Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Buffett views bigtech's scale driven capex as a defensive moat. He says that dominant, well-capitalized incumbents playing this scale game are more likely to achieve ultimate long-term profitability than the lower-quality, speculative assets traditionally marketed to the public by Wall Street firms. A structural edge for independent long-term investors... show more

CapexAndChill

12,264 subscribers

53,981 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

David Gardner purchased Amazon stock in the late 90's for pennies (split-adjusted) and continued to hold after a 90% drawdown. His edge is his 6-pillar "Rule Breaker" selection framework: - Dominating an important, emerging industry. - Possessing a structural, long-term moat. - Buying momentum rather than bargains. - Placing a heavy emphasis on elite human capital. - Finding companies with cult-like product love and raving fans. - Actively targeting stocks that are mocked or called "grossly overvalued" by traditional Wall Street media. This qualitative approach exploits a major market inefficiency: "Most of the things that win in business are not actually on the financial statements... Who's running the company? That is incredibly important. How about the brand value of a company? Most of those are never expressed anywhere in the financial statements. The culture of the company, can it innovate? ...And we're living in a left-brain driven algorithmic world." $AMZN

CapexAndChill

22,917 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Wall Street just bought 775,000,000 XRP Wall Street quietly vacuumed up 775 million tokens while retail investors stayed distracted by short-term price wiggles and endless regulatory updates. This investigative breakdown exposes a massive structural shift happening beneath the surface of global finance, revealing how the underlying technology is moving from a speculative digital asset into the primary bridge for multi trillion dollar asset migration. As traditional banking plumbing gets quietly rebuilt for speed and settlement finality, institutional vaults are absorbing the circulating supply to lock in long-term control. Subscribe for more in depth crypto breakdowns as we track these institutional flows, automated market makers, and real time ledger upgrades before the broader public fully awakens to this technical evolution. #XRP #Ripple #CryptoNews

Wall Street just bought 775,000,000 XRP Wall Street quietly vacuumed up 775 million tokens while retail investors stayed distracted by short-term price wiggles and endless regulatory updates. This investigative breakdown exposes a massive structural shift happening beneath the surface of global finance, revealing how the underlying technology is moving from a speculative digital asset into the primary bridge for multi trillion dollar asset migration. As traditional banking plumbing gets quietly rebuilt for speed and settlement finality, institutional vaults are absorbing the circulating supply to lock in long-term control. Subscribe for more in depth crypto breakdowns as we track these institutional flows, automated market makers, and real time ledger upgrades before the broader public fully awakens to this technical evolution. #XRP #Ripple #CryptoNews

Cheeky Crypto

26,894 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Forrest Li on $SE's path to a $1T valuation hinges on transforming into an AI-centric organization, but the takeaway here is operating leverage rather than just hype. By automating ~80% of customer service inquiries and accelerating game asset production, $SE is targeting tangible margin expansion and a defensive logistics moat that pure-play competitors like TikTok struggle to replicate. The strategy signals a mature pivot from user acquisition to unit economic efficiency and long-term free cash flow growth. I love it!

Forrest Li on $SE's path to a $1T valuation hinges on transforming into an AI-centric organization, but the takeaway here is operating leverage rather than just hype. By automating ~80% of customer service inquiries and accelerating game asset production, $SE is targeting tangible margin expansion and a defensive logistics moat that pure-play competitors like TikTok struggle to replicate. The strategy signals a mature pivot from user acquisition to unit economic efficiency and long-term free cash flow growth. I love it!

CapexAndChill

14,593 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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

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

126,419 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Ukraine needs long-term security guarantees He added that the talks in Florida were productive, but more work is still required. According to him, the goal of the meeting was not just to achieve peace at any cost, but to preserve Ukraine as a sovereign state. However, final agreements on the contentious issues have not yet been reached, The Wall Street Journal reports.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Ukraine needs long-term security guarantees He added that the talks in Florida were productive, but more work is still required. According to him, the goal of the meeting was not just to achieve peace at any cost, but to preserve Ukraine as a sovereign state. However, final agreements on the contentious issues have not yet been reached, The Wall Street Journal reports.

