Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Ackman’s core thesis for 2026 is exploiting market distraction. While capital rotates heavily into the 'AI race,' semiconductor manufacturers, and new IPOs like $SPCX, Pershing Square is taking concentrated, heavy positions in what the market currently dismisses as 'old tech'. Ackman argued the market is ignoring $MSFT and $AMZN's...

CapexAndChill's profile picture

CapexAndChill

11,112 subscribers

66,200 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

BILL ACKMAN: WE'RE BUYING AMAZON META & MICROSOFT BECAUSE THE MARKET IS DISTRACTED BY AI HYPE “PEOPLE HAVE SOLD OLD TECH… PEOPLE THINK OF MICROSOFT AS OLD TECH BUT WE THINK THEY ARE INCREDIBLY WELL POSITIONED FOR THE AI ERA”
1:18

BILL ACKMAN: WE'RE BUYING AMAZON META & MICROSOFT BECAUSE THE MARKET IS DISTRACTED BY AI HYPE “PEOPLE HAVE SOLD OLD TECH… PEOPLE THINK OF MICROSOFT AS OLD TECH BUT WE THINK THEY ARE INCREDIBLY WELL POSITIONED FOR THE AI ERA”

Vivek Sen

28,991 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

When asked about the ratio of successful bets to failures, Zuckerberg dismissed the concept of a "batting average" in tech creation. He argued that in creation, "the upside is almost infinite," meaning a single product reaching billions of users financially eclipses numerous failed, expensive hardware experiments. He said that Meta's company culture is "not very afraid of failure" and can "tolerate being ridiculed for long periods of time". Zuckerberg views expensive experimentation not as sunk costs or failures, but as the necessary "price of learning" in a market where you must build things physically to see if they work. For a long-term strategist, this means Meta's R&D budget will remain highly aggressive, and they are structurally insulated against short-term Wall Street pressure to pull back on currently unprofitable bets. $META
3:13

When asked about the ratio of successful bets to failures, Zuckerberg dismissed the concept of a "batting average" in tech creation. He argued that in creation, "the upside is almost infinite," meaning a single product reaching billions of users financially eclipses numerous failed, expensive hardware experiments. He said that Meta's company culture is "not very afraid of failure" and can "tolerate being ridiculed for long periods of time". Zuckerberg views expensive experimentation not as sunk costs or failures, but as the necessary "price of learning" in a market where you must build things physically to see if they work. For a long-term strategist, this means Meta's R&D budget will remain highly aggressive, and they are structurally insulated against short-term Wall Street pressure to pull back on currently unprofitable bets. $META

CapexAndChill

125,627 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

.Bill Ackman discussed why he believed $GOOGL (Alphabet) was undervalued and overlooked in his February 2024 interview with Lex Fridman. During the conversation, Ackman explained that concerns over Google's competitive position in AI caused the market to overreact, pushing down the stock price and creating a compelling buying opportunity. He argued that Google's AI capabilities were possibly stronger than what the market perceived, and the stock was trading at a valuation not seen in over a decade, making it a rare opportunity among the largest tech companies. $GOOGL up over 130% since this interview and nearing a $4T market cap taking some market share away from $NVDA as $META looking to buy their TPUs
5:41

.Bill Ackman discussed why he believed $GOOGL (Alphabet) was undervalued and overlooked in his February 2024 interview with Lex Fridman. During the conversation, Ackman explained that concerns over Google's competitive position in AI caused the market to overreact, pushing down the stock price and creating a compelling buying opportunity. He argued that Google's AI capabilities were possibly stronger than what the market perceived, and the stock was trading at a valuation not seen in over a decade, making it a rare opportunity among the largest tech companies. $GOOGL up over 130% since this interview and nearing a $4T market cap taking some market share away from $NVDA as $META looking to buy their TPUs

Ted Zhang

185,116 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Altimeter's Brad Gerstner and Gavin Baker argued that $SPCX SpaceX's AI compute business is scaling far faster than most investors expected. They believe the market is still underestimating the value of AI infrastructure, models, and orbital compute. Coming up right behind $AMZN AWS, $MSFT Azure, and $GOOGL Cloud?
5:12

Altimeter's Brad Gerstner and Gavin Baker argued that $SPCX SpaceX's AI compute business is scaling far faster than most investors expected. They believe the market is still underestimating the value of AI infrastructure, models, and orbital compute. Coming up right behind $AMZN AWS, $MSFT Azure, and $GOOGL Cloud?

