Clients and employees of SemiAnalysis may hold positions in companies referenced in this article.
This article lacks the evidence to warrant the boldness of its arguments. And after reading through the paragraphs of poorly based assertions, I see this at the bottom of the article. Why am I not surprised?
If I thought I could move the stock, I'd make the position in the morning alongside my clients, and publish shortly after, like I did with the article I just linked.
> no impression that my articles can move fucking Samsung's stock
> I do know that my reports have moved smaller companies stocks by 20% in a single day
seems like a weird contradiction. you really think a disclaimer can protect you here? Like many of us pointed out, you've made quite a bold, unsubstantiated claims with poorly cited evidence. You've admitted that your writing in the past have moved the targeted company's stock.
> If I thought I could move the stock, I'd make the position in the morning alongside my clients
I'm sure you could but writing a piece like this, without substantial evidence, I think could influence investors opinions and you've admitted that your writings in the past have moved stocks negatively.
> There's plenty of evidence though. Be an industry insider and you'd recognize it all.
so where are the evidence that support your claims?
If you don't want to believe it. Go ahead. The major claims are true, Qualcomm moving away. Nvidia moving away. DRAM node ramps being pitiful. DRAM engineering efforts come directly from a source there.
The cultural issues being the cause of these issues is the substantial claim.
It might be construed as defamation in Samsung's view, as they've repeatedly shown to be quite intolerant and litigious in the past, I have to warn that the author is treading on the deep end here.
A big part of Samsung's success is because of their insanely powerful and effective legal department. There's just no way their attorneys aren't reading semianalysis.
This article lacks the evidence to warrant the boldness of its arguments. And after reading through the paragraphs of poorly based assertions, I see this at the bottom of the article. Why am I not surprised?