If all Intel CPUs get 30% slower overnight, then there will be some fallout in the real world.

They might be 30% slower in virtualization and should be about 5-7% slower in real world usage. As a heavy user of the cloud I'm worried about my infra more than about my laptop: if my cloud setup gets even 7% slower overnight it won't be good to say the least, especially with lower-clock 2Ghz Skylake GCP CPUs.

Those 5--7% will make me feel like I'm powered by Atom and it will be even worse for single-core bounded workloads in the cloud.

>They might be 30% slower in virtualization and should be about 5-7% slower in real world usage.

Virtualization IS real-world-usage. This is going to damage Intel where it will hurt the most, the datacenter (which is largely virtualized using VMware, or Hyper-V). The Xeon CPU's have some of the best profit margins for Intel. If they erode away to Epyc (which is finally becoming available) this could be pretty good for AMD's, espically since AMD has said the the past few years there strategy is to go after the datacenter market.

there's other real world usage (DAWs, for example, where there is a ton of I/O for sample-based virtual instruments) which will likely be as significantly impacted as virtualization likely...

How you hold this stock is a mystery to me. With it bouncing between $10 and $15 constantly last year it just seems far to volatile. I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful...

Maybe why its a favorite of /r/wallstreetbets

You're doing it wrong if you're day trading stocks... dollar cost averaging is your friend when it comes to volatility and well if you're investing you're doing so because of long term belief in the company so it should be easy to hold and not worry about it.

"dollar cost averaging is your friend"

Research suggests otherwise:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGDCA.pdf

Diversification is a more effective strategy for dealing with volatility.

I only read page one of that link (thanks for sharing), but it appears to limit its scope to a specific scenario: given a lump sump of money (a windfall), it is it better to invest all at once or dollar cost average over a period of time? It is not recommending against dollar cost averaging in general; it is recommending against it for windfalls. Diversification is also not mentioned in the article.

I read that Vanguard study when it came out, yes it's correct statistically but I disagree with using that data to do lump sum investments. For one, the CEO in their 2018 outlook webcast said to DCA. Even if you keep a short timespan on your DCA (I do 26 weeks), it's a good idea for your mental health if you happen to dump it all right before a collapse.

Sometimes it's wiser to take into account human psychology, even if academics are out there with data to convince us otherwise.

I'm personally with the CEO of Vanguard on this one. A short entrance into the market, especially in today's situation is probably the way to go. People can do whatever they want, and if they put their money where their mouth is and go in with a lump sum, then I'll respect it.

Otherwise, as someone who is bringing a lot of money myself onto the market now, I'm DCAing.

I bought a ton at 9 before the Ryzen announcement. The oscillation in the stock drove me up the wall, and I came to the conclusion that it’s just stupid to track single stocks, even when you know they have a great product, because the market is so irrational.

>/r/wallstreetbets

Guilty as charged.

>I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful...

Just treat it as numbers on a screen rather than money. Keeps the emotions at bay.

My current position's aggregate cost basis is around 2.35/share, so that's why I'm holding.

>I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful...

If you can train yourself to do the opposite you could make a lot off this stock. Buy fear, sell greed. Never panic.

Losses are never realized if you don't sell, and just wait it out until it is back near 15 again.

"I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful..."

Wrong way to invest. Don't buy an individual company's stock unless you are ready to (1) hold for the long-term and (2) ignore (short-term) unrealized losses. Especially in the first year after investing in an individual stock it is typical to see an unrealized loss, because gains require time to accumulate.

The stock market is not a slot machine. Investing requires patience and discipline.

There's no particular reason any random company's stock should have gains over time, aside from inflation. Especially if it doesn't give dividends, you may never gain anything.

Nothing is certain, but you can sort companies into "likely to gain" and "unlikely to gain." The P/E and P/CF ratios are commonly used for this, along with other valuation metrics. The basic theory of value investing is to find companies that are likely to give you a return.

Also, historically the stock market as a whole has outpaced inflation, so even just investing in randomly chosen companies should have gains over time (there is even evidence that a portfolio of randomly chosen companies performs about the same as a portfolio of companies chosen by analysts and advisers).

try trading crypto

Ill stick to blue chips and paper trading. The NHS can only hand out so much heart medication...

Laughs in Bitcoin

I am not so sure. Cloud providers will probably want to get this fixed and AMD would be a convenient alternative in the short term. I think the bigger risk is that rather than going with AMD, cloud providers will pursue a different CPU architecture altogether, especially in the long-term. There were plenty of things to dislike about x86 virtualization etc. before this mess.