◉Tech Investing RadarBY MARC WINN
← Historical patterns

SIMILAR CONDITIONS. DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.

Compare the pattern.
Keep the differences.

Find the shared questions across two episodes, then inspect the evidence that makes each one different.

SHARED RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

0 shared pattern features

These labels describe retrospective research hypotheses. They are not a similarity probability, forecast or evidence that either case predicts the other.

Important differences

  • Different recorded outcomes: AMD (sustained rise) and AMD (reset).
  • The documented business outcomes differ; business progress must be assessed separately from shareholder return.
  • The episodes occurred in different calendar periods; market conditions are not controlled for.
  • These are episodes of the same company, not independent company-level observations.

Missing evidence

  • AMD: annual endpoints do not resolve a two-to-eight-week investment window.
  • AMD: no comparable measured historical sentiment series.

AMD · 2015–2016

AMD: a technical comeback becomes testable

Verified rise
Annual context 2014–2019Episode 2015–2016 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: weak CPU competitiveness constrained the company.

New possibility

Hypothesis: a credible high-performance roadmap could change competitive outcomes.

Alternative explanations

  • Graphics demand
  • Financing and balance-sheet changes
  • A broad semiconductor rally

Evidence gaps

  • Selected retrospectively, rather than discovered by a predeclared stock-universe screen.
  • Belief labels are interpretations, not a measured sentiment series or evidence of market consensus.
  • Daily adjusted prices, liquidity, transaction costs and exact entry or exit boundaries are not verified.
  • Related episodes can overlap and are not independent statistical observations.
  • The January 2017 results release is subsequent outcome evidence, not information available at the 2016 start.
Inspect the full dated evidence →

AMD · 2016–2017

AMD: better business results do not guarantee another immediate leg

Reset / reversal
Annual context 2014–2019Episode 2016–2017 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: successful launches could quickly validate the comeback.

New possibility

Hypothesis: execution progress needed to catch up with expectations already in the price.

Alternative explanations

  • Launch expectations already discounted
  • Graphics demand cyclicality

Evidence gaps

  • Selected retrospectively, rather than discovered by a predeclared stock-universe screen.
  • Belief labels are interpretations, not a measured sentiment series or evidence of market consensus.
  • Daily adjusted prices, liquidity, transaction costs and exact entry or exit boundaries are not verified.
  • Related episodes can overlap and are not independent statistical observations.
  • The original January 2018 release reported $43m 2017 net income; later revenue-standard restatements changed this. This case preserves the contemporary vintage.
Inspect the full dated evidence →

Belief descriptions are reconstructed unless the case explicitly identifies contemporary sentiment evidence. Annual charts may cover different dates and use different benchmarks. They must not be read as matched trade results.