Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Intel just pulled off the greatest corporate comeback since Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997. 12 months ago, Intel was dying. Stock at $19. CEO fired. Market cap collapsing. Analysts writing obituaries. But on Friday, it had its BEST day since 1987. Stock hit $82. Surpassed its dot-com...

Ric_RTP's profile picture

Ricardo

39,520 subscribers

66,658 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & TeknolojiFinans
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Intel: The collapse of America’s chip champion In 2007, Steve Jobs called Intel’s CEO with a proposal that could have changed the future of computing. Apple needed a new chip for an upcoming device called the iPhone. At the time, Intel’s CEO, Paul Otellini, reviewed the numbers and didn’t like what he saw. He didn’t believe the device would sell in the volumes required to justify building a custom chip. So he said no. Looking back, Otellini admitted he regretted the decision. He said his gut told him to take the deal, but he followed the numbers instead. The problem was that the forecast was wrong, and not just slightly wrong. It was off by a factor of 100. Apple chose to go with ARM-based chips instead, a completely different architecture from Intel’s. Since that fateful call, nearly 2 billion ARM chips have shipped in smartphones, while PC shipments during that same period totaled only about 250 million units. But that missed iPhone deal wasn’t even Intel’s biggest mistake. In 2000, Intel was worth over $500 billion and controlled 90% of the global PC market. Fast forward 25 years, and by November 2024, Intel was removed from the S&P 500 and replaced by Nvidia, a company that was once considered an afterthought. How does a company that dominant lose its edge? Was it leadership failures, market shifts, technological disruption, or something deeper? This is the rise and fall of Intel.
24:03

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Intel: The collapse of America’s chip champion In 2007, Steve Jobs called Intel’s CEO with a proposal that could have changed the future of computing. Apple needed a new chip for an upcoming device called the iPhone. At the time, Intel’s CEO, Paul Otellini, reviewed the numbers and didn’t like what he saw. He didn’t believe the device would sell in the volumes required to justify building a custom chip. So he said no. Looking back, Otellini admitted he regretted the decision. He said his gut told him to take the deal, but he followed the numbers instead. The problem was that the forecast was wrong, and not just slightly wrong. It was off by a factor of 100. Apple chose to go with ARM-based chips instead, a completely different architecture from Intel’s. Since that fateful call, nearly 2 billion ARM chips have shipped in smartphones, while PC shipments during that same period totaled only about 250 million units. But that missed iPhone deal wasn’t even Intel’s biggest mistake. In 2000, Intel was worth over $500 billion and controlled 90% of the global PC market. Fast forward 25 years, and by November 2024, Intel was removed from the S&P 500 and replaced by Nvidia, a company that was once considered an afterthought. How does a company that dominant lose its edge? Was it leadership failures, market shifts, technological disruption, or something deeper? This is the rise and fall of Intel.

Michael Girdley

33,571 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.
1:01

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.

Ricardo

159,113 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Trump got exposed for running the biggest insider trading operation in American history. Nancy Pelosi traded $5 million in stocks and Congress lost its mind. Trump literally executed $750 MILLION worth of stock trades in ONE quarter while being President. His ethics filing just dropped and the numbers are genuinely unprecedented in history: Between January and March 2026, Donald Trump personally executed 3,700 individual stock transactions worth between $220 million and $750 million. That's roughly 60 trades PER DAY. While signing executive orders, meeting foreign leaders, and making policy decisions that directly impact the companies he's buying and selling. Now here's where it gets really insane: On February 10, Trump bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of Dell stock. Three months later, on May 8, he stood at a Mother's Day event at the White House, thanked Michael Dell by name, and told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell." Dell stock surged 14.6% that day to an all-time high of $263.99. Since Trump's February purchase, Dell is up 96%. And 5 months BEFORE Trump bought Dell stock, Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to Trump Accounts, one of the largest philanthropic commitments to a sitting president's signature program in modern history. So the timeline goes: Dell donates $6.25 billion to Trump's program -> Trump buys Dell stock ->Trump tells America to buy Dell from the White House podium -> Stock hits all-time high And that's just ONE stock... The same filing shows Trump bought Nvidia stock on February 10. One week later, Nvidia announced a massive chip deal with Meta. He bought more Nvidia stock one week BEFORE his own Commerce Department approved the sale of Nvidia chips to Saudi Arabia. He bought Intel stock starting in March 2026. The US government already owned a 9.9% stake in Intel worth over $41 billion. On April 30, Trump posted on Truth Social praising Intel, writing that "Intel Stock continues to rise." Intel jumped 3% in after-hours and is now up 140% year-to-date. He bought Palantir stock while his administration was actively handing them billion-dollar government contracts for immigration enforcement and defense. He bought Robinhood stock while his own Trump Accounts program uses Robinhood as the broker. He's currently sitting on over 100% profit on AMD, Intel, Bloom Energy, Marvell Technology, and at least 10 other positions. Every single president since Lyndon B. Johnson has used a blind trust to avoid exactly this situation. But Trump didn't. His assets sit in a trust controlled by his own children, and the filings show a broker acted as agent on several trades. The White House says the portfolio is "independently managed." But here's what independently managed looks like: Buy Dell stock. Three months later, publicly endorse Dell from the White House. Stock hits all-time high. Buy Nvidia stock. One week later, your own government approves their chip sales. Stock rips. Buy Intel stock. Post about Intel on Truth Social. Stock jumps. The government you run already owns a 10% stake. Buy Palantir. Hand them contracts. Buy Robinhood. Route a federal program through their platform. Nancy Pelosi got absolutely destroyed for her husband's stock trades. Her husband's total disclosed trades in his most controversial year were worth roughly $5 million. Trump just disclosed up to $750 MILLION in a single quarter. While making the actual policy decisions that move these stocks. This isn't a left or right issue. We're talking about the President of the United States averaging 60 stock trades per day in companies his own administration regulates, contracts with, and publicly endorses. What do you think?
1:11

