1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nvidia stock getting slaughtered...

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by littlepuppy, Nov 20, 2018.

  1. BubbySoup

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 22, 2003

    Posts: 2,698

    Location: Cardiff

    Yes, the case is well known. That wasn't the point I was making. Those kind of accidents would be happening in McDonalds all over the planet. The reason we have the wording on the cups is because McDonalds were sued in the States first, not anywhere else.
     
  2. Participant

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 30,234

    Location: Warwickshire

    Nvidia share prices are just an adjustment for the future mining value that was built in. No great drama and they're still a great proposition for investors.
     
  3. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 6, 2010

    Posts: 14,095

    And that's what's wrong with our society (or with America at the very least). There shouldn't be a need to label hot food or drink "hot" if people weren't brain-dead.

    The reality was that the lady accidentally drop the very hot drink on her lap due to her own carelessness on handling the hot drink, and yet being the entitled individual that they are, of course it is always someone else's fault and never their own, and blame someone else.

    They can literally walk down the street and trip themselves over, and try to sue the city or council for not laying the road right if they so wish to.
     
  4. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,863

    I'm surprised no one sued them over their old apple pies. But I'm not sure they even had those in the US :p
     
  5. ANDREW GREEN

    Gangster

    Joined: Sep 17, 2018

    Posts: 314

  6. Flake87

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 27, 2015

    Posts: 224


    I don't believe you are correct here. The problem is that NVidia claimed on several occasions, and in print that the collapse in crypto mining would not affect their business, and those claims have proven disastrously wrong. If you tell investors something which isn't true then there is a case to answer which involves supplying the market with misleading information.
    On the face of it, unless NVidia can come up with some alternative reasons as to why their stock was the worst performing in the S&P 500 index then they will lose this case, even if there is only a partial effect due to crypto collapse.
     
  7. ANDREW GREEN

    Gangster

    Joined: Sep 17, 2018

    Posts: 314

    Is there any legal precedence for a company to be sued by shareholders for overhyping their stock value? If not it's a legal test case and at best they're probably hoping Nvidia settle out of court.

    All Nvidia have to do is say "we were giving our best analysis of our expected sales forecasts from the data available at the time."

    Now it's obviously bollox that the drop of cryptomining wasn't going to make the GPU market worth less as a whole and anyone not selling GPU stock as soon as that news hit deserves whatever they got as an investor.
     
  8. Flake87

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 27, 2015

    Posts: 224

    Well, yesterday a fourth class action against the company was made, and there wouldn't be this many if the greedy weasels didn't see a chance of getting a payout.

    Here is a list of about 10 precedent cases from just one law firm!

    https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm-cases.html
     
  9. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    The "caution - hot" label is doubly-stupid. Firstly, everyone with a brain should know it's hot and it's redundant. But secondly, because it's inaccurate. The coffee wasn't merely hot. It was around 90C. The coffee burned through the outer layers of her skin to the fat. She required skin grafts and was in hospital for eight days. Nobody could or would drink anything that hot. You drink it around 40 lower than that.

    So the label serves no purpose because the real fault is McDonalds for serving food at insanely unsuitable temperatures. She was right to sue.
     
  10. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    On the other extreme, greedy weasels sounds like an apt description of these people!
     
  11. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,612

    They aren't overhyping their stock value but lying about their operations which result in the financial condition.

    Which is again a lie. Because there is nothing even remotely "best" in their analysis.
     
  12. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    See, that's where I question whether it's a lie. If they'd said "we can clear all our existing stock by Christmas" or something, then maybe you can sue them when they don't. But a statement that is effectively "we're great"... Well, who doesn't think they're great? If it's a lie, it's really not the same sort of lie I think you can sue over. That's what I don't get.
     
  13. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 6, 2010

    Posts: 14,095

    You do realise that hot water from even hot water kettle is at around 95C, so freshly made tea and coffee wouldn't be much cooler as they need water that hot to be properly made (or at least for the flavour to properly come out)?

    If the cup wasn't strong enough to withstand the heat and cause spillage because of it, then McD would be to blame; but if it was someone being careless and spill it onto himself/herself, it should not be the fault of the premise. If the woman really have a case for that incident, then it would be as stupid as telling bars and restaurant to stop allowing the use of metal cutlery and swap for plastic ones, as people can sue them if they drop the freakin knife on their own foot.
     
  14. Flake87

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 27, 2015

    Posts: 224

    If you were selling a bus service and said to customers in advertising "our bus service will not be affected by changes in the volume of traffic" and the first time traffic ground to a halt the bus was late it would be crystal clear you had not been telling the truth, and customers would be rightly upset, in fact it would fall under misrepresentation.

    If Nvidia say in interviews that they felt that business would be unaffected by market conditions then it wouldn't carry any weight, but this is not what happened. NVidia like other companies make public statement to the market and their shareholders, and those statements need to be an accurate reflection of the business. If you tell people you have some kind of magical mastery of the market you are in which defies logic, it doesn't matter whether common sense dictates it to be wrong, once you've said it you are comitted and can be held to the statements you have made. If you tell shareholders you can turn water into wine, or walk on water, and it turns out you can't, then it is clear as crystal you have mislead the market and the people who have invested in you are entitled to recompense.

    That is the basis of the legal claim.

    The defence is that factors other than the collapse in crypto mining has been the cause of the fall in profits, and that the statement that was given was correct and therefore not misleading.
     
  15. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,612

    Especially, when these customers hurry for their jobs, for instance, and some of them lose their jobs because of being late.
     
  16. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 6, 2010

    Posts: 14,095

    I don't think buying shares (a form of gambling) is the same as buying products and services.

    Companies make "sale pitch" to potential investors (I mean what company doesn't say what the investors want to hear?), and it should be the potential investors to analysis to decide for themselves where they should place their bet and if what the companies claim has any ground. Statements on what a company claims they could do do not have tangible way of measuring, unless figures and numbers are included in their claims alongside it.

    So unless Nvidia explicitly promised their investors that they 100% guarantee profit and 0% chance of losing money, I don't think the investors really have anyone to blame, but their own poor judgement. Investors want compensation when they lose money, but what about the time they gotten more money or hit higher target than originally promised? May be companies should get to keep the excessive profit and not have to give to shareholders when that happens then?

    The saying of "don't put all the eggs into one basket" exist for a reason, with the realistic expectation of the outcome of "you win some, you lose some", with the hope of the wins outweighing the losses. If every time a company loses money and they get sued by the investors because they don't do as well as they had hope for, then how is a company going to survive or get better when they have parasites trying to feed off their flesh when they are fighting to recover from injuries?

    Not defending Nvidia in anyway, but I think the sense of entitlement coming from investors in the stock market these days is just ridiculous. Investments back in the days is a form of gamble and everyone know the scores, but nowadays it seem that people don't want to take responsibility for their own poor judgement and just see the stock market as a guaranteed money-growing farm. Hell, even for a farm there's no guarantee that it will do well and grow indefinitely every year, and there's good year and bad year affected by various factors.
     
  17. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,612

    The investors could have sold their stock in the right moment. But if nvidia told them to hold, wait and see, then, the responsibility is nvidia's.
     
  18. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 6, 2010

    Posts: 14,095

    ...and the investors had the choice to think for themselves and decide what to do, including to not listen to Nvidia...
     
  19. Flake87

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 27, 2015

    Posts: 224


    Perhaps you could point us to the case law which supports this position? I posted about 20 different case law links which say the opposite. Might I ask your experience in this or is it a case of how you think things should be? No one normally has access to internal company management, and it is a criminal offence to use that information to make profits, called insider trading. The only information investors have is that which the company releases officialy, and they have a duty to make sure that information is accurate and not misleading.

    There are now 4 high powered US law firms taking class action against Nvidia, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the lawyers working for them know what they are doing, and they stand a pretty decent chance of a successful outcome - otherwise they wouldn't be in business. There is clearly a case to answer and the ball now rests in NVidias court.
     
  20. bru

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 21, 2002

    Posts: 6,834

    Location: kent

    Yup those lawyers can see a payday in their future that is the only reason they are jumping on the bandwagon.
    They have little to no interest in whether NVIDIA do well or badly at all they are just in it to make money.

    Bringing a case and wining a case are very different things.