◉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

1 shared pattern feature

An external event changes demand

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: NVIDIA (sustained rise) and Cisco (research candidate).
  • The documented business outcomes differ; business progress must be assessed separately from shareholder return.
  • The episodes use different time horizons and cannot establish the same investment window.
  • The episodes occurred in different calendar periods; market conditions are not controlled for.

Missing evidence

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

NVDA · 2023–2024

NVIDIA: generative AI changes the scale of demand

Verified rise
Annual context 2020–2025Episode 2023–2024 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: a cyclical GPU supplier with promising data-centre exposure.

New possibility

Hypothesis: a central infrastructure supplier for a major computing transition.

Alternative explanations

  • Market-wide technology recovery
  • Supply scarcity
  • Customer capital expenditure concentration

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.
Inspect the full dated evidence →

CSCO · 2000–2001

Cisco: enduring technology meets a customer-capex reversal

Documentary candidate
Annual context 2000–2005Episode 2000–2001 shaded

Prior belief

Hypothesis: internet demand could support prolonged exceptional equipment growth.

New possibility

Hypothesis: customers could sharply reduce spending despite the internet continuing to expand.

Alternative explanations

  • Telecom financing and macro conditions
  • Inventory planning errors

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.
  • This is a documented business reset, not a statistically matched control or a verified price-window label.
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.