Sam Badawi

16,157 görüntüleme • 19 gün önce

"SaaS was Software as a Service. I believe it's going to be service as software." General Catalyst's Madhu Namburi on the AI roll-up thesis. Services is a $20 trillion market.... multiple times the size of software. not the PE playbook of debt and cost-cutting. Venture is buying legacy companies and using AI to drive growth
0:45

"SaaS was Software as a Service. I believe it's going to be service as software." General Catalyst's Madhu Namburi on the AI roll-up thesis. Services is a $20 trillion market.... multiple times the size of software. not the PE playbook of debt and cost-cutting. Venture is buying legacy companies and using AI to drive growth

Deirdre Bosa

86,713 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🇺🇸🇮🇷 AI mania is completely masking the Iran war’s damage. Since the fighting started, the world’s biggest companies have gained $5.5T in market value… but it’s almost all AI. Semiconductor stocks (Nvidia + Broadcom) alone added $4.3T. Big Tech is rebounding hard because investors see it as “insulated” from the chaos. Meanwhile, airlines, supply chains, consumer spending, and old-school industries are getting wrecked by higher energy prices and disruption. The AI rally is so massive it’s making the stock market look great while the real economy quietly takes a beating. That's some high-tech smoke and mirrors if I'd ever seen one. Source: Financial Times (YT)
1:18

🇺🇸🇮🇷 AI mania is completely masking the Iran war’s damage. Since the fighting started, the world’s biggest companies have gained $5.5T in market value… but it’s almost all AI. Semiconductor stocks (Nvidia + Broadcom) alone added $4.3T. Big Tech is rebounding hard because investors see it as “insulated” from the chaos. Meanwhile, airlines, supply chains, consumer spending, and old-school industries are getting wrecked by higher energy prices and disruption. The AI rally is so massive it’s making the stock market look great while the real economy quietly takes a beating. That's some high-tech smoke and mirrors if I'd ever seen one. Source: Financial Times (YT)

Mario Nawfal

27,363 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Peter Thiel: “AI chips will get commoditized.” Yes, the value in AI has largely accrued to the semiconductor level so far amd concentrated largely in $NVDA. But this is bound to change. In chips, you can stay as a monopoly only if you have an exclusive partnership with the monopoly in a downstream market. This is how $INTC dominated CPUs for decades, by partnering up with $MSFT. We can’t see such a partnership in AI, industry dynamics don’t allow it: - Downstream market is fragmented. - Price/performance drives decisions. As a result, the more AI workloads shift to inference, the more fragmented the AI accelerator market will become as inference-specific chips or custom chips of hyperscalers will be used more. Yes, it looks like most of the value has accrued to $NVDA right now but it’s almost certainly not sustainable. This is why I don’t own it despite seemingly attractive valuation. Its base is already too high and it’ll certainly struggle to maintain it let alone grow.
1:42

Peter Thiel: “AI chips will get commoditized.” Yes, the value in AI has largely accrued to the semiconductor level so far amd concentrated largely in $NVDA. But this is bound to change. In chips, you can stay as a monopoly only if you have an exclusive partnership with the monopoly in a downstream market. This is how $INTC dominated CPUs for decades, by partnering up with $MSFT. We can’t see such a partnership in AI, industry dynamics don’t allow it: - Downstream market is fragmented. - Price/performance drives decisions. As a result, the more AI workloads shift to inference, the more fragmented the AI accelerator market will become as inference-specific chips or custom chips of hyperscalers will be used more. Yes, it looks like most of the value has accrued to $NVDA right now but it’s almost certainly not sustainable. This is why I don’t own it despite seemingly attractive valuation. Its base is already too high and it’ll certainly struggle to maintain it let alone grow.

Oguz Erkan

399,011 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

"He is the most transparent president in the nation's history!" -- Bondi is stammering as she attacks Democrats and tries to downplay Epstein as a distraction from the stock market
1:32

"He is the most transparent president in the nation's history!" -- Bondi is stammering as she attacks Democrats and tries to downplay Epstein as a distraction from the stock market

Aaron Rupar

216,282 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

$AMD will be a multi-trillion $ company. The AI accelerator TAM will exceed $1T by 2030, and the market will only keep growing. As Lisa Su says: “We’re in a market where you can think of computing as equating to intelligence. If you can get more intelligence, why wouldn’t you want more computing?” While big tech like $GOOGL with TPUs and $AMZN with Trainium are building their own ASICs, GPUs—especially $NVDA and $AMD —are expected to dominate, representing 70–75% of the AI accelerator market by the end of 2030.
0:48

$AMD will be a multi-trillion $ company. The AI accelerator TAM will exceed $1T by 2030, and the market will only keep growing. As Lisa Su says: “We’re in a market where you can think of computing as equating to intelligence. If you can get more intelligence, why wouldn’t you want more computing?” While big tech like $GOOGL with TPUs and $AMZN with Trainium are building their own ASICs, GPUs—especially $NVDA and $AMD —are expected to dominate, representing 70–75% of the AI accelerator market by the end of 2030.

Daniel

45,866 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

$MSFT is trading at a decade-low valuation because the market is focused on the near-term cost of AI while underpricing Microsoft’s role as one of the most important enterprise AI platforms in the world. The bigger shift is that Microsoft may move from only monetizing users to monetizing work where companies eventually pay not just for employee licenses but for the AI work being performed around each employee. That creates a ton of upside if Microsoft can monetize agents, tokens, workflows, security, governance and productivity across the enterprise stack in the new AI economy.
0:50

$MSFT is trading at a decade-low valuation because the market is focused on the near-term cost of AI while underpricing Microsoft’s role as one of the most important enterprise AI platforms in the world. The bigger shift is that Microsoft may move from only monetizing users to monetizing work where companies eventually pay not just for employee licenses but for the AI work being performed around each employee. That creates a ton of upside if Microsoft can monetize agents, tokens, workflows, security, governance and productivity across the enterprise stack in the new AI economy.

Shay Boloor

600,181 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

$ORCL is borrowing aggressively to build AI data centers for a customer base heavily tied to OpenAI and the market is starting to question whether Oracle can fund that buildout without $MSFT, $GOOGL, $AMZN or $META level cash generation. The upside is that OCI now has one of the largest AI backlogs in the market at ~$640B which gives Oracle a real shot at becoming the fourth major AI cloud platform if that demand converts into durable revenue. If cloud growth stays above 50% and customer prepayments ease the funding burden then this selloff could eventually look like the painful capital cycle before the harvest phase.
0:56

$ORCL is borrowing aggressively to build AI data centers for a customer base heavily tied to OpenAI and the market is starting to question whether Oracle can fund that buildout without $MSFT, $GOOGL, $AMZN or $META level cash generation. The upside is that OCI now has one of the largest AI backlogs in the market at ~$640B which gives Oracle a real shot at becoming the fourth major AI cloud platform if that demand converts into durable revenue. If cloud growth stays above 50% and customer prepayments ease the funding burden then this selloff could eventually look like the painful capital cycle before the harvest phase.

Shay Boloor

106,787 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

AI Is The Real Reason Why the U.S. Economy Isn’t in Recession AI spending, driven by Big Tech (primarily by $MSFT, $META, $AMZN, $GOOGL), has overtaken consumers as the biggest boost to U.S. GDP. Without it, growth would be near zero. In this short video, Sonu Varghese and I break down the numbers and why AI investment is now the economy’s main lifeline. Full episode: 📷 🎧
1:55

AI Is The Real Reason Why the U.S. Economy Isn’t in Recession AI spending, driven by Big Tech (primarily by $MSFT, $META, $AMZN, $GOOGL), has overtaken consumers as the biggest boost to U.S. GDP. Without it, growth would be near zero. In this short video, Sonu Varghese and I break down the numbers and why AI investment is now the economy’s main lifeline. Full episode: 📷 🎧

Ryan Detrick, CMT

25,556 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

We're in the “egg shortage” phase of the electricity market. AI is hungry for power, so prices rise. But higher prices invite new investment—and more generation. Give it time, and the market will hatch more watts.
1:12

We're in the “egg shortage” phase of the electricity market. AI is hungry for power, so prices rise. But higher prices invite new investment—and more generation. Give it time, and the market will hatch more watts.