NEXTA

39,339 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Warren Buffett just warned that some of the biggest names in AI might collapse soon. And he said it while revealing he had personally put $31 billion into one of them... Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are now laying out hundreds of billions in capex to stay in the AI race. Buffett called that real money, the kind that was never required back when software was cheap to run. He said these companies have no choice but to keep spending at this scale, because none of them can afford to be the one that blinks. In his own words, they are "playing a game they don't want to play." But the one AI company Buffett actually bought is Google. Berkshire now holds a stake worth more than $31 billion, and for weeks Wall Street assumed the credit belonged to Greg Abel, who took over as CEO in January and ran the position up on his watch. But Buffett admitted he "initiated" the investment. He usually never reveals who makes a call. The Google position already sits behind only Apple and American Express in Berkshire's stock portfolio, and last month Berkshire bought $10 billion of it directly from the company in a private placement. Then he undercut his own trade. When asked why he chose Alphabet over the rest of the Mag 7, Buffett said he does not even like it as much as four or five other businesses Berkshire already owns. He bought it the way he buys anything, as a good company available at a fair price. For years he waved off the Apple question by calling it a consumer company. This time he let the AI label on Google stand, and bought it anyway. Buffett also said the vast majority of what Wall Street pushes, on the order of 90 to 95%, is merchandising, because Wall Street only cares whether it can sell you something. He said he cannot remember the last research report that dug into the actual returns a business earns. Everyone fixates on next quarter instead. He also brought up IBM, which owned its market for decades until a rival offered its customers a better deal and its best business cracked. He brought up A&P, the biggest retailer in America in the 1930s, a company he said held a commanding position that later vanished completely. Buffett was describing the AI leaders as much as anyone: The most dominant company on Earth today is not promised to be dominant in ten years. So the most famous technology skeptic in investing put $31 billion into the AI trade and at the same time warned that the companies leading it are stuck in a war with no exit. What does Buffett see coming that the rest of the market doesn't?

Warren Buffett just warned that some of the biggest names in AI might collapse soon. And he said it while revealing he had personally put $31 billion into one of them... Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are now laying out hundreds of billions in capex to stay in the AI race. Buffett called that real money, the kind that was never required back when software was cheap to run. He said these companies have no choice but to keep spending at this scale, because none of them can afford to be the one that blinks. In his own words, they are "playing a game they don't want to play." But the one AI company Buffett actually bought is Google. Berkshire now holds a stake worth more than $31 billion, and for weeks Wall Street assumed the credit belonged to Greg Abel, who took over as CEO in January and ran the position up on his watch. But Buffett admitted he "initiated" the investment. He usually never reveals who makes a call. The Google position already sits behind only Apple and American Express in Berkshire's stock portfolio, and last month Berkshire bought $10 billion of it directly from the company in a private placement. Then he undercut his own trade. When asked why he chose Alphabet over the rest of the Mag 7, Buffett said he does not even like it as much as four or five other businesses Berkshire already owns. He bought it the way he buys anything, as a good company available at a fair price. For years he waved off the Apple question by calling it a consumer company. This time he let the AI label on Google stand, and bought it anyway. Buffett also said the vast majority of what Wall Street pushes, on the order of 90 to 95%, is merchandising, because Wall Street only cares whether it can sell you something. He said he cannot remember the last research report that dug into the actual returns a business earns. Everyone fixates on next quarter instead. He also brought up IBM, which owned its market for decades until a rival offered its customers a better deal and its best business cracked. He brought up A&P, the biggest retailer in America in the 1930s, a company he said held a commanding position that later vanished completely. Buffett was describing the AI leaders as much as anyone: The most dominant company on Earth today is not promised to be dominant in ten years. So the most famous technology skeptic in investing put $31 billion into the AI trade and at the same time warned that the companies leading it are stuck in a war with no exit. What does Buffett see coming that the rest of the market doesn't?

Ricardo

230,573 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.

Andrej Drats

31,461 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THIS IS THE MOST PRO-BITCOIN STATEMENT FROM LARRY FINK YET At the DealBook Summit, BlackRock’s CEO said his “thought process has evolved” on crypto, then proceeded to explain Bitcoin’s entire use case to a room full of Wall Street elites. He framed #Bitcoin as protection against physical insecurity, financial instability, and long-term debasement, and said the recent crash was driven by leveraged players, not fundamentals. Fink runs $13.5T and just positioned Bitcoin as a macro hedge, not a speculation. And when he blames the drawdown on leverage, he’s telling institutions the long-term thesis is intact. That’s the kind of language big money uses right before increasing their $BTC exposure. 🚀

THIS IS THE MOST PRO-BITCOIN STATEMENT FROM LARRY FINK YET At the DealBook Summit, BlackRock’s CEO said his “thought process has evolved” on crypto, then proceeded to explain Bitcoin’s entire use case to a room full of Wall Street elites. He framed #Bitcoin as protection against physical insecurity, financial instability, and long-term debasement, and said the recent crash was driven by leveraged players, not fundamentals. Fink runs $13.5T and just positioned Bitcoin as a macro hedge, not a speculation. And when he blames the drawdown on leverage, he’s telling institutions the long-term thesis is intact. That’s the kind of language big money uses right before increasing their $BTC exposure. 🚀

CryptosRus

103,209 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

$ONDS ERIC BROCK: THERE WILL BE LESS THAN 10 TRUE LONG-TERM WINNERS IN THESE MARKETS; THE MARKET CAPITALIZATION AND GLOBAL SCALE OF THESE WINNERS WILL BE MASSIVE I realize a lot of people out there interested in $ONDS are not traditional long-term investors; they are more so short-term traders or tourists trying to capitalize on an exciting, volatile name, and that’s perfectly fine. However, for the folks actually seeking to more deeply understand the long-term vision and opportunity for $ONDS, I highly encourage you to focus on what Eric Brock Eric Brock is saying in this video. I’ve outlined the key points for you below: 1. Massive fragmentation today: The drone and embedded autonomy market currently includes hundreds of companies, many operating at the technological edge, but lacking the scale, balance sheets, and operational maturity required for long-term success. 2. Industry consolidation ahead: Over the next 3–5 years, the market is expected to narrow to ~20 or fewer companies with the financial strength, execution capability, and investor backing necessary to scale. 3. Long-term winners will be few: Looking 10 years out, Brock anticipates fewer than 10 global-scale companies dominating the embedded drone and autonomy ecosystem. 4. Technology-driven markets: Future leaders will be technology companies, not commodity manufacturers. 5. Exceptional economics expected: Winning platforms are expected to deliver high margins, high ROC, and defensible, differentiated economic models. 6. Large total market opportunity: Brock emphasized that the sector represents a TAM measured in the tens of billions of dollars, potentially significantly more, as autonomous systems scale across defense, industrial, and infrastructure applications. 7. Significant market capitalization creation: As consolidation occurs within a large and expanding market, Brock expects substantial long-term market capitalization creation for the small number of scaled leaders. Eric Brock is not just saying these things; he is taking action to ensure $ONDS is one of those winners in the end. Full video linked here:

$ONDS ERIC BROCK: THERE WILL BE LESS THAN 10 TRUE LONG-TERM WINNERS IN THESE MARKETS; THE MARKET CAPITALIZATION AND GLOBAL SCALE OF THESE WINNERS WILL BE MASSIVE I realize a lot of people out there interested in $ONDS are not traditional long-term investors; they are more so short-term traders or tourists trying to capitalize on an exciting, volatile name, and that’s perfectly fine. However, for the folks actually seeking to more deeply understand the long-term vision and opportunity for $ONDS, I highly encourage you to focus on what Eric Brock Eric Brock is saying in this video. I’ve outlined the key points for you below: 1. Massive fragmentation today: The drone and embedded autonomy market currently includes hundreds of companies, many operating at the technological edge, but lacking the scale, balance sheets, and operational maturity required for long-term success. 2. Industry consolidation ahead: Over the next 3–5 years, the market is expected to narrow to ~20 or fewer companies with the financial strength, execution capability, and investor backing necessary to scale. 3. Long-term winners will be few: Looking 10 years out, Brock anticipates fewer than 10 global-scale companies dominating the embedded drone and autonomy ecosystem. 4. Technology-driven markets: Future leaders will be technology companies, not commodity manufacturers. 5. Exceptional economics expected: Winning platforms are expected to deliver high margins, high ROC, and defensible, differentiated economic models. 6. Large total market opportunity: Brock emphasized that the sector represents a TAM measured in the tens of billions of dollars, potentially significantly more, as autonomous systems scale across defense, industrial, and infrastructure applications. 7. Significant market capitalization creation: As consolidation occurs within a large and expanding market, Brock expects substantial long-term market capitalization creation for the small number of scaled leaders. Eric Brock is not just saying these things; he is taking action to ensure $ONDS is one of those winners in the end. Full video linked here:

Compound Interest Enjoyer 📈

54,048 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Sir Chris Hohn bought Moody's at $50. sold at $100. thought he was clever. bought it back at $150. it's now $400-500. "the intrinsic value compounding matters more than the stock price." "the multiple matters less than the growth when you look at it over a longer period." "most investors are unwilling or unable to invest on a long-term time horizon because they think it's risky. which goes back to what Warren Buffett said when asked for the definition of risk: not knowing what you're doing." applies to trading strategies the same way. the edge that compounds for 5 years will always beat the flashy backtest that blows up after 6 months. patience is the moat most people can't build.

Sir Chris Hohn bought Moody's at $50. sold at $100. thought he was clever. bought it back at $150. it's now $400-500. "the intrinsic value compounding matters more than the stock price." "the multiple matters less than the growth when you look at it over a longer period." "most investors are unwilling or unable to invest on a long-term time horizon because they think it's risky. which goes back to what Warren Buffett said when asked for the definition of risk: not knowing what you're doing." applies to trading strategies the same way. the edge that compounds for 5 years will always beat the flashy backtest that blows up after 6 months. patience is the moat most people can't build.

Goshawk Trades

83,773 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

#PranavAdani on Infrastructure and a $30 Trillion India At the #AgendaAajTak programme, Pranav Adani connected India’s renewable push with a much larger economic narrative. He argued that if India aims to become a $30 trillion economy by 2047, infrastructure—hard, long-term, capital-intensive infrastructure—will be one of the decisive factors. He explained that the #AdaniGroup does not plan only for the next one or two years. Instead, it thinks in 15–20 year cycles, aligning its investments with India’s long-term national goals. The Khavda solar development is one example of this long-horizon planning. Similar thinking is visible in ports, airports, city redevelopment and logistics networks. The goal is not just to participate in India’s growth, but to shape the backbone that will carry that growth for decades. #PranavAdani’s message at #AgendaAajTak was clear: if India wants to achieve its 2047 aspirations, it needs companies willing to build patiently, at scale and with generational intent. #India2047 #Infrastructure #LongTermThinking

#PranavAdani on Infrastructure and a $30 Trillion India At the #AgendaAajTak programme, Pranav Adani connected India’s renewable push with a much larger economic narrative. He argued that if India aims to become a $30 trillion economy by 2047, infrastructure—hard, long-term, capital-intensive infrastructure—will be one of the decisive factors. He explained that the #AdaniGroup does not plan only for the next one or two years. Instead, it thinks in 15–20 year cycles, aligning its investments with India’s long-term national goals. The Khavda solar development is one example of this long-horizon planning. Similar thinking is visible in ports, airports, city redevelopment and logistics networks. The goal is not just to participate in India’s growth, but to shape the backbone that will carry that growth for decades. #PranavAdani’s message at #AgendaAajTak was clear: if India wants to achieve its 2047 aspirations, it needs companies willing to build patiently, at scale and with generational intent. #India2047 #Infrastructure #LongTermThinking

Sheetal Chopra 🇮🇳

19,481 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

$BN sits on a massive secular tailwind right now. The global economy is rewiring itself. We are moving away from building basic roads and railways to building AI factories, data centers, and fiber networks. Bruce Flatt estimates this transition requires $10T in capital over the next decade. The demand is so high that there is a physical shortage of power, computing capacity, and semiconductor chips. This is a massive physical infrastructure buildout. Flatt notes that 50% of the private assets Brookfield owns today did not even exist as investable assets 15 years ago, and he expects that number to hit 75% in the near future. This shift creates a unique structural advantage for Brookfield. Historically, mega-cap tech companies paid for their own data centers in cash. However, Larry Fink points out that owning these physical assets drags down tech companies' equity returns. Now, these tech giants want to partner with firms like Brookfield. Brookfield builds and owns the massive data centers, and the tech giants sign 15 to 20-year leases. This gives Brookfield guaranteed, long-term cash flow backed by AAA-rated companies. Brookfield also has an impenetrable moat due to the sheer scale of these projects. The cost to build modern AI infrastructure has priced out almost everyone else. Fink claims that building a gigawatt data center now costs between $50B and $75 B. Regardless of the exact math, the barrier to entry is massive. Governments cannot afford it, and small firms cannot compete. This creates a K-shaped economy where massive capital allocators like Brookfield take all the market share.

$BN sits on a massive secular tailwind right now. The global economy is rewiring itself. We are moving away from building basic roads and railways to building AI factories, data centers, and fiber networks. Bruce Flatt estimates this transition requires $10T in capital over the next decade. The demand is so high that there is a physical shortage of power, computing capacity, and semiconductor chips. This is a massive physical infrastructure buildout. Flatt notes that 50% of the private assets Brookfield owns today did not even exist as investable assets 15 years ago, and he expects that number to hit 75% in the near future. This shift creates a unique structural advantage for Brookfield. Historically, mega-cap tech companies paid for their own data centers in cash. However, Larry Fink points out that owning these physical assets drags down tech companies' equity returns. Now, these tech giants want to partner with firms like Brookfield. Brookfield builds and owns the massive data centers, and the tech giants sign 15 to 20-year leases. This gives Brookfield guaranteed, long-term cash flow backed by AAA-rated companies. Brookfield also has an impenetrable moat due to the sheer scale of these projects. The cost to build modern AI infrastructure has priced out almost everyone else. Fink claims that building a gigawatt data center now costs between $50B and $75 B. Regardless of the exact math, the barrier to entry is massive. Governments cannot afford it, and small firms cannot compete. This creates a K-shaped economy where massive capital allocators like Brookfield take all the market share.

CapexAndChill

10,838 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Warren Buffett on why he ignores the financial statement Wall Street obsesses over: He shares an approach to analyzing companies that runs counter to how Wall Street typically evaluates businesses. "I spend more time looking at balance sheets than I do income statements. And Wall Street really doesn't pay much attention to balance sheets, but I like to look at balance sheets over an 8 or 10 year period before I even look at the income account." His reasoning comes down to one thing: reliability of the numbers. "There are certain things it's harder to hide or play games with on the balance sheet than you can with the income statement." But Buffett doesn't claim any single financial statement holds all the answers. Warren Buffett explains: "Neither one gives you the total answer on anything, but you still ought to understand what the figures are saying and what they don't say and what they can't say and what the management would like them to say that the auditors wouldn't like them to say." He concludes with a reminder of why this matters: "There's just a lot to be learned. And you do learn more from balance sheets in my view than most people give them credit for."

Warren Buffett on why he ignores the financial statement Wall Street obsesses over: He shares an approach to analyzing companies that runs counter to how Wall Street typically evaluates businesses. "I spend more time looking at balance sheets than I do income statements. And Wall Street really doesn't pay much attention to balance sheets, but I like to look at balance sheets over an 8 or 10 year period before I even look at the income account." His reasoning comes down to one thing: reliability of the numbers. "There are certain things it's harder to hide or play games with on the balance sheet than you can with the income statement." But Buffett doesn't claim any single financial statement holds all the answers. Warren Buffett explains: "Neither one gives you the total answer on anything, but you still ought to understand what the figures are saying and what they don't say and what they can't say and what the management would like them to say that the auditors wouldn't like them to say." He concludes with a reminder of why this matters: "There's just a lot to be learned. And you do learn more from balance sheets in my view than most people give them credit for."

Big Brain Business

21,940 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Ackamn noted that the market is heavily distracted by momentum and hype specifically regarding semiconductor/memory chips and new IPOs. This obsession drains attention and capital away from massive, highly profitable tech incumbents. Ackman named $META and $MSFT, noting that the market currently treats them as old-fashioned companies. This lack of excitement makes fundamentally dominant mega-caps "very cheap" on a relative basis compared to overvalued, hype-driven sectors. Even $NVDA has recently become a lot cheaper on a price to growth basis as the market continues to follow momentum.

Ackamn noted that the market is heavily distracted by momentum and hype specifically regarding semiconductor/memory chips and new IPOs. This obsession drains attention and capital away from massive, highly profitable tech incumbents. Ackman named $META and $MSFT, noting that the market currently treats them as old-fashioned companies. This lack of excitement makes fundamentally dominant mega-caps "very cheap" on a relative basis compared to overvalued, hype-driven sectors. Even $NVDA has recently become a lot cheaper on a price to growth basis as the market continues to follow momentum.

CapexAndChill

164,164 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"The authorities have completely lost control over the economy," — Igor Lipsits Igor Lipsits, an exiled Russian economist, argues the Russian economy is not a true market economy and is in a precarious state, characterized by a war-driven "mobilization economy" that relies heavily on state spending and is depleting long-term resources. He points to rising poverty and a severe budget deficit, which the government is trying to address through tax increases, while official figures of growth are misleadingly high due to factors like panic-driven inventory accumulation rather than genuine productivity. Key points from Igor Lipsits on the Russian economy: •Misleading official figures: He states that reported GDP growth is misleading, inflated by military spending and the accumulation of inventories by businesses afraid of supply chain disruptions, not by actual economic progress. •"Mobilization economy": The economy is shifting towards a wartime footing, with resources directed towards the military-industrial complex. This erodes the framework of a free market and sustainability for other sectors over time. •Budget crisis: The government faces a massive budget deficit, with military spending consuming a huge portion of the budget while tax revenues are falling and reserves are being depleted. •Strained private sector: Businesses are being squeezed by tax hikes and a lack of investment. Many industries are operating at a loss, and the government is taxing profits that don't exist. •Economic inequality: While the middle class is struggling, a segment of the population, particularly families of soldiers and those in stagnant regions, are experiencing a form of economic benefit from the war through increased payouts. •Negative long-term outlook: He warns that the current path is unsustainable and could lead to a full-scale industrial and financial crisis, as the economy is "eating itself" by consuming its remaining pre-war reserves and exhausting its resources.

"The authorities have completely lost control over the economy," — Igor Lipsits Igor Lipsits, an exiled Russian economist, argues the Russian economy is not a true market economy and is in a precarious state, characterized by a war-driven "mobilization economy" that relies heavily on state spending and is depleting long-term resources. He points to rising poverty and a severe budget deficit, which the government is trying to address through tax increases, while official figures of growth are misleadingly high due to factors like panic-driven inventory accumulation rather than genuine productivity. Key points from Igor Lipsits on the Russian economy: •Misleading official figures: He states that reported GDP growth is misleading, inflated by military spending and the accumulation of inventories by businesses afraid of supply chain disruptions, not by actual economic progress. •"Mobilization economy": The economy is shifting towards a wartime footing, with resources directed towards the military-industrial complex. This erodes the framework of a free market and sustainability for other sectors over time. •Budget crisis: The government faces a massive budget deficit, with military spending consuming a huge portion of the budget while tax revenues are falling and reserves are being depleted. •Strained private sector: Businesses are being squeezed by tax hikes and a lack of investment. Many industries are operating at a loss, and the government is taxing profits that don't exist. •Economic inequality: While the middle class is struggling, a segment of the population, particularly families of soldiers and those in stagnant regions, are experiencing a form of economic benefit from the war through increased payouts. •Negative long-term outlook: He warns that the current path is unsustainable and could lead to a full-scale industrial and financial crisis, as the economy is "eating itself" by consuming its remaining pre-war reserves and exhausting its resources.

Beefeater

18,351 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Sam Altman: “One of the few arbitrage opportunities left in the market is time” “I don’t think you can beat the market in a lot of ways, but the one way I do is by making a long-term commitment to something. My new belief on how long I should hold stock in the best companies I invest in is forever. And I think in a world where people are increasingly focused on the tick and the quarterly earnings cycle, you should try to go in the other direction. This is a great way to generate value and wealth.” Sam continues: “And so I think that when you’re thinking about a startup, it’s really worthwhile to think about something you’re willing to make a very long-term commitment to because that is where the current void in the market is. You get paid as a founder for the wealth you create for other people… The best companies just create massive amounts of value for the world, and then they capture some of that for themselves. But they capture far less than they create, and they do it over a very long period of time. So if you’re going to be one of those companies, I think you want to make a super long-term commitment to yourself and others that are going to work on it with you… It is worth waiting because you will make far more money over the long term by doing this company really well than a bunch of short term things along the way.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Sam Altman: “One of the few arbitrage opportunities left in the market is time” “I don’t think you can beat the market in a lot of ways, but the one way I do is by making a long-term commitment to something. My new belief on how long I should hold stock in the best companies I invest in is forever. And I think in a world where people are increasingly focused on the tick and the quarterly earnings cycle, you should try to go in the other direction. This is a great way to generate value and wealth.” Sam continues: “And so I think that when you’re thinking about a startup, it’s really worthwhile to think about something you’re willing to make a very long-term commitment to because that is where the current void in the market is. You get paid as a founder for the wealth you create for other people… The best companies just create massive amounts of value for the world, and then they capture some of that for themselves. But they capture far less than they create, and they do it over a very long period of time. So if you’re going to be one of those companies, I think you want to make a super long-term commitment to yourself and others that are going to work on it with you… It is worth waiting because you will make far more money over the long term by doing this company really well than a bunch of short term things along the way.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Startup Archive

49,283 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Robinhood CEO: Stock Tokens Will Be DeFi's Most Important Primitive On August 7, 2026, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev Vlad Tenev said on Future Investing that Robinhood Chain is the fastest-growing chain in history, reaching 100 million transactions faster than any other chain. He said stock tokens are among the most important underlying assets on the chain. Tenev noted that it took Robinhood years to reach $10 billion in trading volume, while the chain achieved the same in just weeks. He believes the chain's rapid growth is driven by a positive feedback loop between liquidity and trading volume, with major wallets integrating quickly and developer activity ranking among the top. He said this is a long-term game, and that continued TVL growth is what he is watching most closely.

Robinhood CEO: Stock Tokens Will Be DeFi's Most Important Primitive On August 7, 2026, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev Vlad Tenev said on Future Investing that Robinhood Chain is the fastest-growing chain in history, reaching 100 million transactions faster than any other chain. He said stock tokens are among the most important underlying assets on the chain. Tenev noted that it took Robinhood years to reach $10 billion in trading volume, while the chain achieved the same in just weeks. He believes the chain's rapid growth is driven by a positive feedback loop between liquidity and trading volume, with major wallets integrating quickly and developer activity ranking among the top. He said this is a long-term game, and that continued TVL growth is what he is watching most closely.

Wu Blockchain

20,701 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

🚨Ripple CEO WARNS Bitcoin’s Debt-Fueled Strategy Is HURTING Crypto — Says XRP Is Built For REAL Utility 🤯🔥 Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse went LIVE on CNBC, and WARNED that using leverage to buy MORE Bitcoin may create excitement on the way UP... But makes the selloff even WORSE on the way DOWN because leverage compounds losses. ⚠️ ❌ He says “financial engineering” DOES NOT create LONG-TERM value. Instead, long-term WINNERS will be the digital assets that solve REAL problems for REAL customers at scale like $XRP.🚀 Brad Garlinghouse added that Bitcoin has earned its place as digital gold... BUT 👉 $XRP is built for INSTITUTIONAL payments, speed and efficiency — NOT leverage. Brad Garlinghouse REVEALED Ripple processed OVER $16 TRILLION in payment and prime brokerage volume last year. 🤯 Yet he says ALMOST 0% of that volume currently moves through CRYPTO... 😳 Meaning the opportunity to bring TRILLIONS of traditional finance onto blockchain is STILL massive. 🔥

🚨Ripple CEO WARNS Bitcoin’s Debt-Fueled Strategy Is HURTING Crypto — Says XRP Is Built For REAL Utility 🤯🔥 Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse went LIVE on CNBC, and WARNED that using leverage to buy MORE Bitcoin may create excitement on the way UP... But makes the selloff even WORSE on the way DOWN because leverage compounds losses. ⚠️ ❌ He says “financial engineering” DOES NOT create LONG-TERM value. Instead, long-term WINNERS will be the digital assets that solve REAL problems for REAL customers at scale like $XRP.🚀 Brad Garlinghouse added that Bitcoin has earned its place as digital gold... BUT 👉 $XRP is built for INSTITUTIONAL payments, speed and efficiency — NOT leverage. Brad Garlinghouse REVEALED Ripple processed OVER $16 TRILLION in payment and prime brokerage volume last year. 🤯 Yet he says ALMOST 0% of that volume currently moves through CRYPTO... 😳 Meaning the opportunity to bring TRILLIONS of traditional finance onto blockchain is STILL massive. 🔥

Diana

17,289 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Warren Buffett on why having less money can be one of the biggest advantages in investing: When asked about the best period of his investing career, Warren Buffett pointed to his early years — not because he had more resources, but because he had far less capital to manage. "My best period was right after I met Ben Graham in early 1951. From the end of 1950 through the next 10 years, returns averaged about 50% a year... but I was working with a tiny tiny tiny amount of money." Buffett explained that he spent countless hours searching for overlooked opportunities, reviewing thousands of pages of company information by hand. "I went through the pages of the manuals page by page. I probably went through 20,000 pages in the Moody's industrial, transportation, banks and finance manuals. And I did it twice. I actually looked at every business." Because he was investing relatively small amounts, he could buy into tiny, deeply undervalued companies that would have been too insignificant for large investment firms. The result? He'd find one or two businesses he could put $10,000 or $15,000 into that were 'ridiculously cheap. As Buffett's capital grew, however, those opportunities became less meaningful. "As soon as you start getting the money up into the millions, many millions, the curve on expectable results falls off just dramatically." He argues that individual investors with small portfolios and a willingness to do the research can often access opportunities that are unavailable to large institutions. "If you're working with a small sum of money and you're really interested in the business and willing to do the work, there's no question in my mind. You will find some things that promise very large returns compared to what we will be able to deliver with large sums of money." Charlie Munger added that investors with limited capital should embrace areas of the market that large firms often ignore. "A brilliant man who can't get any money from other people and is working with a very small sum probably should work in very obscure stocks searching out unusual mispriced opportunities." Buffett also observed that many talented people on Wall Street choose a different path — not by seeking exceptional investment performance, but by managing other people's money. "Most smart people in Wall Street figure that they can make a lot more money, a lot easier, by getting an override on other people's money... the monetization of hope and greed is a way to make a huge amount of money." To illustrate the point, he recalled a friend with little investing success who was nevertheless planning to launch a large hedge fund. "If you looked at this fellow's schedule D on his 1040 for the last 20 years, you'd think he ought to be mowing lawns. But he may get his 125 million." Buffett concluded by arguing that, on Wall Street, marketing often earns more than investment skill. "The biggest money made in Wall Street in recent years has not been made by great performance, but has been made by great promotion." Source: Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting

Warren Buffett on why having less money can be one of the biggest advantages in investing: When asked about the best period of his investing career, Warren Buffett pointed to his early years — not because he had more resources, but because he had far less capital to manage. "My best period was right after I met Ben Graham in early 1951. From the end of 1950 through the next 10 years, returns averaged about 50% a year... but I was working with a tiny tiny tiny amount of money." Buffett explained that he spent countless hours searching for overlooked opportunities, reviewing thousands of pages of company information by hand. "I went through the pages of the manuals page by page. I probably went through 20,000 pages in the Moody's industrial, transportation, banks and finance manuals. And I did it twice. I actually looked at every business." Because he was investing relatively small amounts, he could buy into tiny, deeply undervalued companies that would have been too insignificant for large investment firms. The result? He'd find one or two businesses he could put $10,000 or $15,000 into that were 'ridiculously cheap. As Buffett's capital grew, however, those opportunities became less meaningful. "As soon as you start getting the money up into the millions, many millions, the curve on expectable results falls off just dramatically." He argues that individual investors with small portfolios and a willingness to do the research can often access opportunities that are unavailable to large institutions. "If you're working with a small sum of money and you're really interested in the business and willing to do the work, there's no question in my mind. You will find some things that promise very large returns compared to what we will be able to deliver with large sums of money." Charlie Munger added that investors with limited capital should embrace areas of the market that large firms often ignore. "A brilliant man who can't get any money from other people and is working with a very small sum probably should work in very obscure stocks searching out unusual mispriced opportunities." Buffett also observed that many talented people on Wall Street choose a different path — not by seeking exceptional investment performance, but by managing other people's money. "Most smart people in Wall Street figure that they can make a lot more money, a lot easier, by getting an override on other people's money... the monetization of hope and greed is a way to make a huge amount of money." To illustrate the point, he recalled a friend with little investing success who was nevertheless planning to launch a large hedge fund. "If you looked at this fellow's schedule D on his 1040 for the last 20 years, you'd think he ought to be mowing lawns. But he may get his 125 million." Buffett concluded by arguing that, on Wall Street, marketing often earns more than investment skill. "The biggest money made in Wall Street in recent years has not been made by great performance, but has been made by great promotion." Source: Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting

Black Edge

13,003 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat