation target results from sophisticated financial modeling and years of experimentation by economists and statisticians over the optimal level that oils the wheels of the economy. That seems to be the right way of coming up with an important target for the world's largest economic power. But, if you dig further, the 2% target is apparently a historical accident. Chairman Volcker Had No Inflation TargetWe've heard Chairmen Jerome Powell referencing Chairman Volcker's heroic efforts in combatting inflation and bringing the inflation rate back under control. In the 1970s, inflation was rampant in the U.S. When Chairman Volcker took over the Federal Reserve in 1979, inflation was 11% and still rising. He raised the interest rates to almost 20% to control it, causing sky-high unemployment and two back-to-back recessions in 1980 for six months and in 1981 & 1982 for more than a year. By early 1983, inflation retreated to just over 3%. Notice that the inflation wasn't 2% when the Fed felt it had managed to control it, and neither was it at the 2% level by the time Chairman Volcker left the Fed in 1987. Indeed, our hero, Fed Chair Volcker, never looked for, targeted, or achieved a 2% inflation rate. There was no specific inflation target for much of the economic history globally. The federal reserves of the world all aim to reach price stability. Until New Zealand came up with a fixed target, no other economy was focused on reaching a set inflation rate. New Zealand Created The Fixed Inflation TargetNew Zealand was the first country to come up with a fixed target in 1989. Canada, the UK, Sweden, and other nations picked up the fixed target regime in the years to follow. You'd think the New Zealand government had a good reason and study done to create a fixed target. Alas, the fixed target was born out of a television interview. In the 1980s, New Zealand was battling a high 15% inflation rate and had managed to bring it down to 10% by 1988. The country's finance minister, Roger Douglas, was pressed during a television interview, and he mentioned that he ideally wants to get to a zero to 1 percent target. After the television interview, The Reserve Bank of New Zealand felt it must put some credibility behind the minister's words on TV and use the opportunity to come up with a more concrete inflation-fighting plan. Their economists did some basic calculations to factor the difficulty of accurately measuring the inflation rate and introduced an official 2% target to its economy and a fixed inflation target system to the world. I couldn't make up a more ridiculous story for the origin of a global move toward a fixed inflation target than what the world's economists, finance ministers, and central banks have come up with themselves. Where Did U.S.'s 2% Inflation Target Came From?Back in the U.S., we know there was no specific target when Volcker left the Fed. If it wasn't Volcker, who did all the scientific work to come up with a 2% target? When Alen Greenspan took over Volcker, he commissioned Fed economists to devise a target. At last, someone wanted to do it in the right way. But, sadly, the economist charged with the task came back and said the project would be a huge computer simulation study and requires putting the U.S. through another recession so they could test the sensitivity of inflation to various interest rate levels. Of course, no Fed Chairman wants to be blamed for intentionally creating a recession, so the study was put on the back burner. If the economist didn't do the study, where did the 2% target in the U.S. come from? According to the transcript of an FOMC meeting in 1996, Chairman Greenspan, a Fed Official named Janet Yellen (yes, the same Janet, the Treasury Secretary now), and other officials were discussing a target. Greenspan wanted to reach some level of price stability where price increases don't impact businesses' and households' decisions. Yellen insisted on putting a number on that stable price level. They discussed that measuring inflation accurately is hard, but moving toward a 2% inflation target seemed good, and they will get a sense of the economy as things pan out. Oh, and Volia, my fellow investors, the U.S.'s 2% target was born. Initially, the 2% target was a more like a yardstick for the Fed until 2012, when Chairman Bernanke officially announced it as our nation's inflation target. This is not to say that Chairman Greenspan, Janet Yellen, and other Fed officials and economists didn't know the implication of putting an arbitrary target for the inflation rate. It speaks more about the complexity and the distance between economic theories and the real world. That makes you wonder why all the fuss about the 2% target and why the Fed is still trying to reach the 2% target if it is a made-up number without concrete evidence that reaching it will have the desired effect on the economy. I want to wrap up by imagining the day we hit the 2% target and see what would happen then. What magical chest of gems will we open when we get there? What Happens When We Hit 2% InflationThe short answer is that Nothing will happen when we hit the 2% inflation rate. This is not a password to some sort of economic growth that suddenly gets unlocked at 2%. The long answer is that in an ideal situation, when we hit the 2% inflation rate, there will be a psychological effect. Managing inflation is all about signaling to the consumers that they can save and buy without worrying about losing their purchasing power in the future and to the businesses that they can invest in producing their goods and services and benefit from reasonable growth in the future. It is a sublet psychological balance when consumers and businesses feel "good" about today and the future. So, it isn't the 2% itself that matter, it's the implication of hitting that target that matters most. The two percent level seems to be some sort of a sweet spot. Hitting a two percent level is low enough for consumers' mindset but relaxed enough for the economy to grow. It is also possible that we never actually hit the 2% sharp. For years, inflation hovered above and below the 2% target, and the Fed focused on the average 2% target instead of hitting the actual 2%. In other words, in an ideal world, once we hit the 2% rate, or somewhere in its vicinity, the topic of the inflation rate will drop out of the public's immediate attention, and no one will worry about it anymore. Not worrying about inflation is the best outcome we can hope for when we hit the target. I'll see you next time!
META jumped ~8% after its earnings call on Wednesday. It's also up by 30% in the last three months.
Remember last year (2022) when META burned $13B+ on AI and VR (Reality Labs), and no one believed it could turn it around? Let's see if the billions of dollars invested on AI and VR are finally paying off and whether there is more room for META to grow. Read more on Twitter (X.com).
SNAP dropped ~20% after its earnings call on Tuesday.
Continue reading on Twitter (X.com) ...
 I have excellent news: Fundamental investing is arguably one of the easiest ways to invest. Investing is stressful and hard when you worry about the stock price. Because the price keeps moving up and down, you can literally see the value of your investment every minute, and that's extremely taxing. If the stock price goes up, you want to save yourself from future regrets and lock in that gain as fast as possible. If the stock price goes down, you want to save yourself again from the pain of losing more money by selling the stock now. But, there is also the possibility that you make a mistake and sell something just before it goes up another 10% or sell a falling stock just before it recovers and goes back up. If your investment decision is based on price and price predictions, you always have something to worry about. Moreover, every time there is a piece of news about the companies you invested in, you worry about the impact on their prices. In contrast, in fundamental investing, you don't stress about price fluctuations or what the news says about the company today, this week, or this month. Because in fundamental investing, you are not picking stocks, you are investing in the company behind the stock, which differs from its stock price. Buffett says it the best: "Charlie and I are not stock-pickers, we are business-pickers." When you pick a business, the company's situation rarely changes daily or based on news articles. The price can fly to the moon or crash to the ground, but the business behind it is still the same. You can research the company once without worrying about it for at least a few quarters, if not longer. That's the good news. If you invest fundamentally, you can invest slowly and steadily without the stress of the market and build wealth. Now that we know fundamental investing is about the business behind the stock, we should ask ourselves what makes a company strong. In this video, I give you a 6-part research process anyone can use to assess the strength of a business and use it to pick stocks for the long term. I'm Hoda Mehr, founder, and CEO of Stock Card, and on this blog and its accompanying YouTube channel and Podcast show, I share detailed fundamental analyses and interesting investment stories.
This post is part of a series I started a few weeks ago to fundamentally research companies to manage my real-money portfolio. I've already researched Canopy Growth (CGC), Fastly (FSLY), Snap (SNAP) , Shopify (SHOP), Airbnb (ABNB), Unity (U), JD.com (JD), NVIDIA (NVDA) and several others. I'll continue with this series for a few more weeks. Remember, this content is for education and sharing ideas and not advice to buy or sell any securities. Sign up for a free account on Stock Card to get notified of these blog posts, YouTube videos, and Podcast shows every week. We only ask your name and email address when you sign up. Now, what makes a company a good one? Think about it intuitively:
You may come up with some other points. Coming up with the characteristics of a strong company isn't too difficult. What's important is to learn how to use the company's financial statements and publicly available information to assess the company. Criteria One: How Does It Make MoneyWhy? A business is a for-profit entity. At its core, it has to be able to make money. So the first thing we must do is to understand how the company on our radar actually makes money. I can't tell you how many people I have spoken with that invested in a stock and had no idea how it actually makes money. Does it sell something, get paid for its services, charge a fee or a subscription, or something else? It is the foundation question you must answer. How to find them? The best way to start your research is to read the business description. All companies share a brief business description on their annual and quarterly reports. Review a company's annual report and look for the business description section. On Stock Card, you can read the description in the introduction section. This may seem to be an extra step. However, if you want to understand a company, you have to know how it makes money. Some business models are better than others. For example, digital subscriptions or SaaS business models are recurring and are more profitable than a physical retailer. You can see that in Amazon's business. It makes money in two primary ways: 1) Selling products on Amazon and 2) Delivering its cloud services through AWS. Selling products is very expensive and low margin. Delivering cloud services is highly profitable because you build the infrastructure once and sell it several times. You may feel I'm simplifying things, but that's the point. You want to find companies with simple, recurring, easy ways of making money. Some companies don't make money yet. Think of research-phase pharmaceutical companies or SPACs (special purpose acquisition companies) that became quite popular in 2021. They were fundamentally difficult businesses to research or pick because they weren't making money yet. So investing in them was stressful because there was no money-making foundation behind the stock. I don't say you shouldn't invest in companies that don't make money. Some are worth it, but understand that you are taking the risk of "no business model," which is a very big risk in most cases. Criteria Two: Topline and Bottom Lines The top line is the figure that tells you how much money a company makes, and the bottom line is the figure showing how much money is left at the end of the month, considering every single expense the company has to incur to make money and keeps the lights on. Knowing those figures are important. However, the more important thing is the direction of the top and bottom lines. You'd want to know whether the company is growing or shrinking its revenue and profits if it has any. How to find them? Those figures come directly from companies' income statements. You can visit any publicly traded company's website and look for the investor section. In the investor section, there is a portion for SEC filings. There are typically the annual and quarterly earnings reports the companies file with the SEC. Those reports show how the top and bottom lines have moved in the last few quarters or years. You can also get that information on Stock Card. Look up any company's Stock Card, and you can see the Revenue and Profit sections as the top 2 pieces of information contributing to a company's financial strength. Make sure you know how much money a company makes and then how it has increased or decreased in the last quarter over quarter, year over year, and three years. The important factor is understanding why the company's top and bottom lines have increased or declined. If the revenue is up, ask yourself why? For example, in Q1 2023, Unity's revenue was up by more than 50%. At first glance, it's good. But, if you read through the company's quarterly earnings, you realize it is due to a recent acquisition and not organic growth. The difference between a robot and you looking at such information is that you can see the growth or decline rate and ask yourself why? If this were an algorithmic trading bot, it would have considered the revenue growth a good thing and moved on. You, with your organic intelligence, can look at the information and ask yourself why this happened and whether it shows the company is better and stronger than a year ago. The last thing about assessing a company's top and bottom line is identifying how it can grow over the years. There are many factors contributing to the answer. Some common factors are:
For example, a company like Nvidia is developing computer chips, and the market for those chips is rapidly growing. In contrast, a company like Coca-Cola is in the soft drinks market that is much slower in growth. A company like Unity is one of the two companies that enable others to make high-quality digital experiences and games and has a higher potential to grow than a company such as Target, which is one of the many retail stores in the U.S. And lastly, a company that is run by its original founder may be able to grow faster because the founder's personal and financial success is tied to the future of the company. You may come up with, hear, or read about many other factors on the web. At their core, they are all different ways to assess whether the company can grow its revenue and profit faster and far longer than others. Criteria Three: Cash GenerationThe next important factor in researching a company is understanding whether it has money to allocate to its future growth and invest in itself. Where does this money come from? Either the company's operations generate cash, or it has saved up or raised capital in the past and has kept it accessible to invest in its future. Naturally, everyone jumps on profitability. However, you need to understand profit is an engineered number. Profit at the end of a company's profit and loss statement is not equal to the cash it made in that period. Accounting departments engineer profit. You can remove non-cash expenses such as stock-based compensation or depreciation of your assets from your income and report a very different number than what amount of cash your business actually generated. A better way to understand a company's cash generation strength is to look at free cash flow. Free cash flow takes the cash from the operations, adds back non-cash expenses, and removes capital expenditures that are not shown in the profit and loss statement. A company with strong finances can generate free cash flow. That's why Stock Card has a full section allocated to free cash flow, just like revenue and profit. You can also get the free cash flow figure from financial statements. Just open any financial statement a company has filed with the SEC, and search for the term free cash flow, and you'll get the figure. Sometimes, companies do not yet generate free cash flow. This is quite common in early-stage growth companies. In those cases, you'd want to see how much cash or cash equivalents the company has available on its balance sheet, compare it with short-term liabilities the company holds, and make sure it has the resources to invest in its future, even though the operations don't generate free cash flow. As a matter of fact, it's always a good idea to look at the cash vs. liabilities of a company to make sure a significantly large amount of liabilities does not burden it. Just be mindful that some companies, such as banks, hold a lot of liabilities, but that's not bad. They are in the business of lending and borrowing money. That's why we discussed the importance of knowing how a company makes money because you can make these subjective judgments about high liabilities in the context of its business model. How to find them? Like the other few data points, there is a section on every company's Stock Card about its cash vs debt that you can use to assess its balance sheet strengths and weaknesses. Or, simply go to the latest SEC filings by the company and look for its balance sheet. One More Criteria: Stock ValuationMany fundamental investors don't agree with me that valuation matters. However, my experience tells me, and most likely, your experience in life would agree that it's better to buy things we like at a lower price whenever it's possible, or at least avoid paying significantly higher prices than what's reasonable. Before digging into how to use valuation information in our investment research, let's discuss why many long-term investors do not pay attention to stocks' valuations. There are two ways you value a company:
The problem with the first methodology is that it is backward-looking. But, you invest in companies that you expect to have tremendous success in the future. Their past performance should be only a fraction of their future success. Therefore using valuation ratios is irrelevant. The problem with the second methodology is that it is forecasting the future. No one really knows what will happen in the future. As they say, there are two kinds of forecasters: those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know. That's an exaggerated way of saying that forecasting the future is impossible, therefore, trying to value a company based on it is irrelevant. While I agree with the shortcomings of both methodologies, looking at the valuation ratios can be a very useful exercise. You can use the valuation ratios to decide how feasible it is for the company to grow into its valuation. Let's take an example: Take Zoom (ZM) as an example. In May 2023, Zoom's price-to-sales ratio is about five times. In simple terms, this means investors expect the company to at least grow its sales five times its current revenue, all other factors such as profit and free cash flow being equal. To grow sales by five times in ten years, the company has to be able to grow its revenue by almost 18% per year. Is that possible? Zoom has grown its sales by roughly the same amount compounded annually between 2021 and 2023. It also operates in the web conference software market, which is expected to grow globally by 14.30% annually between 2020 and 2027. Therefore, the five times price-to-sales ratio for an investor willing to hold Zoom for ten years is reasonable. This math doesn't guarantee the valuation, but it gives us some sense that the market is not overexcited about Zoom, and we won't be paying too high of a price if we invest today. How to Find them: The good news is that you can find the most common valuation ratios on each companies' Stock Card. Click on the valuation, get the list, and even compare the valuation ratios with each company's peers. For the second methodology. there are tools out there that help you calculate the valuation of a company using the discounted cash flow method. I don't use them myself because I agree with the critics that no one can predict the future, especially when investing in companies that are expected to bring significant growth to our portfolios. Typically, such companies get better and are flexible with the direction they take, and it is very difficult to say what new products or services they will launch in the future that impacts their future cash generation power. But mind you, if you are investing in more stable companies, let's say Coca-Cola, then a DCF methodology can be used because it is pretty clear what that company will be doing 5 to 10 years from now. Step-By-Step Fundamental Analysis RecapLet's recap a 6-part process to research stocks fundamentally to find such companies:
I hope you find this helpful. The only way you can master fundamental analysis is to practice it. So go ahead, pick one company now, and research it fundamentally. There are several examples of such detailed analysis on our YouTube channel. There is a link to it in the notes section. Make sure to continue your education. See you next time!
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is a lonely AI stock, down double digits last month. How can a company that makes chips and semiconductors that power artificial intelligence and other digital applications be down double-digits while competitors like NVDA are up more than 50% in the last three months?
Investors price NVDA at more than 40 times its current sales, while AMD has a price-to-sales ratio of 8 times. Is AMD falling behind in the AI race, or is this a temporary bleep in an otherwise rally to the so-called moon? Let's talk about that! 
I'm Hoda Mehr, founder, and CEO of Stock Card, and on this blog and its accompanying YouTube channel and Podcast show, I share detailed fundamental analyses and interesting investment stories.
This post is part of a series I started a few weeks ago to fundamentally research companies to manage my real-money portfolio. I've already researched Canopy Growth (CGC), Fastly (FSLY), Snap (SNAP) , Shopify (SHOP), Airbnb (ABNB), Unity (U), JD.com (JD), NVIDIA (NVDA) and several others. I'll continue with this series for a few more weeks. Remember, this content is for education and sharing ideas and not advice to buy or sell any securities. Sign up for a free account on Stock Card to get notified of these blog posts, YouTube videos, and Podcast shows every week. We only ask your name and email address when you sign up.
The story of AMD and NVDA makes you feel we live in two parallel universes. AMD says it is waiting for the demand environment to improve. NVIDIA says we live in an accelerated demand cycle.
AMD's latest earnings report in May 2023 shows that the company offers a complete line of chips and solutions for AI applications. But revenue was down about 9%. The company lost money compared to several quarters of positive GAAP-based earnings, and worst yet, AMD forecasted a 19% decline in its Q2 revenue. This earnings release came about at the same time as NVIDIA's roaring earnings report, in which the company announced a revenue forecast of $11B for the second quarter, up from roughly $7B in Q1. As a side note, I published a fundamental analysis for NVDA a few weeks ago that you can go back to and decide whether NVDA is a buy now. I'll leave a link to the NVDA episode in the show notes. Today, I dig into AMD's fundamentals and discuss whether the revenue decline and downward forecast are temporary and whether the price drop is an opportunity for us to invest in AMD at a much better price than NVIDIA. This is going to be super interesting! I'll use our usual 6-part fundamental analysis framework to research AMD:
Can AMD's Revenue Go Back Up?
AMD makes money by designing and selling semiconductor chips that run data centers, PCs, laptops, and gaming consoles or embed them into automobiles and other data processing applications.
Not only AMD designs the chips and sells them, but it also makes software that enables developers to use its products in their devices and applications. Like NVIDIA, AMD doesn't manufacture its own chips. Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) is the primary manufacturer of AMD's wafers and works with United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and Samsung Electronics Co. AMD's revenue is relatively equally distributed across gaming, data centers, and embedded systems, and the PCs and laptops segment trail the other three. That's already good news because if we see soft demand in one segment, there are still different segments to compensate for the revenue loss. So far, so good! But why did the revenue go down? Where is the slowdown coming from, and how is NVIDIA growing exponentially while AMD slows down? Data Center revenue remained flat, gaming slowed, and PC, laptop, and computer client sales dropped more than 60%. Embedded chips in automobiles, VRs, and other devices soared. Why isn't the data center segment roaring like NVIDIA, and is the drop in PC and Laptop temporary? The PC & Laptop segment is somewhat understandable. Coming off the surge in demand during the COVID era, the company is now dealing with lower demand and had to cut costs to move its inventory. However, looking at all the new product launches, the company has several high-performing product launches in the segment that should ramp up in the coming quarters. On the data center side, NVIDIA seems to be the immediate beneficiary of the generative AI infrastructure rush because OpenAI's chatGPT runs on its products and already offers a whole stack of hardware and software for data centers to train and run AI applications. AMD suffered from the global slowdown of investments in data centers by large enterprises and didn't see any benefit from the generative AI heightened demand. Does this mean AMD has lost the market? As I'm researching AMD today, the company is supposed to have an AI Day presentation in two days on July 13th. While I don't know what AMD will share specifically during the AI day and how the market perceives it, I was able to catch up on Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase analysts' conversations with AMD's leadership team in the last few days and weeks. I got a preview of the company's AI strategy. As a non-technical investor, it is difficult for many of us to gauge the technical superiority of AMD over its competitors. However, we can deduct its technical capabilities and moat from the information available to us. Here are some of such evidence:
AMD is behind NVIDIA in the AI segment. However, the company isn't a competitor to brush off easily. It has a solid track record of executing its plans and delivering new products based on customers' needs. AMD still has a shot. AI revenue can likely ramp up and accelerate if the management team executes the roadmap it has already planned. So on the topline side, AMD is expected to ramp up revenue through new product launches. And as the global macro environment recovers and enterprises resume investing in data centers and computation beyond AI, we should see revenue growth to come back to AMD. AMD's Earnings Loss Isn't A Big Deal
In the last quarter, we saw negative earnings for the first time. Some of the losses are due to lower revenue, but the most significant chunk comes from increasing R&D expenses and the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles. R&D expense increase is an important driver of the future of product releases and not much concern. The amortization of acquisition-related intangibles is also less of a problem. It is a unique way accountants engineer profits and losses. For AMD, it is expensing the costs associated with acquiring Xilinx. This is good news because it means no major cost jump in AMD's operations.
AMD's Cash & Free Cash Flow Power
There are lots of good news here. The company has more than $9B in cash and cash equivalents, against $6B in current liabilities, leaving it with enough cash to continue investing in its products, and better yet, we see AMD generates positive free cash flow indicating its cash position should be growing steadily in the absence of any major new acquisition or expense.
Assuming the management can continue to execute as it has been doing so far, and the market in data center and server sides recover globally and steadily, there aren't major fundamental concerns about AMD. This brings us to its valuation. The company is priced eight times its sales, which isn't cheap. AMD's Valuation
Looking at the company's price-to-sales ratio history, eight times isn't the most expensive rate, but it is certainly not historically cheap either. You could have invested in AMD at roughly five times sales only a few months ago and five years ago.
Looking forward, all else equal, to grow revenue by eight times in 10 years, AMD has to increase revenue by 23% per year. The AI chips market is expected to grow more than 40%, while the broader semiconductors market has a much slower growth rate of under 10% per year. Therefore, the 23% per year revenue growth isn't far-fetched and sits between the two markets' growth rates. Moreover, if we look at AMD's revenue growth in the last three years, it has grown above 40% compounded annually, despite the recent slump. All in all, AMD isn't a cheap stock by any stretch of the imagination, but compared to Nvidia's 40+ Price-to-Sales, and AMD's possibility of growing revenue rapidly, it isn't exuberantly expensive either. AMD's Fundamental Recap
Let's recap AMD's fundamentals.
Knowing all that, what should we do with AMD? Is it time to buy now? Is AMD A Buy Now?
Agreeing on the fact that investing is a game of possibilities and betting on probabilities of success, let's discuss two possibilities for where AMD goes from here:
We need more information to decide which scenario is more likely. To me, this is one of those cases where if you like a company fundamentally and trust the management track record in implementing their plans, you can pick up some shares and add more as you collect evidence on its ability to scale, ramp up and compete in the AI space while not losing market in PC, laptops, enterprise, and gaming segments. One thing for sure is that the AI revolution is just beginning, and there is a lot of time for chip makers to innovate and grow. 2023 is one of many chances to buy AI chip stocks and win big. This is a multi-year if not decade-long, major technological cycle and most likely full of volatile up and down trends. See you next time!
|
Categories
All
Archives
November 2023
|
RSS Feed