Justin Wolfers

40,808 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Cloud capital versus AI - What DeepSeek’s spectacular success means for technofeudalism & the New Cold War DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, this week changed the global AI landscape, not to mention caused $1 trillion losses in the New York stock exchange and the NASDAC. In the process, it demonstrated the difference between cloud capital, which drives technofeudalism onward and upward, and AI-services, which were always a bubble waiting to burst. What remains to be seen is DeepSeek's impact on the New Cold War between the US and China which, from its beginning, was motivated by the clash between US and Chinese cloud capital. DeepSeek is China's response to OpenAI's ChatGPT. Its models perform as efficiently as their US counterparts. The difference is that DeepSeek is offered for free, making money only by selling services to developers - not to the public – at a fraction of the price OpenAI charges! The gist of DeepSeek’s arrival on the AI scene is a sudden transition from proprietary to open source technology. It is, therefore, no great wonder that, the moment DeekSeek became the most downloaded app on the Apple Store, it pulverised the market capitalisation of the, hitherto overinflated, US Big Tech companies. But how did this happen? How is a private commodity suddenly being offered for free? And does this mean that technofeudalism is in trouble? To begin with it is important to note AI was never a proprietary technology in itself. The underlying code has always been open source. What made AI quasi-private was the way these models were trained using huge amounts of privatised (that is stolen from us) data. A leaked Google memo in 2017, that was widely discussed in the industry at the time, but also widely refuted, explained: "If an open source LLM trained for a few million dollars outperforms the effectiveness of proprietary models... There will be no firewall to safeguard OpenAI either." DeepSeek pierced the US AI companies’ bubble by decommodifying the results of the model’s training, shifting them from behind a paywall to the public arena. Within days, developers around the world started building their own models on top of DeepSeek's. This is was the nightmare for US Big Tech's AI service providers who offered the results of prompts as a commodity, in the form of subscriptions. DeepSeek-type applications can now produce high-quality translations for free and, in so doing, undermine companies specialising in, for example, translation services, such as Germany's Deepl. In the broader scheme of things, this means that the morsels of cloud capital that Europe owns has lost its market value. Nevertheless, and this is a huge nevertheless, it is only AI-as-a-commodity that has lost its (grossly exaggerated) value. In sharp contrast, cloud capital utilised not as a commodity producing piece of tech but as produced means of behavioural modification is not at all threatened by companies like DeepSeek. And since technofeudalism is powered by cloud capital working that way, rather than commodity-like AI services of the ChaptGPT type, our technofeudal order is not threatened by competitors such as DeepSeek. To help understand the difference between cloud capital and AI-based commodified services it helps to compare and contrast Alexa and ChatGPT. Alexa is not offering you a commodified service. It is your free pretend-slave. Unlike ChatGPT you do not pay a subscription to Amazon for the right to order Alexa to order you milk or to switch off your lights. Instead, you train Alexa to train you to train it to know you so that it wins your trust with good recommendations so that it can modify your behaviour – ‘encourage’ you to buy a commodity from with Bezos retaining up to 40% of the price you pay (as a cloud rent). In short, the work that Alexa performs for you is not a commodity, unlike ChatGPT which works to sell you a commodity. In other words, ChatGPT is subject to market competition, to the likes of DeepSeek, but Alexa is not. This is why OpenAI, ChatGPT’s maker, is seriously damaged by the emergence of DeepSeek but Amazon is not. Thus, my basic point: Cloud capital is in a league of its own, beyond market competition from DeepSeek-like upstarts, because its power lies in its capacity to modify our behaviour and remove us from any market (e.g., to shift us from real markets to cloud fiefs like Amazon and Alibaba). In conclusion, cloud capital’s capacity to drive technofeudalism is not challenged by companies like DeepSeek. Only companies like OpenAI, which invested so much and so foolishly in providing a commodified service, stand to lose enormously. Yet another sign that capitalism is dead at the hand of cloud capital while technofeudalism is going from strength to strength and, as it does so, fuels even further the New Cold War between the US and China which in my book, Technofeudalism, I have explained away as the clash of the two huge concentrations of cloud capital: the American dollar-denominated super cloudalist power and the Chinese yuan-denominated one. Speaking of this New Cold War, which I have argued is mostly fuelled by the clash between American and Chinese cloud capital, I wonder what impact DeepSeek’s success will have on the US government. Silicon Valley and Washington DC had convinced themselves that America had a huge AI lead over China. Now, a tiny Chinese company has destroyed that confidence by producing on a shoestring better AI tech than Sillicon Valley had imagined possible. I can almost hear the whirring inside the heads of people in power on both America’s East and West Coast thinking that if the Chinese can do this out of the blue, what else can they do tomorrow? It is reminiscent of the Sputnik moment, isn’t it? It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to this threat to companies American AI companies, especially since Elon Musk understands, and has spoken out against, the folly of commodifying AI services rather than going full on technofeudal. These are interesting times, in the traditional Chinese sense of the phrase.
9:27

Cloud capital versus AI - What DeepSeek’s spectacular success means for technofeudalism & the New Cold War DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, this week changed the global AI landscape, not to mention caused $1 trillion losses in the New York stock exchange and the NASDAC. In the process, it demonstrated the difference between cloud capital, which drives technofeudalism onward and upward, and AI-services, which were always a bubble waiting to burst. What remains to be seen is DeepSeek's impact on the New Cold War between the US and China which, from its beginning, was motivated by the clash between US and Chinese cloud capital. DeepSeek is China's response to OpenAI's ChatGPT. Its models perform as efficiently as their US counterparts. The difference is that DeepSeek is offered for free, making money only by selling services to developers - not to the public – at a fraction of the price OpenAI charges! The gist of DeepSeek’s arrival on the AI scene is a sudden transition from proprietary to open source technology. It is, therefore, no great wonder that, the moment DeekSeek became the most downloaded app on the Apple Store, it pulverised the market capitalisation of the, hitherto overinflated, US Big Tech companies. But how did this happen? How is a private commodity suddenly being offered for free? And does this mean that technofeudalism is in trouble? To begin with it is important to note AI was never a proprietary technology in itself. The underlying code has always been open source. What made AI quasi-private was the way these models were trained using huge amounts of privatised (that is stolen from us) data. A leaked Google memo in 2017, that was widely discussed in the industry at the time, but also widely refuted, explained: "If an open source LLM trained for a few million dollars outperforms the effectiveness of proprietary models... There will be no firewall to safeguard OpenAI either." DeepSeek pierced the US AI companies’ bubble by decommodifying the results of the model’s training, shifting them from behind a paywall to the public arena. Within days, developers around the world started building their own models on top of DeepSeek's. This is was the nightmare for US Big Tech's AI service providers who offered the results of prompts as a commodity, in the form of subscriptions. DeepSeek-type applications can now produce high-quality translations for free and, in so doing, undermine companies specialising in, for example, translation services, such as Germany's Deepl. In the broader scheme of things, this means that the morsels of cloud capital that Europe owns has lost its market value. Nevertheless, and this is a huge nevertheless, it is only AI-as-a-commodity that has lost its (grossly exaggerated) value. In sharp contrast, cloud capital utilised not as a commodity producing piece of tech but as produced means of behavioural modification is not at all threatened by companies like DeepSeek. And since technofeudalism is powered by cloud capital working that way, rather than commodity-like AI services of the ChaptGPT type, our technofeudal order is not threatened by competitors such as DeepSeek. To help understand the difference between cloud capital and AI-based commodified services it helps to compare and contrast Alexa and ChatGPT. Alexa is not offering you a commodified service. It is your free pretend-slave. Unlike ChatGPT you do not pay a subscription to Amazon for the right to order Alexa to order you milk or to switch off your lights. Instead, you train Alexa to train you to train it to know you so that it wins your trust with good recommendations so that it can modify your behaviour – ‘encourage’ you to buy a commodity from with Bezos retaining up to 40% of the price you pay (as a cloud rent). In short, the work that Alexa performs for you is not a commodity, unlike ChatGPT which works to sell you a commodity. In other words, ChatGPT is subject to market competition, to the likes of DeepSeek, but Alexa is not. This is why OpenAI, ChatGPT’s maker, is seriously damaged by the emergence of DeepSeek but Amazon is not. Thus, my basic point: Cloud capital is in a league of its own, beyond market competition from DeepSeek-like upstarts, because its power lies in its capacity to modify our behaviour and remove us from any market (e.g., to shift us from real markets to cloud fiefs like Amazon and Alibaba). In conclusion, cloud capital’s capacity to drive technofeudalism is not challenged by companies like DeepSeek. Only companies like OpenAI, which invested so much and so foolishly in providing a commodified service, stand to lose enormously. Yet another sign that capitalism is dead at the hand of cloud capital while technofeudalism is going from strength to strength and, as it does so, fuels even further the New Cold War between the US and China which in my book, Technofeudalism, I have explained away as the clash of the two huge concentrations of cloud capital: the American dollar-denominated super cloudalist power and the Chinese yuan-denominated one. Speaking of this New Cold War, which I have argued is mostly fuelled by the clash between American and Chinese cloud capital, I wonder what impact DeepSeek’s success will have on the US government. Silicon Valley and Washington DC had convinced themselves that America had a huge AI lead over China. Now, a tiny Chinese company has destroyed that confidence by producing on a shoestring better AI tech than Sillicon Valley had imagined possible. I can almost hear the whirring inside the heads of people in power on both America’s East and West Coast thinking that if the Chinese can do this out of the blue, what else can they do tomorrow? It is reminiscent of the Sputnik moment, isn’t it? It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to this threat to companies American AI companies, especially since Elon Musk understands, and has spoken out against, the folly of commodifying AI services rather than going full on technofeudal. These are interesting times, in the traditional Chinese sense of the phrase.

