Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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

47,514 subscribers

67,065 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & TechnologieFinanzen
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Intel had its own answer to Nvidia, and it was killed a week after he walked out the door. This is Pat Gelsinger, 34 years at Intel, on the project nobody remembers. At the height of Intel's strength on CPUs, they laughed at what Jensen was building. "When we were at the height of our strength on CPUs at Intel, we sort of scoffed at his machines. Right? Like, oh, it's a graphic machine. There's some gamers who want to use that kind of stuff. It was always the big CPU and those little GPUs." Nvidia did the unglamorous thing instead. They put a real software stack under it and made it slightly better every release, for years, while nobody scored them. "But when they started to build a real software stack with it... this CUDA thing and SIMT as a technology... And it just sort of kept getting a little bit better and a little bit better. And it was a little bit Jobs-like in that way. 'We're just making it better every release and it's becoming more robust.'" Nvidia did not see the payoff coming either. Somebody else found it for them. "And all of a sudden, the crazy Japanese HPC guys said, hey, we could take those graphics cards and maybe start using them in HPC. And that was defining moment where it wasn't just about doing graphics anymore..." Intel was not blind to any of it. Gelsinger had a project to do exactly the same thing with x86. "I had a project at Intel, Larrabee, where we were trying to take the x86 and essentially do the same thing." Then he left the company. "In my first departure from Intel, the project was killed a week after I left. And the world would have been so much different." He returned as CEO more than a decade later, to a company that had spent the interval handing money back to shareholders instead of building. "In the five years, five, six years before I came back, Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders. It hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there." Bookmark & watch:
1:55

Intel had its own answer to Nvidia, and it was killed a week after he walked out the door. This is Pat Gelsinger, 34 years at Intel, on the project nobody remembers. At the height of Intel's strength on CPUs, they laughed at what Jensen was building. "When we were at the height of our strength on CPUs at Intel, we sort of scoffed at his machines. Right? Like, oh, it's a graphic machine. There's some gamers who want to use that kind of stuff. It was always the big CPU and those little GPUs." Nvidia did the unglamorous thing instead. They put a real software stack under it and made it slightly better every release, for years, while nobody scored them. "But when they started to build a real software stack with it... this CUDA thing and SIMT as a technology... And it just sort of kept getting a little bit better and a little bit better. And it was a little bit Jobs-like in that way. 'We're just making it better every release and it's becoming more robust.'" Nvidia did not see the payoff coming either. Somebody else found it for them. "And all of a sudden, the crazy Japanese HPC guys said, hey, we could take those graphics cards and maybe start using them in HPC. And that was defining moment where it wasn't just about doing graphics anymore..." Intel was not blind to any of it. Gelsinger had a project to do exactly the same thing with x86. "I had a project at Intel, Larrabee, where we were trying to take the x86 and essentially do the same thing." Then he left the company. "In my first departure from Intel, the project was killed a week after I left. And the world would have been so much different." He returned as CEO more than a decade later, to a company that had spent the interval handing money back to shareholders instead of building. "In the five years, five, six years before I came back, Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders. It hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there." Bookmark & watch:

Fireside Alpha

35,296 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Do you not have a personal stock portfolio Jon Herold ???? Do you not get the notices in the mail that ask if you’d prefer to receive a dividend check from your quarterly or yearly investment earnings…..or if you’d prefer to just reinvest those earnings?? President Donald J. Trump & Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have told us for literally MONTHS how well our Intel stock was doing…..& they reiterated it last night to let us know the investment was worth 5x the purchase price. We are simply getting a small dividend check instead of reinvesting this quarter’s earnings. How is that so hard to understand? On the deal with Intel: "President Trump is going to be the ONLY president in modern times that has created assets for the American people instead of debt." “President Trump has made America $30-$40 BILLION DOLLARS through his deal with Intel. I was in the Oval when he told the CEO of Intel that he would like a 10% stake. The CEO turned it over, & the US government's made between $30 & $40 billion on that…..he is working for the American people every day!" — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent X22 Report
4:26

Do you not have a personal stock portfolio Jon Herold ???? Do you not get the notices in the mail that ask if you’d prefer to receive a dividend check from your quarterly or yearly investment earnings…..or if you’d prefer to just reinvest those earnings?? President Donald J. Trump & Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have told us for literally MONTHS how well our Intel stock was doing…..& they reiterated it last night to let us know the investment was worth 5x the purchase price. We are simply getting a small dividend check instead of reinvesting this quarter’s earnings. How is that so hard to understand? On the deal with Intel: "President Trump is going to be the ONLY president in modern times that has created assets for the American people instead of debt." “President Trump has made America $30-$40 BILLION DOLLARS through his deal with Intel. I was in the Oval when he told the CEO of Intel that he would like a 10% stake. The CEO turned it over, & the US government's made between $30 & $40 billion on that…..he is working for the American people every day!" — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent X22 Report

Karma Patriot

29,338 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

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 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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

162,447 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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

21,594 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

2,101,015 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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

651,333 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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

154,426 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

228,416 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

1,078,245 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...
0:48

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...

Ricardo

364,665 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Carl Icahn called Tim Cook and told him Apple was massively undervalued at 8x earnings, then pushed him to buy back $100 billion of stock. Apple is up more than 12x since. This is Icahn on the call he made when the rest of Wall Street had a great company priced like a dying one, and why he put everything behind it. Apple was throwing off cash and dominating its market, yet it traded at a multiple usually reserved for companies in decline. Icahn's read was that the market had it exactly backwards, and he wanted the company to use its enormous cash pile to buy its own stock while it was still cheap. "If they did a Dutch tender, I could say as much as $100 billion. I think this would really change the whole paradigm." He had not sent the letter cold. By his own account he called Cook first, and even the CEO agreed. "I called him and I told him this letter was coming. He thinks it's very undervalued." And he sized the position the way he had sized every conviction of his career. "As an old poker player, I put all my chips into this." The mutual funds that were too scared to own Apple eventually had to. It compounded for another decade, and the man who called it cheap at 8x earnings was proven right many times over. Bookmark & watch ↓
31:32

Carl Icahn called Tim Cook and told him Apple was massively undervalued at 8x earnings, then pushed him to buy back $100 billion of stock. Apple is up more than 12x since. This is Icahn on the call he made when the rest of Wall Street had a great company priced like a dying one, and why he put everything behind it. Apple was throwing off cash and dominating its market, yet it traded at a multiple usually reserved for companies in decline. Icahn's read was that the market had it exactly backwards, and he wanted the company to use its enormous cash pile to buy its own stock while it was still cheap. "If they did a Dutch tender, I could say as much as $100 billion. I think this would really change the whole paradigm." He had not sent the letter cold. By his own account he called Cook first, and even the CEO agreed. "I called him and I told him this letter was coming. He thinks it's very undervalued." And he sized the position the way he had sized every conviction of his career. "As an old poker player, I put all my chips into this." The mutual funds that were too scared to own Apple eventually had to. It compounded for another decade, and the man who called it cheap at 8x earnings was proven right many times over. Bookmark & watch ↓

Fireside Tapes

55,772 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Former Intel CEO explains what broke the company: We let the bean counters push out the technologists @jason: “You spent a long time at Intel, 34 years. Probably one of the greatest American companies ever, and then absolutely went off the rails. What were the mistakes?” Pat Gelsinger: “I remember when I joined the executive staff for the first time, probably 15 of the 20 people that were in the room were PhDs. It was just that technical. One of the things that went off the rails was when it started to be run by business people, as opposed to technical people.” Jason: “The bean counters, the finance people.” Pat Gelsinger: “Yeah. In the 5-6 years before I came back, Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders (in dividends and buybacks). What I wouldn't have done for another $100 billion. (Intel) hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there. It's like, how can you not be building? How could you not buy EUV machines? There's just all of these things that you would only do as a technologist because the economics behind them by themselves were not good. If you look at the great technology companies today, they're deeply technical… And when you're making these hardcore technical decisions that affect billions of dollars, you don't do that through a spreadsheet.” --------------------------- Thanks to our partners for making this possible! Airwallex is a leading global payments and financial platform for modern businesses, offering trusted solutions to manage everything from business accounts, payments, treasury, and spend management to embedded finance. If your work depends on conversations — meetings, deal flow, interviews, customer calls — Plaud helps you capture and organize everything with highly accurate AI-generated notes that are not just simple summaries, but also highlight pain points, key decisions, next steps, and customizable summary templates. Check out Plaud at and use code ALLIN for up to 20% off! Which is also available on Amazon: (Code: ALLIN20X)
1:15

Former Intel CEO explains what broke the company: We let the bean counters push out the technologists @jason: “You spent a long time at Intel, 34 years. Probably one of the greatest American companies ever, and then absolutely went off the rails. What were the mistakes?” Pat Gelsinger: “I remember when I joined the executive staff for the first time, probably 15 of the 20 people that were in the room were PhDs. It was just that technical. One of the things that went off the rails was when it started to be run by business people, as opposed to technical people.” Jason: “The bean counters, the finance people.” Pat Gelsinger: “Yeah. In the 5-6 years before I came back, Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders (in dividends and buybacks). What I wouldn't have done for another $100 billion. (Intel) hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there. It's like, how can you not be building? How could you not buy EUV machines? There's just all of these things that you would only do as a technologist because the economics behind them by themselves were not good. If you look at the great technology companies today, they're deeply technical… And when you're making these hardcore technical decisions that affect billions of dollars, you don't do that through a spreadsheet.” --------------------------- Thanks to our partners for making this possible! Airwallex is a leading global payments and financial platform for modern businesses, offering trusted solutions to manage everything from business accounts, payments, treasury, and spend management to embedded finance. If your work depends on conversations — meetings, deal flow, interviews, customer calls — Plaud helps you capture and organize everything with highly accurate AI-generated notes that are not just simple summaries, but also highlight pain points, key decisions, next steps, and customizable summary templates. Check out Plaud at and use code ALLIN for up to 20% off! Which is also available on Amazon: (Code: ALLIN20X)

The All-In Podcast

36,121 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Warren Buffett just poured $31 BILLION into a stock he swore off for decades. He refused to touch a single tech company for 60 years. Now he's admitting it was his biggest regret. Here is why he finally changed his mind: For decades, Buffett had one simple rule: Only buy businesses you understand, at a fair price. Tech never fit. It moved too fast and was too easy to lose money in. He watched Google go from startup to over $2 trillion and never bought in. He called it one of his biggest mistakes ever. Then something changed: In late 2025, Berkshire quietly started buying Alphabet shares. Alphabet is the company that owns Google, YouTube, and Google Cloud. By mid 2026, the stake had exploded. On June 1, Alphabet raised $80 billion to build AI data centers. Buffett put in $10 billion of it directly. Today Alphabet is one of Berkshire's five largest positions, worth about $31 billion. On July 15, Buffett went on live TV and admitted it was his idea, not his successor's. So why did the man who avoids tech finally break his own rule? > The numbers. In April, Alphabet reported earnings that stunned Wall Street: > Profit per share came in at $5.11 > Analysts expected $2.63 > Revenue hit $109.9 billion, up nearly 22% in a year. > Google Cloud grew 63%. > Its backlog of future cloud orders reached $460 billion. That is real money coming in the door. But here's the part people missed: Even Buffett admitted the business has a problem. Alphabet is spending up to $185 billion this year on AI. That spending cut its free cash flow by 47% in a single quarter. He bought anyway, because the profits were real, the price was fair, and the moat was wide. He waited over 20 years for the math to make sense. Then he moved with total conviction. Now compare that to how most people invest in AI. They chase whatever is going up. They buy on hype, headlines, and fear of missing out. They pile into names they do not understand. Then they panic the moment the story wobbles. Buffett did the opposite: - He ignored the noise for two decades - He waited for the fundamentals to line up, and - He only acted when the rules said yes That is the whole game. It runs on a system that waits for the setup, not emotion. Most people cannot do that on their own. They feel the fear and they act on it. The fix is to take the emotion out completely. That is exactly what Surmount was built for. Automated, rules-based strategies that buy on logic, not feelings. So when the next great setup arrives, you are already positioned.
0:29

Warren Buffett just poured $31 BILLION into a stock he swore off for decades. He refused to touch a single tech company for 60 years. Now he's admitting it was his biggest regret. Here is why he finally changed his mind: For decades, Buffett had one simple rule: Only buy businesses you understand, at a fair price. Tech never fit. It moved too fast and was too easy to lose money in. He watched Google go from startup to over $2 trillion and never bought in. He called it one of his biggest mistakes ever. Then something changed: In late 2025, Berkshire quietly started buying Alphabet shares. Alphabet is the company that owns Google, YouTube, and Google Cloud. By mid 2026, the stake had exploded. On June 1, Alphabet raised $80 billion to build AI data centers. Buffett put in $10 billion of it directly. Today Alphabet is one of Berkshire's five largest positions, worth about $31 billion. On July 15, Buffett went on live TV and admitted it was his idea, not his successor's. So why did the man who avoids tech finally break his own rule? > The numbers. In April, Alphabet reported earnings that stunned Wall Street: > Profit per share came in at $5.11 > Analysts expected $2.63 > Revenue hit $109.9 billion, up nearly 22% in a year. > Google Cloud grew 63%. > Its backlog of future cloud orders reached $460 billion. That is real money coming in the door. But here's the part people missed: Even Buffett admitted the business has a problem. Alphabet is spending up to $185 billion this year on AI. That spending cut its free cash flow by 47% in a single quarter. He bought anyway, because the profits were real, the price was fair, and the moat was wide. He waited over 20 years for the math to make sense. Then he moved with total conviction. Now compare that to how most people invest in AI. They chase whatever is going up. They buy on hype, headlines, and fear of missing out. They pile into names they do not understand. Then they panic the moment the story wobbles. Buffett did the opposite: - He ignored the noise for two decades - He waited for the fundamentals to line up, and - He only acted when the rules said yes That is the whole game. It runs on a system that waits for the setup, not emotion. Most people cannot do that on their own. They feel the fear and they act on it. The fix is to take the emotion out completely. That is exactly what Surmount was built for. Automated, rules-based strategies that buy on logic, not feelings. So when the next great setup arrives, you are already positioned.

Surmount

12,298 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

3,922,326 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

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

285,396 Aufrufe • vor 3 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?
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

230,573 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

39,791,564 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Apple just made every tech giant that went all in on AI look like clowns. For 12 months straight, Apple was the "biggest loser" of the AI era. Its AI team kept losing people. Its Siri overhaul kept getting delayed. And every headline said the same thing: Apple missed the biggest technology shift in a generation. But turns out, the OPPOSITE is actually the case... Apple passed Nvidia to briefly become the most valuable company on Earth again, worth around $4.88 trillion. Apple is up nearly 23% this year. Nvidia is up just 7.3%. Apple is now the best performer in the entire Mag 7. And when you look at why, it's almost funny. Apple won by REFUSING to spend the money everyone said it had to spend. Look at what the rest of Big Tech committed to the AI buildout this year: - Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft are spending more than $665 billion combined - Apple is spending about $13.5 billion - That is nearly 50x less than its rivals For a year, that gap was "proof" that Apple had fumbled it. Then the AI trade broke, and the company with no giant AI bill suddenly looked like the smartest one in the room. Apple never took on the risk. It never borrowed the billions to build data centers, and it never had to promise Wall Street that all that spending would pay off later. So when the trade cracked this week, Apple had nothing to crack. It still runs on iPhones and a services business that keeps setting records, not on a bet about AI revenue that has not shown up yet. And the crack itself was real: A Chinese startup called Moonshot dropped a new model that rivals the best from OpenAI and Anthropic, and it messed up the whole market in a single day. Investors are already calling it a Kimi moment, a rerun of the DeepSeek shock that hit these same stocks last year. The Philadelphia semiconductor index fell into a bear market, down 20% from its June peak. The Nasdaq 100 had its worst week in almost a month. Microsoft is now down 20% on the year, its worst stretch since 2022. Every company that went all in on the buildout got hit. Apple, the one that sat it out, is the company that came out on top. Why does this matter? Because for two years the entire market ran on one belief: Spend the most on AI or get left behind. The companies that spent $665 billion were called visionaries. The company that spent $13.5 billion was called a dinosaur. This week the market briefly went the other way. HSBC just upgraded Apple and lifted its price target to $366 from $260. Money that was chasing chips is now hiding in the one megacap with almost no exposure to the thing that just blew up. And the doubts are reaching the top now too: Societe Generale's head of US equity strategy warned this week that the biggest AI spenders are still burning cash so fast that investors are openly asking whether the spending ever pays off. What happens next: Nobody knows if this holds. Apple could lose the top spot again by Monday, and the AI bulls will tell you the buildout always looks reckless right before it pays off. But something bigger happened this week... For one day, the market stopped rewarding the biggest spender and started rewarding the one that kept its wallet shut. If that keeps happening, every board that bet the company on AI has a real problem. And the company that got mocked for doing the least became the safest place to hide from the trade it skipped. What do you think?
1:21

Apple just made every tech giant that went all in on AI look like clowns. For 12 months straight, Apple was the "biggest loser" of the AI era. Its AI team kept losing people. Its Siri overhaul kept getting delayed. And every headline said the same thing: Apple missed the biggest technology shift in a generation. But turns out, the OPPOSITE is actually the case... Apple passed Nvidia to briefly become the most valuable company on Earth again, worth around $4.88 trillion. Apple is up nearly 23% this year. Nvidia is up just 7.3%. Apple is now the best performer in the entire Mag 7. And when you look at why, it's almost funny. Apple won by REFUSING to spend the money everyone said it had to spend. Look at what the rest of Big Tech committed to the AI buildout this year: - Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft are spending more than $665 billion combined - Apple is spending about $13.5 billion - That is nearly 50x less than its rivals For a year, that gap was "proof" that Apple had fumbled it. Then the AI trade broke, and the company with no giant AI bill suddenly looked like the smartest one in the room. Apple never took on the risk. It never borrowed the billions to build data centers, and it never had to promise Wall Street that all that spending would pay off later. So when the trade cracked this week, Apple had nothing to crack. It still runs on iPhones and a services business that keeps setting records, not on a bet about AI revenue that has not shown up yet. And the crack itself was real: A Chinese startup called Moonshot dropped a new model that rivals the best from OpenAI and Anthropic, and it messed up the whole market in a single day. Investors are already calling it a Kimi moment, a rerun of the DeepSeek shock that hit these same stocks last year. The Philadelphia semiconductor index fell into a bear market, down 20% from its June peak. The Nasdaq 100 had its worst week in almost a month. Microsoft is now down 20% on the year, its worst stretch since 2022. Every company that went all in on the buildout got hit. Apple, the one that sat it out, is the company that came out on top. Why does this matter? Because for two years the entire market ran on one belief: Spend the most on AI or get left behind. The companies that spent $665 billion were called visionaries. The company that spent $13.5 billion was called a dinosaur. This week the market briefly went the other way. HSBC just upgraded Apple and lifted its price target to $366 from $260. Money that was chasing chips is now hiding in the one megacap with almost no exposure to the thing that just blew up. And the doubts are reaching the top now too: Societe Generale's head of US equity strategy warned this week that the biggest AI spenders are still burning cash so fast that investors are openly asking whether the spending ever pays off. What happens next: Nobody knows if this holds. Apple could lose the top spot again by Monday, and the AI bulls will tell you the buildout always looks reckless right before it pays off. But something bigger happened this week... For one day, the market stopped rewarding the biggest spender and started rewarding the one that kept its wallet shut. If that keeps happening, every board that bet the company on AI has a real problem. And the company that got mocked for doing the least became the safest place to hide from the trade it skipped. What do you think?

Ricardo

37,412 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten