▶ Полный текст поста
I want to lay out a case for SanDisk that I think is being overlooked, and I’ll grant upfront that the price target I arrive at is provocative. Working from the current weekly chart and extending the trend that has held since early 2025, the trajectory points toward roughly $126,198 by around November 16, 2027. I chose that figure deliberately, because it happens to be Bitcoin’s all-time high, and part of my argument is that the resemblance between the two is more than coincidence. From today’s \~$1,427, that implies something like an 87-fold gain, which I understand sounds unreasonable. I’d ask that you suspend that reaction long enough to consider the reasoning.
Begin with the comparison to Bitcoin, since it does most of the work. There’s a meaningful distinction that I think markets underappreciate: Bitcoin’s utility is largely self-referential. Its value derives from adoption and belief rather than from a physical function, and a good deal of its early transactional demand was, frankly, illicit. SanDisk is the opposite kind of asset. Its product is tangible and embedded in ordinary life: the storage in the device you’re reading this on, and the memory that AI data centers are currently consuming faster than the industry can supply it. That demand is real, capacity is on allocation, and margins reflect it, with gross margins reported in the high-70s percent range. There’s even a literal commodity floor, in that the connector contacts are gold-plated, so the physical product carries intrinsic material value in a way a purely digital asset cannot.
The pattern-matching is what convinced me, and I’ve put two charts above to make it concrete. In 2013 through 2017, Bitcoin traveled from roughly $40 to $2,400 while most observers dismissed it. SanDisk has just traced almost exactly that same path, from about $40 to $2,354, and is meeting the same skepticism, the same objections about it being overvalued or merely cyclical. When you overlay the two on a common scale, the shapes are strikingly similar; SanDisk simply appears to be moving through the same arc on a compressed timeline. If that analogy holds, the destination that follows is the same one Bitcoin reached.
I’d also point to the ownership picture, which I think is quietly favorable. The forced selling that pressured the stock earlier this summer came from a leveraged fund that has since had its position absorbed by Citadel, which removes a persistent overhang. The company is buying back a substantial amount of its own shares. And I’d argue the broader market hasn’t yet crowded into this the way it eventually will. The recognition that drives the later, steeper part of these moves simply hasn’t arrived. Earnings tomorrow after the close are the near-term catalyst, and implied volatility is elevated, pricing a large move in either direction.
I’ll acknowledge the obvious rebuttals. An 87-fold gain strains credulity, the trend-extension is naïve, a commodity semiconductor is cyclical and tends to revert rather than compound indefinitely. Those are fair points, and I don’t dismiss them. My argument is only that the same objections were raised, and proved wrong, at the analogous stage of the comparison I’m drawing. I could be mistaken, but the case seems to me stronger than the consensus reaction suggests, and I wanted to set it down clearly for others to weigh.
Positions: Yes
Disclaimer: Not an investment or anal advice. Your life choices are on you.