I hope this isn't utterly incoherent.
IF I spend:
($4,000 ≥ x ≤ $10,000)
on $AMD Advanced Micro Devices;
AND 75% of that input is borrowed;
(-$3,000 ≥ x ≤ -$7,500)
THEN I will earn amplified negative profits (i.e. losses) in a worst-case scenario (eg., $AMD drops to $0 between now and the duration of my investment in $AMD).
//Assume I can afford to lose ≤ $10,000 without devastating myself or my debtors.
Realistic Wager:
IF computational power of (Weakest Vega Product) proves to be:
(Power of Weakest Vega Product) ≥ (Power of R9 Fury X)
WHILE, in terms of manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), (Weakest Vega Product) proves to be:
(R9 Fury X ≤ (Weakest Vega Product) ≤ GTX 1070) ≤ (GTX 1070)
THEN (Weakest Vega Product) will be, at minimum, AMD's most powerful GPU, WHILE being less expensive than the GTX 1070.
//therefore, it is likely to be purchased by, at minimum, historic AMD fans, miners of digital currencies, owners of FreeSync monitors, etc.
Realistic Wager:
IF the natural minimum value of $AMD is $15.55
//see 52 week peak
THEN, at its current value of $10.22, $AMD is discounted at a rate of 34.28%.
Assumption:
IF $AMD is unlikely to dip below:
Minimum Value of $AMD = ($9.01 ≤ ($AMD) ≤ $9.99)
//the absolute minimum of $AMD in the last month was $9.94, which it hit yesterday on 05/05/2017 (see 1 month trough)
//$AMD was last below $10 in December 2016
THEN $AMD is unlikely to dip significantly below $9.01 before it (Assumption) begins to rise again on Vega performance speculation/launch
All I'd like to know is if my math and logic are sound.
If indeed they are, I will invest ≤ $10,000 in $AMD before it (hopefully) recovers to $11.
(Also, I have read Rule #3. I am not asking for advice, I am asking a binary yes/no question about whether the above logic is sound.)
Submitted May 06, 2017 at 11:34PM by Magyarorszag http://ift.tt/2pTvaf7