Trump got exposed for running the biggest insider trading operation in American history. Nancy Pelosi traded $5 million in stocks and Congress lost its mind. Trump literally executed $750 MILLION worth of stock trades in ONE quarter while being President. His ethics filing just dropped and the numbers are genuinely unprecedented in history: Between January and March 2026, Donald Trump personally executed 3,700 individual stock transactions worth between $220 million and $750 million. That's roughly 60 trades PER DAY. While signing executive orders, meeting foreign leaders, and making policy decisions that directly impact the companies he's buying and selling. Now here's where it gets really insane: On February 10, Trump bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of Dell stock. Three months later, on May 8, he stood at a Mother's Day event at the White House, thanked Michael Dell by name, and told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell." Dell stock surged 14.6% that day to an all-time high of $263.99. Since Trump's February purchase, Dell is up 96%. And 5 months BEFORE Trump bought Dell stock, Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to Trump Accounts, one of the largest philanthropic commitments to a sitting president's signature program in modern history. So the timeline goes: Dell donates $6.25 billion to Trump's program -> Trump buys Dell stock ->Trump tells America to buy Dell from the White House podium -> Stock hits all-time high And that's just ONE stock... The same filing shows Trump bought Nvidia stock on February 10. One week later, Nvidia announced a massive chip deal with Meta. He bought more Nvidia stock one week BEFORE his own Commerce Department approved the sale of Nvidia chips to Saudi Arabia. He bought Intel stock starting in March 2026. The US government already owned a 9.9% stake in Intel worth over $41 billion. On April 30, Trump posted on Truth Social praising Intel, writing that "Intel Stock continues to rise." Intel jumped 3% in after-hours and is now up 140% year-to-date. He bought Palantir stock while his administration was actively handing them billion-dollar government contracts for immigration enforcement and defense. He bought Robinhood stock while his own Trump Accounts program uses Robinhood as the broker. He's currently sitting on over 100% profit on AMD, Intel, Bloom Energy, Marvell Technology, and at least 10 other positions. Every single president since Lyndon B. Johnson has used a blind trust to avoid exactly this situation. But Trump didn't. His assets sit in a trust controlled by his own children, and the filings show a broker acted as agent on several trades. The White House says the portfolio is "independently managed." But here's what independently managed looks like: Buy Dell stock. Three months later, publicly endorse Dell from the White House. Stock hits all-time high. Buy Nvidia stock. One week later, your own government approves their chip sales. Stock rips. Buy Intel stock. Post about Intel on Truth Social. Stock jumps. The government you run already owns a 10% stake. Buy Palantir. Hand them contracts. Buy Robinhood. Route a federal program through their platform. Nancy Pelosi got absolutely destroyed for her husband's stock trades. Her husband's total disclosed trades in his most controversial year were worth roughly $5 million. Trump just disclosed up to $750 MILLION in a single quarter. While making the actual policy decisions that move these stocks. This isn't a left or right issue. We're talking about the President of the United States averaging 60 stock trades per day in companies his own administration regulates, contracts with, and publicly endorses. What do you think?

Teddy - PolyBackTest.com

20,148 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

Trump just got exposed for running the biggest insider trading operation in American history. Nancy Pelosi traded $5 million in stocks and Congress lost its mind. Trump literally executed $750 MILLION worth of stock trades in ONE quarter while being President. His ethics filing just dropped and the numbers are genuinely unprecedented in history: Between January and March 2026, Donald Trump personally executed 3,700 individual stock transactions worth between $220 million and $750 million. That's roughly 60 trades PER DAY. While signing executive orders, meeting foreign leaders, and making policy decisions that directly impact the companies he's buying and selling. Now here's where it gets really insane: On February 10, Trump bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of Dell stock. Three months later, on May 8, he stood at a Mother's Day event at the White House, thanked Michael Dell by name, and told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell." Dell stock surged 14.6% that day to an all-time high of $263.99. Since Trump's February purchase, Dell is up 96%. And 5 months BEFORE Trump bought Dell stock, Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to Trump Accounts, one of the largest philanthropic commitments to a sitting president's signature program in modern history. So the timeline goes: Dell donates $6.25 billion to Trump's program -> Trump buys Dell stock ->Trump tells America to buy Dell from the White House podium -> Stock hits all-time high And that's just ONE stock... The same filing shows Trump bought Nvidia stock on February 10. One week later, Nvidia announced a massive chip deal with Meta. He bought more Nvidia stock one week BEFORE his own Commerce Department approved the sale of Nvidia chips to Saudi Arabia. He bought Intel stock starting in March 2026. The US government already owned a 9.9% stake in Intel worth over $41 billion. On April 30, Trump posted on Truth Social praising Intel, writing that "Intel Stock continues to rise." Intel jumped 3% in after-hours and is now up 140% year-to-date. He bought Palantir stock while his administration was actively handing them billion-dollar government contracts for immigration enforcement and defense. He bought Robinhood stock while his own Trump Accounts program uses Robinhood as the broker. He's currently sitting on over 100% profit on AMD, Intel, Bloom Energy, Marvell Technology, and at least 10 other positions. Every single president since Lyndon B. Johnson has used a blind trust to avoid exactly this situation. But Trump didn't. His assets sit in a trust controlled by his own children, and the filings show a broker acted as agent on several trades. The White House says the portfolio is "independently managed." But here's what independently managed looks like: Buy Dell stock. Three months later, publicly endorse Dell from the White House. Stock hits all-time high. Buy Nvidia stock. One week later, your own government approves their chip sales. Stock rips. Buy Intel stock. Post about Intel on Truth Social. Stock jumps. The government you run already owns a 10% stake. Buy Palantir. Hand them contracts. Buy Robinhood. Route a federal program through their platform. Nancy Pelosi got absolutely destroyed for her husband's stock trades. Her husband's total disclosed trades in his most controversial year were worth roughly $5 million. Trump just disclosed up to $750 MILLION in a single quarter. While making the actual policy decisions that move these stocks. This isn't a left or right issue. We're talking about the President of the United States averaging 60 stock trades per day in companies his own administration regulates, contracts with, and publicly endorses. What do you think?
1:11

Trump just got exposed for running the biggest insider trading operation in American history. Nancy Pelosi traded $5 million in stocks and Congress lost its mind. Trump literally executed $750 MILLION worth of stock trades in ONE quarter while being President. His ethics filing just dropped and the numbers are genuinely unprecedented in history: Between January and March 2026, Donald Trump personally executed 3,700 individual stock transactions worth between $220 million and $750 million. That's roughly 60 trades PER DAY. While signing executive orders, meeting foreign leaders, and making policy decisions that directly impact the companies he's buying and selling. Now here's where it gets really insane: On February 10, Trump bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of Dell stock. Three months later, on May 8, he stood at a Mother's Day event at the White House, thanked Michael Dell by name, and told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell." Dell stock surged 14.6% that day to an all-time high of $263.99. Since Trump's February purchase, Dell is up 96%. And 5 months BEFORE Trump bought Dell stock, Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to Trump Accounts, one of the largest philanthropic commitments to a sitting president's signature program in modern history. So the timeline goes: Dell donates $6.25 billion to Trump's program -> Trump buys Dell stock ->Trump tells America to buy Dell from the White House podium -> Stock hits all-time high And that's just ONE stock... The same filing shows Trump bought Nvidia stock on February 10. One week later, Nvidia announced a massive chip deal with Meta. He bought more Nvidia stock one week BEFORE his own Commerce Department approved the sale of Nvidia chips to Saudi Arabia. He bought Intel stock starting in March 2026. The US government already owned a 9.9% stake in Intel worth over $41 billion. On April 30, Trump posted on Truth Social praising Intel, writing that "Intel Stock continues to rise." Intel jumped 3% in after-hours and is now up 140% year-to-date. He bought Palantir stock while his administration was actively handing them billion-dollar government contracts for immigration enforcement and defense. He bought Robinhood stock while his own Trump Accounts program uses Robinhood as the broker. He's currently sitting on over 100% profit on AMD, Intel, Bloom Energy, Marvell Technology, and at least 10 other positions. Every single president since Lyndon B. Johnson has used a blind trust to avoid exactly this situation. But Trump didn't. His assets sit in a trust controlled by his own children, and the filings show a broker acted as agent on several trades. The White House says the portfolio is "independently managed." But here's what independently managed looks like: Buy Dell stock. Three months later, publicly endorse Dell from the White House. Stock hits all-time high. Buy Nvidia stock. One week later, your own government approves their chip sales. Stock rips. Buy Intel stock. Post about Intel on Truth Social. Stock jumps. The government you run already owns a 10% stake. Buy Palantir. Hand them contracts. Buy Robinhood. Route a federal program through their platform. Nancy Pelosi got absolutely destroyed for her husband's stock trades. Her husband's total disclosed trades in his most controversial year were worth roughly $5 million. Trump just disclosed up to $750 MILLION in a single quarter. While making the actual policy decisions that move these stocks. This isn't a left or right issue. We're talking about the President of the United States averaging 60 stock trades per day in companies his own administration regulates, contracts with, and publicly endorses. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,092,397 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The Technology the World relies on was invented in America. We all remember “Intel Inside.” Stupid Presidents took our Economy for granted, and let Taiwan and others steal our Semiconductor Factories. They forgot to protect our Industries with TARIFFS. When I won my Second Term (Third, actually!), it was clear America needed its Semiconductor Industry to come back to the U.S.A. We design everything, but we need to BUILD it here, NOW! So I decided to help Intel because we need to design and build our Chips right here in America. First, we helped bring in Nvidia, and they agreed to build their first level Chips with Intel. Next, Elon agreed to build his TerraFab, the largest Chip Factory in the World, designed together with Intel’s Technology team. And, finally, Apple has agreed to work with Intel to design and build its Chips in America. We decided to help Intel in exchange for 10% of their shares. Is that too much or, too little? They were worth around 100 Billion Dollars when we made our offer. Now they are worth over 600 BILLION DOLLARS! Nine months, and they’ve increased in value over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. America’s stake is now over 60 Billion Dollars. When was the last time a President made America money?? Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP ( TS: Jun 18 2026, 12:29 AM ET )​​​‍​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​‌‍​​​‌‍​​​​​​‌‍​​​​‌‍​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​​‌‍
1:28

The Technology the World relies on was invented in America. We all remember “Intel Inside.” Stupid Presidents took our Economy for granted, and let Taiwan and others steal our Semiconductor Factories. They forgot to protect our Industries with TARIFFS. When I won my Second Term (Third, actually!), it was clear America needed its Semiconductor Industry to come back to the U.S.A. We design everything, but we need to BUILD it here, NOW! So I decided to help Intel because we need to design and build our Chips right here in America. First, we helped bring in Nvidia, and they agreed to build their first level Chips with Intel. Next, Elon agreed to build his TerraFab, the largest Chip Factory in the World, designed together with Intel’s Technology team. And, finally, Apple has agreed to work with Intel to design and build its Chips in America. We decided to help Intel in exchange for 10% of their shares. Is that too much or, too little? They were worth around 100 Billion Dollars when we made our offer. Now they are worth over 600 BILLION DOLLARS! Nine months, and they’ve increased in value over HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. America’s stake is now over 60 Billion Dollars. When was the last time a President made America money?? Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP ( TS: Jun 18 2026, 12:29 AM ET )​​​‍​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​‌‍​​​‌‍​​​​​​‌‍​​​​‌‍​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​​‌‍

Commentary Donald J. Trump Truth Social Posts On X

650,435 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

518,747 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

127,813 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.
2:08

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.

Ricardo

227,397 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

A man sold a website with no profits to Yahoo for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day. Yahoo thought it was the deal of the century. They shut it down three years later. – Mark Cuban grew up in Pittsburgh selling garbage bags door to door at 12 to afford basketball sneakers. – In 1995 he started a company called The idea was simple. Let people listen to out of town sports radio on the internet. That was the whole company. – In 1998 he took it public. On the first day of trading the stock jumped 250 percent. The company hit $1 BILLION in value. Cubans owned 30 percent of it. – They had 570,000 users. The company had never made a single dollar of profit. – Yahoo was in a war with AOL and Microsoft to become the dominant homepage of the internet. – They were spending BILLIONS buying anything that looked like the future. – On April 1 1999, April Fool's Day Yahoo bought for $5.7 BILLION. Cuban's personal share was $1.4 BILLION. – But Cuban was nervous. The dot-com bubble was clearly out of control. So he paid $20 MILLION in fees to Wall Street banks to lock in a guaranteed price on his Yahoo shares before the market crashed. – Six months later the bubble burst. Yahoo stock fell from $300 to $5 per share. Had he held on his $1.4 BILLION would have been worth $25 MILLION. – He walked away with every dollar. Wall Street called it one of the top ten trades of all time. – Yahoo shut down in 2002. Three years after paying $5.7 BILLION for it. – In 2017 Verizon bought all of Yahoo for $4.5 BILLION. Less than what Yahoo paid for Cuban's website alone. – Cuban used the money to buy the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and became one of the most famous investors on Shark Tank. A website with no profits sold for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day and shut down three years later.
0:40

A man sold a website with no profits to Yahoo for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day. Yahoo thought it was the deal of the century. They shut it down three years later. – Mark Cuban grew up in Pittsburgh selling garbage bags door to door at 12 to afford basketball sneakers. – In 1995 he started a company called The idea was simple. Let people listen to out of town sports radio on the internet. That was the whole company. – In 1998 he took it public. On the first day of trading the stock jumped 250 percent. The company hit $1 BILLION in value. Cubans owned 30 percent of it. – They had 570,000 users. The company had never made a single dollar of profit. – Yahoo was in a war with AOL and Microsoft to become the dominant homepage of the internet. – They were spending BILLIONS buying anything that looked like the future. – On April 1 1999, April Fool's Day Yahoo bought for $5.7 BILLION. Cuban's personal share was $1.4 BILLION. – But Cuban was nervous. The dot-com bubble was clearly out of control. So he paid $20 MILLION in fees to Wall Street banks to lock in a guaranteed price on his Yahoo shares before the market crashed. – Six months later the bubble burst. Yahoo stock fell from $300 to $5 per share. Had he held on his $1.4 BILLION would have been worth $25 MILLION. – He walked away with every dollar. Wall Street called it one of the top ten trades of all time. – Yahoo shut down in 2002. Three years after paying $5.7 BILLION for it. – In 2017 Verizon bought all of Yahoo for $4.5 BILLION. Less than what Yahoo paid for Cuban's website alone. – Cuban used the money to buy the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and became one of the most famous investors on Shark Tank. A website with no profits sold for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day and shut down three years later.

Aisar

1,077,498 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce

Is it all starting to make sense? Last evening, Tucker Carlson called Biden a wannabe dictator because the media, the Washington elites and the intel agencies all cover for him no matter how corrupt he is. During the 2020 election debates shortly after the Hunter Biden laptop was released, 50 intel officials quickly offered Biden a lifeline by calling the laptop Russian disinformation. It all turned out to be true. Here is the dictator playbook in this case: ✔️ The intel 'experts' falsely claimed the laptop was fake. ✔️ The media jumps on board instead of digging deeper. ✔️ The Washington Elites point at the media and say: "See? The laptop is fake!" And then to top it all off, Biden (who knows that the entire laptop is real) gets to reference the intel 'experts' during the presidential debate to get off scot-free. And how do the intel agencies respond when it's revealed that everything is true? They double down and try to cover it up. If this isn't dictatorial I don't know what is.
1:10

Is it all starting to make sense? Last evening, Tucker Carlson called Biden a wannabe dictator because the media, the Washington elites and the intel agencies all cover for him no matter how corrupt he is. During the 2020 election debates shortly after the Hunter Biden laptop was released, 50 intel officials quickly offered Biden a lifeline by calling the laptop Russian disinformation. It all turned out to be true. Here is the dictator playbook in this case: ✔️ The intel 'experts' falsely claimed the laptop was fake. ✔️ The media jumps on board instead of digging deeper. ✔️ The Washington Elites point at the media and say: "See? The laptop is fake!" And then to top it all off, Biden (who knows that the entire laptop is real) gets to reference the intel 'experts' during the presidential debate to get off scot-free. And how do the intel agencies respond when it's revealed that everything is true? They double down and try to cover it up. If this isn't dictatorial I don't know what is.

Collin Rugg

3,922,227 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.
7:21

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.

Insider Trackers

285,109 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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?
4:03

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

207,232 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:
1:51

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:

Stock Talk

39,791,007 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.
15:19

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.

Michael Girdley

234,645 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

OpenAI entered 2026 with the most insane revenue targets in corporate history. $30 billion in sales. Up from $13 billion in 2025. While LOSING $14 billion doing it. Let's understand this: OpenAI needed to convert from nonprofit to for-profit by December 31st, 2025 to unlock their $40 billion SoftBank funding. Miss that deadline? The round drops to $20 billion. And they made it. But here's the thing: The nonprofit STILL controls everything. They spent an entire year fighting to become for-profit, got sued by Elon Musk, pissed off California's attorney general, lost key employees over it. Then ended up basically right where they started. Except now the nonprofit has a $130 billion stake and Microsoft got $135 billion for 27% ownership. So OpenAI burned a year of political capital to give away $265 billion in equity while keeping the same power structure that almost destroyed them in 2023. The revenue math is absolutely deranged: To hit $30 billion in 2026, they need to more than double revenue in 12 months. No company in history has done this from a $13 billion base. Not even Nvidia. Not even ByteDance. OpenAI wants to go from $10B to $100B in 3 years. And the losses are worse: $14 billion in losses in 2026. Triple their 2025 burn. They've committed to: - $250 billion to Microsoft Azure - $38 billion to Amazon AWS - $1+ trillion in chip deals with Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom They won't be profitable until 2029. Maybe. But here's the part that makes this whole thing insane... They're not just competing anymore. Anthropic: Fully for-profit. On track for $15 billion revenue in 2026. AI insiders surveyed in December said they'd invest in Anthropic over OpenAI. Meta's pouring billions into Llama. Chinese models eating market share. And OpenAI still has to answer to a nonprofit board that can shut down AGI research whenever they decide it's not "benefiting humanity." The same board that fired Sam Altman in November 2023. The investors know this. That's why the $40B was contingent on conversion. When OpenAI reversed course and kept nonprofit control, they had to give the nonprofit a $130B stake. Basically: "You can keep control, but you better make us whole." What happens if they miss targets? The Azure commitment becomes a liability. The AWS deal gets renegotiated. The nonprofit board starts asking why they're burning billions while people die of preventable diseases. Investors start wondering if that $300B valuation was justified. OpenAI is betting they can: 1. More than double revenue annually for 3 years straight 2. Burn $44 billion doing it 3. Keep a nonprofit board happy 4. Fend off Anthropic, Meta, and Chinese competitors 5. Avoid another Sam Altman situation 6. Actually build AGI 7. Convince everyone it was worth it Nobody in history has pulled this off. We're 1 day into 2026. By December 31st, we'll know if OpenAI is the most ambitious company ever built or the biggest AI bubble in history. What are you betting on?
1:28

OpenAI entered 2026 with the most insane revenue targets in corporate history. $30 billion in sales. Up from $13 billion in 2025. While LOSING $14 billion doing it. Let's understand this: OpenAI needed to convert from nonprofit to for-profit by December 31st, 2025 to unlock their $40 billion SoftBank funding. Miss that deadline? The round drops to $20 billion. And they made it. But here's the thing: The nonprofit STILL controls everything. They spent an entire year fighting to become for-profit, got sued by Elon Musk, pissed off California's attorney general, lost key employees over it. Then ended up basically right where they started. Except now the nonprofit has a $130 billion stake and Microsoft got $135 billion for 27% ownership. So OpenAI burned a year of political capital to give away $265 billion in equity while keeping the same power structure that almost destroyed them in 2023. The revenue math is absolutely deranged: To hit $30 billion in 2026, they need to more than double revenue in 12 months. No company in history has done this from a $13 billion base. Not even Nvidia. Not even ByteDance. OpenAI wants to go from $10B to $100B in 3 years. And the losses are worse: $14 billion in losses in 2026. Triple their 2025 burn. They've committed to: - $250 billion to Microsoft Azure - $38 billion to Amazon AWS - $1+ trillion in chip deals with Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom They won't be profitable until 2029. Maybe. But here's the part that makes this whole thing insane... They're not just competing anymore. Anthropic: Fully for-profit. On track for $15 billion revenue in 2026. AI insiders surveyed in December said they'd invest in Anthropic over OpenAI. Meta's pouring billions into Llama. Chinese models eating market share. And OpenAI still has to answer to a nonprofit board that can shut down AGI research whenever they decide it's not "benefiting humanity." The same board that fired Sam Altman in November 2023. The investors know this. That's why the $40B was contingent on conversion. When OpenAI reversed course and kept nonprofit control, they had to give the nonprofit a $130B stake. Basically: "You can keep control, but you better make us whole." What happens if they miss targets? The Azure commitment becomes a liability. The AWS deal gets renegotiated. The nonprofit board starts asking why they're burning billions while people die of preventable diseases. Investors start wondering if that $300B valuation was justified. OpenAI is betting they can: 1. More than double revenue annually for 3 years straight 2. Burn $44 billion doing it 3. Keep a nonprofit board happy 4. Fend off Anthropic, Meta, and Chinese competitors 5. Avoid another Sam Altman situation 6. Actually build AGI 7. Convince everyone it was worth it Nobody in history has pulled this off. We're 1 day into 2026. By December 31st, we'll know if OpenAI is the most ambitious company ever built or the biggest AI bubble in history. What are you betting on?

Ricardo

97,607 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Lip-Bu Tan with Jim Cramer on Mad Money Key Updates: 18A Execution Intel’s 18A yield is improving around 7–8% per month, which Tan described as the industry-standard scale-up rate. Defect-density targets were also reached ahead of year-end, supporting confidence in Panther Lake volume shipments. Foundry Customer Momentum Tan said outside customers are now knocking on Intel’s door after seeing the progress on 18A yield and defect density. He also said Intel has multiple customers engaged on 14A, with a 0.5 PDK already available. 14A Roadmap For 14A, Intel is targeting risk production in 2028 and volume production in 2029, putting it on an equal timeline with TSMC. EMIB / Advanced Packaging EMIB (which he called the best) and advanced packaging may be much bigger than expected …potentially billions, not just hundreds of millions. Some customers are even prepaying to help Intel secure tight supply-chain materials. Customer Demand Demand is accelerating too. Tan said one customer wanted to triple its forecast, but Intel needs a few quarters to catch up. Government Support Tan also said he updates President Trump and Howard Lutnick from time to time, and credited their support for understanding the strategic importance of U.S.-based semiconductor R&D, manufacturing, and capacity. Bottom line: The market can argue over candles. But the actual Intel story is execution, customers, packaging demand, and U.S. strategic backing all moving in the same direction. We don’t own enough $INTC
13:13

Lip-Bu Tan with Jim Cramer on Mad Money Key Updates: 18A Execution Intel’s 18A yield is improving around 7–8% per month, which Tan described as the industry-standard scale-up rate. Defect-density targets were also reached ahead of year-end, supporting confidence in Panther Lake volume shipments. Foundry Customer Momentum Tan said outside customers are now knocking on Intel’s door after seeing the progress on 18A yield and defect density. He also said Intel has multiple customers engaged on 14A, with a 0.5 PDK already available. 14A Roadmap For 14A, Intel is targeting risk production in 2028 and volume production in 2029, putting it on an equal timeline with TSMC. EMIB / Advanced Packaging EMIB (which he called the best) and advanced packaging may be much bigger than expected …potentially billions, not just hundreds of millions. Some customers are even prepaying to help Intel secure tight supply-chain materials. Customer Demand Demand is accelerating too. Tan said one customer wanted to triple its forecast, but Intel needs a few quarters to catch up. Government Support Tan also said he updates President Trump and Howard Lutnick from time to time, and credited their support for understanding the strategic importance of U.S.-based semiconductor R&D, manufacturing, and capacity. Bottom line: The market can argue over candles. But the actual Intel story is execution, customers, packaging demand, and U.S. strategic backing all moving in the same direction. We don’t own enough $INTC

A2THEZ

34,705 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."
4:24

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."

Ti Morse

47,497 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

1996. Steve Jobs is asked on television what went wrong at Apple. He hasn't worked there in over a decade. Within a year, Apple will buy his company NeXT and bring him back. Within 18 months, he'll be running the place. He doesn't know that yet. Nobody does. At this point, he's running NeXT, a small software company, and Pixar, which just released Toy Story. Apple is falling apart. The stock is collapsing. The company has lost over a billion dollars. Its market share has dropped from 18% to around 4%. WIRED will put Apple's logo on its cover, wrapped in barbed wire, with the word "Pray." The interviewer asks Jobs what happened. His answer is one paragraph, and it's basically the entire turnaround strategy he'll execute a year later. He says when he left Apple ten years earlier, they were ten years ahead of everybody else. It took Microsoft a full decade to copy what Apple had built. But Apple stopped. "Even though it invested cumulatively billions in R&D, the output has not been there, and people have caught up with it." He says Apple's advantage over Microsoft has eroded. And then this: "The way out is not to slash and burn. It's to innovate. That's how Apple got to its glory, and I think that's how Apple could return to it." When Apple bought NeXT in December 1996 and brought Jobs back as an advisor, things got worse before they got better. By September 1997, Apple was about 90 days from running out of money. The board made Jobs the interim CEO. He cut 70% of the product line, but not to save money. He cut it so the remaining 30% could be great. He launched Think Different. He built the iMac. Then the iPod. Then iTunes. Then the iPhone. Then the iPad. Every single one of those products was the "innovate, don't slash and burn" philosophy from this interview, applied over and over for 14 years. He also says something in this interview that stands out. He says the most exciting thing in software is the internet, and the reason is "no one owns it. It's a free-for-all. It's much like the early days of the personal computer." He says if any one company gets a dominant position, "the rate of innovation is going to drop precipitously." He's talking about Microsoft. But he could be talking about 2026. Apple is worth about $3.7 trillion today. When this interview was filmed, Apple was worth about $3 billion and falling fast. Jobs walked back into Apple nine months later with no title, no authority, and the same diagnosis he gave on camera in this clip. Video: Steve Jobs Television Interview, 1996. Original broadcast footage.
3:40

1996. Steve Jobs is asked on television what went wrong at Apple. He hasn't worked there in over a decade. Within a year, Apple will buy his company NeXT and bring him back. Within 18 months, he'll be running the place. He doesn't know that yet. Nobody does. At this point, he's running NeXT, a small software company, and Pixar, which just released Toy Story. Apple is falling apart. The stock is collapsing. The company has lost over a billion dollars. Its market share has dropped from 18% to around 4%. WIRED will put Apple's logo on its cover, wrapped in barbed wire, with the word "Pray." The interviewer asks Jobs what happened. His answer is one paragraph, and it's basically the entire turnaround strategy he'll execute a year later. He says when he left Apple ten years earlier, they were ten years ahead of everybody else. It took Microsoft a full decade to copy what Apple had built. But Apple stopped. "Even though it invested cumulatively billions in R&D, the output has not been there, and people have caught up with it." He says Apple's advantage over Microsoft has eroded. And then this: "The way out is not to slash and burn. It's to innovate. That's how Apple got to its glory, and I think that's how Apple could return to it." When Apple bought NeXT in December 1996 and brought Jobs back as an advisor, things got worse before they got better. By September 1997, Apple was about 90 days from running out of money. The board made Jobs the interim CEO. He cut 70% of the product line, but not to save money. He cut it so the remaining 30% could be great. He launched Think Different. He built the iMac. Then the iPod. Then iTunes. Then the iPhone. Then the iPad. Every single one of those products was the "innovate, don't slash and burn" philosophy from this interview, applied over and over for 14 years. He also says something in this interview that stands out. He says the most exciting thing in software is the internet, and the reason is "no one owns it. It's a free-for-all. It's much like the early days of the personal computer." He says if any one company gets a dominant position, "the rate of innovation is going to drop precipitously." He's talking about Microsoft. But he could be talking about 2026. Apple is worth about $3.7 trillion today. When this interview was filmed, Apple was worth about $3 billion and falling fast. Jobs walked back into Apple nine months later with no title, no authority, and the same diagnosis he gave on camera in this clip. Video: Steve Jobs Television Interview, 1996. Original broadcast footage.

Anish Moonka

344,138 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Wall Street just pulled off the exact move that turned 2008 from a housing problem into a global collapse. They turned Nvidia graphics cards into bonds, stamped them investment grade, and started selling them into the funds that hold retirement money. Here is what happened while everyone was busy arguing about whether AI stocks were overvalued: The company at the center is CoreWeave, which rents out Nvidia chips to AI companies. To buy those chips, it borrows enormous sums, and the collateral on the loans is the chips themselves. That alone is alarming because a graphics card LOSES most of its value within a few years as the next generation makes it obsolete. You are lending against an asset built to rot. In January, Nvidia invested $2 billion straight into CoreWeave, which then used borrowed money to buy more Nvidia chips. On March 31, CoreWeave closed an $8.5 billion loan backed by its chips, and for the first time the rating agencies stamped that chip-backed debt investment grade, with Moody's assigning it an A3. Debt secured by depreciating graphics cards was rated nearly as SAFE as a blue-chip corporate bond. Then on May 18, CoreWeave closed the first chip-backed facility designed to be publicly syndicated and traded on secondary markets. And that's the part that really matters because it means this debt can now be sliced up, passed around, and bought by anyone, including the bond funds and pension managers who are required to hold "safe" investment-grade paper. On June 11, it announced another $3.5 billion in bonds on top of all of it. Now compare this to what happened in the past: Subprime mortgages in 2007 were not dangerous because some people got loans they couldn't repay... They became a global bomb the moment that debt got rated AAA and sold into the wider financial system, because the rating is what let it bleed into money market funds, pensions, and bank balance sheets that were supposed to be boring and safe. The bad loans were the spark but the packaging and rating were the detonator. And that detonator just got built for AI. Debt backed by graphics cards is now rated investment grade and trades on secondary markets, which means the AI bubble is no longer trapped inside tech stocks you can choose not to own. It has been quietly converted into bonds and routed toward the retirement accounts of people who have never typed a single prompt in their lives. And the whole structure rests on a backlog of customer "commitments" that CoreWeave values at nearly $100 BILLION, backed by a $21 billion Meta deal and a $6 billion Jane Street deal. Those are promises to pay over many years, made by AI companies that are themselves mostly unprofitable and burning cash. If even a few of those customers slow down or walk away, the collateral sitting under all this rated debt is a warehouse of chips losing value by the month. The AI bubble used to be a stock-market story you could opt out of. But as of this spring, that isn't the case anymore. So here's the real question: When the people packaging this debt swear to you that it's safe, who do you think is standing on the other side of that trade?
0:41

Wall Street just pulled off the exact move that turned 2008 from a housing problem into a global collapse. They turned Nvidia graphics cards into bonds, stamped them investment grade, and started selling them into the funds that hold retirement money. Here is what happened while everyone was busy arguing about whether AI stocks were overvalued: The company at the center is CoreWeave, which rents out Nvidia chips to AI companies. To buy those chips, it borrows enormous sums, and the collateral on the loans is the chips themselves. That alone is alarming because a graphics card LOSES most of its value within a few years as the next generation makes it obsolete. You are lending against an asset built to rot. In January, Nvidia invested $2 billion straight into CoreWeave, which then used borrowed money to buy more Nvidia chips. On March 31, CoreWeave closed an $8.5 billion loan backed by its chips, and for the first time the rating agencies stamped that chip-backed debt investment grade, with Moody's assigning it an A3. Debt secured by depreciating graphics cards was rated nearly as SAFE as a blue-chip corporate bond. Then on May 18, CoreWeave closed the first chip-backed facility designed to be publicly syndicated and traded on secondary markets. And that's the part that really matters because it means this debt can now be sliced up, passed around, and bought by anyone, including the bond funds and pension managers who are required to hold "safe" investment-grade paper. On June 11, it announced another $3.5 billion in bonds on top of all of it. Now compare this to what happened in the past: Subprime mortgages in 2007 were not dangerous because some people got loans they couldn't repay... They became a global bomb the moment that debt got rated AAA and sold into the wider financial system, because the rating is what let it bleed into money market funds, pensions, and bank balance sheets that were supposed to be boring and safe. The bad loans were the spark but the packaging and rating were the detonator. And that detonator just got built for AI. Debt backed by graphics cards is now rated investment grade and trades on secondary markets, which means the AI bubble is no longer trapped inside tech stocks you can choose not to own. It has been quietly converted into bonds and routed toward the retirement accounts of people who have never typed a single prompt in their lives. And the whole structure rests on a backlog of customer "commitments" that CoreWeave values at nearly $100 BILLION, backed by a $21 billion Meta deal and a $6 billion Jane Street deal. Those are promises to pay over many years, made by AI companies that are themselves mostly unprofitable and burning cash. If even a few of those customers slow down or walk away, the collateral sitting under all this rated debt is a warehouse of chips losing value by the month. The AI bubble used to be a stock-market story you could opt out of. But as of this spring, that isn't the case anymore. So here's the real question: When the people packaging this debt swear to you that it's safe, who do you think is standing on the other side of that trade?

Ricardo

211,268 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This clip with Bill O’Reilly is important. It lays out a few key things that most people don’t know or are overlooking: -the U.S. destroyed only 75% of Iran’s nuclear capacity in June -the threat level in Iran changed, Trump got that intel -then he got intel that all the government leaders were going to be in the same place at the same time -this was on the heels of weeks of negotiations where the Iranians basically said, “f*ck you, we’re not stopping” -O’Reilly spoke to the president privately one week before the strikes, and Trump’s mind was still very much on deal making. He didn’t want to strike unless he absolutely had to. You can disagree with all of this, and you think it’s foolish, but it’s important to not completely ignore facts and information just because they don’t hear it fit your conspiracy theories.
3:55

This clip with Bill O’Reilly is important. It lays out a few key things that most people don’t know or are overlooking: -the U.S. destroyed only 75% of Iran’s nuclear capacity in June -the threat level in Iran changed, Trump got that intel -then he got intel that all the government leaders were going to be in the same place at the same time -this was on the heels of weeks of negotiations where the Iranians basically said, “f*ck you, we’re not stopping” -O’Reilly spoke to the president privately one week before the strikes, and Trump’s mind was still very much on deal making. He didn’t want to strike unless he absolutely had to. You can disagree with all of this, and you think it’s foolish, but it’s important to not completely ignore facts and information just because they don’t hear it fit your conspiracy theories.

Natalie Jean Beisner

410,431 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce