I think it's pretty clear in this case. Plenty of people here in hn-land were talking about Intel/AMD short/long positions starting in the afternoon yesterday and word has gotten around.
Talk is cheap; investing perhaps less so. The asserted "soaring" stock price simply hasn't happened. The 7% rise they name as "soaring" is not a soar for a stock this volatile: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AMD:US - just look at the graph over the past year; value changes in excess of 50% happened several times.
To be clear; I'm not saying this increase won't stick, just that bloomberg is pretending they're reading this from the numbers, not merely expecting it to occur. It'd be fine to say you might expect the stock to trend higher. But pretending you can look at that noisy line and say the current 7% increase is statistically significantly higher in a humanly relevant way is just hogwash.
Obviously you might expect the stock to soar. It may well happen. It just isn't visible in the data they present; the article is simply click bait (or worse, market manipulation).
ok. I was more thinking about the "INTC decline" than the "AMD rise". you make a good point with previous volatility.
I didn't have options activated till this morning, because i hadn't gotten around to it. Had I been able to activate them yesterday afternoon, I'd be in on INTC and AMD, both sides. Anyways, I have options in play on the intel side but not the amd side, so while "Talk is cheap" - I'm in.
Yes, I'm sure all those Wall Street finance folks are all scouring HN comment threads just waiting for the next great piece of investment advice that they can move on.
Welcome to the world of business reporting.