Yanis Varoufakis

96,229 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

$AMZN at $250 is like $GOOGL at $200. • AWS grew 28% YoY in Q1 2026 — its fastest growth in 3+ years. • As AWS CEO Matt Garman said, AWS is growing faster in absolute dollars than $GOOGL Cloud and $MSFT Azure. • $AMZN owns 15% of Anthropic and 6% of OpenAI. The market is sleeping.
0:35

$AMZN at $250 is like $GOOGL at $200. • AWS grew 28% YoY in Q1 2026 — its fastest growth in 3+ years. • As AWS CEO Matt Garman said, AWS is growing faster in absolute dollars than $GOOGL Cloud and $MSFT Azure. • $AMZN owns 15% of Anthropic and 6% of OpenAI. The market is sleeping.

Daniel

29,050 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

Arthur Hayes: Selling Altcoins Because the AI Trade is About to Peak On June 13, 2026, Arthur Hayes Arthur Hayes stated in an interview with Cointelegraph that he had liquidated his altcoin positions, including HYPE, NEAR, and Worldcoin. Reflecting on his previous macro forecasts, he mentioned that current fiat liquidity did not flow into Bitcoin, but was instead entirely absorbed by the AI sector. Hayes believes the AI narrative is currently facing three problems: the vexing price of energy, the risk of US policy reversals, and the liquidity drain from the mega IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI. He expressed that it is not as if AI goes down 50%, people have capital to invest in Bitcoin; rather, Bitcoin would get "thrown out with the bathwater." Given these risks are present, he decided to exit.
2:18

Arthur Hayes: Selling Altcoins Because the AI Trade is About to Peak On June 13, 2026, Arthur Hayes Arthur Hayes stated in an interview with Cointelegraph that he had liquidated his altcoin positions, including HYPE, NEAR, and Worldcoin. Reflecting on his previous macro forecasts, he mentioned that current fiat liquidity did not flow into Bitcoin, but was instead entirely absorbed by the AI sector. Hayes believes the AI narrative is currently facing three problems: the vexing price of energy, the risk of US policy reversals, and the liquidity drain from the mega IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI. He expressed that it is not as if AI goes down 50%, people have capital to invest in Bitcoin; rather, Bitcoin would get "thrown out with the bathwater." Given these risks are present, he decided to exit.

Wu Blockchain

45,563 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

Hohn’s strategy essentially redefines quality as extreme resilience against substitution and competition over a multi-decade timeline. Hohn targets super-companies where physical, non-replicable assets create monopolistic barriers to entry, rendering executive talent largely irrelevant to the underlying cash flows. He deliberately avoids high-growth sectors vulnerable to disruption, viewing terminal value as the greatest source of alpha missed by short-term analysts. For instance, in infrastructure, he targets assets like cell towers, rail lines, and literal toll roads where tenancy ratios allow for near-100% margin expansion on zero-cost additions, and cash flow yields are contractually linked to inflation. In aerospace, his conviction is absolute. TCI's largest holding is $GE Aerospace. Hohn categorizes this as an unbreakable moat because the complexity of building aircraft engines has prevented any new market entrants in over 50 years. The true economic value, however, is not the engine itself, but the captive aftermarket spare parts and servicing ecosystem. Once an airline adopts an engine, the switching costs are effectively insurmountable, guaranteeing decades of highly predictable, high-margin revenue. Hohn’s view on moats is dynamic. He believes even the strongest moats can erode. In a definitive move in early 2026, TCI slashed a large portion of its $8B stake in $MSFT, which is a position held for nearly a decade. Hohn explicitly cited that the rapid advancement of Generative AI posed an existential risk to Microsoft's core Office and Azure moats, proving that he will mercilessly abandon a historically 'high quality' asset the moment technological disruption threatens its terminal value.
2:12

Hohn’s strategy essentially redefines quality as extreme resilience against substitution and competition over a multi-decade timeline. Hohn targets super-companies where physical, non-replicable assets create monopolistic barriers to entry, rendering executive talent largely irrelevant to the underlying cash flows. He deliberately avoids high-growth sectors vulnerable to disruption, viewing terminal value as the greatest source of alpha missed by short-term analysts. For instance, in infrastructure, he targets assets like cell towers, rail lines, and literal toll roads where tenancy ratios allow for near-100% margin expansion on zero-cost additions, and cash flow yields are contractually linked to inflation. In aerospace, his conviction is absolute. TCI's largest holding is $GE Aerospace. Hohn categorizes this as an unbreakable moat because the complexity of building aircraft engines has prevented any new market entrants in over 50 years. The true economic value, however, is not the engine itself, but the captive aftermarket spare parts and servicing ecosystem. Once an airline adopts an engine, the switching costs are effectively insurmountable, guaranteeing decades of highly predictable, high-margin revenue. Hohn’s view on moats is dynamic. He believes even the strongest moats can erode. In a definitive move in early 2026, TCI slashed a large portion of its $8B stake in $MSFT, which is a position held for nearly a decade. Hohn explicitly cited that the rapid advancement of Generative AI posed an existential risk to Microsoft's core Office and Azure moats, proving that he will mercilessly abandon a historically 'high quality' asset the moment technological disruption threatens its terminal value.

CapexAndChill

27,269 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

There is a massive misunderstanding about what $APP actually is, and the recent Adam Foroughi interview just handed investors as a class in capital allocation, efficiency, and strategic vertical integration. At its core, AppLovin isn’t solely an ad-network or a gaming business but an arbitrage engine. APP is essentially run by a skeleton crew of about ~400 core engineers and product builders generating $1.3B in cash flow a quarter. The gaming studio acquisitions were purely strategic. From roughly 2018 to 2023, APP bought up mobile gaming studios. It was accumulating over 15 studios and 1,500 headcount. This was not because they wanted to be a gaming company, but strictly to harvest first-party conversion data. They needed proprietary behavioral and return on ad spend data to train their Axon deep learning models because third-party advertisers wouldn't share it. Once the Axon 2.0 model launched in April 2023, it became so hyper-effective that the entire gaming industry had no choice but to plug in and share their data to access the platform's unparalleled returns. Having served its purpose, APP then shed the distraction, selling off the gaming portfolio to Tripledot Studios. This was pure strategic rent extraction. They used the asset to train the AI, built the moat, and immediately dumped the asset. Then there is the capital allocation execution. Back in 2022, when the broader market abandoned the stock and pushed APP's market cap to a floor of $3.8B, the business was still printing over $1 B in EBITDA. Instead of executing standard open-market share repurchases, management identified that their private equity backers and early insiders held nearly 50% of the float and eventually wanted liquidity. Management bypassed the public market entirely. They negotiated directly with those institutional holders to execute a massive $6 billion leveraged buyback. They effectively retired a huge portion of the company at rock-bottom valuations. Foroughi noted this singular move generated $50 to $60 B in retained value for remaining shareholders as the stock rebounded. While the rest of big tech hoards headcount, APP actively fired 40% of its workforce in recent years while growing revenue by nearly 100% YoY. The C-suite consists only of the CEO, CFO, CTO, and General Counsel. There is no CRO, no COO, and virtually no salesforce. They replaced standard enterprise bloat with LLMs. Over 80% of their codebase is now written by AI, multiplying the output of their highest-tier engineers up to 100x. The product nearly sells itself. Advertisers plug in, set a performance goal, and if the ROAS is positive, they scale spend infinitely. It turns advertisers into blind arbitrageurs. The TAM expansion is also clear. Now that the model has perfected gaming monetization, APP is unleashing Axon onto e-commerce and local SMBs. They don't need a massive sales team to do this. The AI matches the right intent with the right ad, pushing conversion rates up. The company literally has internal compensation triggers tied to a $1 T market cap. Given they have grown from under $4 B in 2022 to roughly ~$154 B in market cap today, betting against this lean, hyper-competent team does not make much sense.
7:31

There is a massive misunderstanding about what $APP actually is, and the recent Adam Foroughi interview just handed investors as a class in capital allocation, efficiency, and strategic vertical integration. At its core, AppLovin isn’t solely an ad-network or a gaming business but an arbitrage engine. APP is essentially run by a skeleton crew of about ~400 core engineers and product builders generating $1.3B in cash flow a quarter. The gaming studio acquisitions were purely strategic. From roughly 2018 to 2023, APP bought up mobile gaming studios. It was accumulating over 15 studios and 1,500 headcount. This was not because they wanted to be a gaming company, but strictly to harvest first-party conversion data. They needed proprietary behavioral and return on ad spend data to train their Axon deep learning models because third-party advertisers wouldn't share it. Once the Axon 2.0 model launched in April 2023, it became so hyper-effective that the entire gaming industry had no choice but to plug in and share their data to access the platform's unparalleled returns. Having served its purpose, APP then shed the distraction, selling off the gaming portfolio to Tripledot Studios. This was pure strategic rent extraction. They used the asset to train the AI, built the moat, and immediately dumped the asset. Then there is the capital allocation execution. Back in 2022, when the broader market abandoned the stock and pushed APP's market cap to a floor of $3.8B, the business was still printing over $1 B in EBITDA. Instead of executing standard open-market share repurchases, management identified that their private equity backers and early insiders held nearly 50% of the float and eventually wanted liquidity. Management bypassed the public market entirely. They negotiated directly with those institutional holders to execute a massive $6 billion leveraged buyback. They effectively retired a huge portion of the company at rock-bottom valuations. Foroughi noted this singular move generated $50 to $60 B in retained value for remaining shareholders as the stock rebounded. While the rest of big tech hoards headcount, APP actively fired 40% of its workforce in recent years while growing revenue by nearly 100% YoY. The C-suite consists only of the CEO, CFO, CTO, and General Counsel. There is no CRO, no COO, and virtually no salesforce. They replaced standard enterprise bloat with LLMs. Over 80% of their codebase is now written by AI, multiplying the output of their highest-tier engineers up to 100x. The product nearly sells itself. Advertisers plug in, set a performance goal, and if the ROAS is positive, they scale spend infinitely. It turns advertisers into blind arbitrageurs. The TAM expansion is also clear. Now that the model has perfected gaming monetization, APP is unleashing Axon onto e-commerce and local SMBs. They don't need a massive sales team to do this. The AI matches the right intent with the right ad, pushing conversion rates up. The company literally has internal compensation triggers tied to a $1 T market cap. Given they have grown from under $4 B in 2022 to roughly ~$154 B in market cap today, betting against this lean, hyper-competent team does not make much sense.

CapexAndChill

24,419 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

$AMZN $GOOGL $MSFT and $META all understand that the risk of underinvesting in AI Capex is significantly larger than overspending. 👏🏻
2:53

$AMZN $GOOGL $MSFT and $META all understand that the risk of underinvesting in AI Capex is significantly larger than overspending. 👏🏻

Daniel Newman

12,455 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Linus's views on AI: - “AI is clearly a bubble, but it will change how most skilled jobs get done.” - “Vibe coding is great for getting into programming, but it's a horrible thing to maintain.” - “I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the things around AI. I find the market and marketing to be sick. There is going to be a crash.”
1:59

Linus's views on AI: - “AI is clearly a bubble, but it will change how most skilled jobs get done.” - “Vibe coding is great for getting into programming, but it's a horrible thing to maintain.” - “I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the things around AI. I find the market and marketing to be sick. There is going to be a crash.”

Yuchen Jin

1,129,631 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce