Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

Jeff Currie: Capital rotation into real assets would trigger explosive price moves. Just picture the difference in size: - MAG7: ~20T USD - All mining shares: ~2T - All energy companies: ~7T That's the market cap. The free float, the shares available at any moment, is a fraction of... show more

Lukas Ekwueme

51,110 subscribers

38,037 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Finanzen

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

$On August 11, the supply of SpaceX shares jumps from 5% to 25% in a single day. That's 5 times more shares hitting the market overnight, from insiders who bought in years ago at a fraction of today's price. This is what happened to Facebook in 2012. After their lockup expired, the stock fell about 50% in just a few weeks. The business was growing fast at the time. The drop came purely from supply hitting the market faster than buyers could absorb. Most people holding SpaceX have no plan for August 11. Three steps to prepare for it now: 1. Print the unlock schedule and know every date new shares hit the market. 2. Check if SpaceX is more than 10% of your portfolio. 3. Decide your exit price now, before emotion kicks in. I'm watching closely. Definitely not buying yet.$

On August 11, the supply of SpaceX shares jumps from 5% to 25% in a single day. That's 5 times more shares hitting the market overnight, from insiders who bought in years ago at a fraction of today's price. This is what happened to Facebook in 2012. After their lockup expired, the stock fell about 50% in just a few weeks. The business was growing fast at the time. The drop came purely from supply hitting the market faster than buyers could absorb. Most people holding SpaceX have no plan for August 11. Three steps to prepare for it now: 1. Print the unlock schedule and know every date new shares hit the market. 2. Check if SpaceX is more than 10% of your portfolio. 3. Decide your exit price now, before emotion kicks in. I'm watching closely. Definitely not buying yet.

Felix Prehn 🐶

167,849 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

George Noble

869,743 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

David Friedberg: Michael Burry’s Datacenter Math is Wrong “I actually think Michael Burberry's got this wrong.” “What Michael Burry is saying is that all of these hyperscalers have extended their depreciation schedule or the useful life of their data centers by roughly 2x, which cuts the operating costs in half when they report it in earnings. And so it's making their earnings inflate.” “So he's claiming they're cooking the books. Google first made this change in Q1 of 2021, where they said the servers are now going from 3 to 4 years. Separately in 2021, Google took networking equipment from 3 to 5 years. And then in 2023, they took it from 5 to 6 years.” “And so this is a result of this effort where they went in and did an analysis. So what happened?” “What happened in the data centers is that the data centers transitioned from being primarily data storage and data transfer systems, where you would use hard drives and RAM and memory to store data and then transmit it back out, to being data processing centers because of the AI boom.” “So as AI became more important in the data center, more of the dollars that are going into data centers were allocated towards chips from data storage, which initially was hard drives.” “And then suddenly, when you put these processors in to process the data to do AI, the majority of the spend and the majority of the energy is going towards the processors.” “I made some calls and I checked around with some other friends, and everyone says the same thing: that these 7-8 year old TPUs and GPUs that are sitting in the data centers are still being used and they're being used at 100% utilization.” “So that actually justifies and validates the depreciation schedule being much longer versus shorter.”

David Friedberg: Michael Burry’s Datacenter Math is Wrong “I actually think Michael Burberry's got this wrong.” “What Michael Burry is saying is that all of these hyperscalers have extended their depreciation schedule or the useful life of their data centers by roughly 2x, which cuts the operating costs in half when they report it in earnings. And so it's making their earnings inflate.” “So he's claiming they're cooking the books. Google first made this change in Q1 of 2021, where they said the servers are now going from 3 to 4 years. Separately in 2021, Google took networking equipment from 3 to 5 years. And then in 2023, they took it from 5 to 6 years.” “And so this is a result of this effort where they went in and did an analysis. So what happened?” “What happened in the data centers is that the data centers transitioned from being primarily data storage and data transfer systems, where you would use hard drives and RAM and memory to store data and then transmit it back out, to being data processing centers because of the AI boom.” “So as AI became more important in the data center, more of the dollars that are going into data centers were allocated towards chips from data storage, which initially was hard drives.” “And then suddenly, when you put these processors in to process the data to do AI, the majority of the spend and the majority of the energy is going towards the processors.” “I made some calls and I checked around with some other friends, and everyone says the same thing: that these 7-8 year old TPUs and GPUs that are sitting in the data centers are still being used and they're being used at 100% utilization.” “So that actually justifies and validates the depreciation schedule being much longer versus shorter.”

The All-In Podcast

304,450 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

MoistCr1TiKaL comes out strongly against data centers in recent video and ponders if they're making people sicker due to hoarding clean water "AI data centers are actually the boogeyman..a scourge on this planet and a stain on civilized society..no normal ppl with functioning frontal lobes want data centers in their community, it is bad for them" "I've been getting conspiratorial..I was reading something that someone was sharing about like when a AI data center came through, and the impact it had on their water, cause that's a very common thing" "I'm not fully bought into it..but it's an interesting theory..what if the reason there's been seemingly so much more sickness, like it feels like ppl are getting sick more frequently now and a wide variety of illnesses just seem more common..what if AI data centers are hoarding all of the clean water..what if all the clean water is being diverted to the AI data centers and the normal civilians are just getting the sludge runoff..I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility..they are evil enough to do that" (Via penguinz0 on YT)

MoistCr1TiKaL comes out strongly against data centers in recent video and ponders if they're making people sicker due to hoarding clean water "AI data centers are actually the boogeyman..a scourge on this planet and a stain on civilized society..no normal ppl with functioning frontal lobes want data centers in their community, it is bad for them" "I've been getting conspiratorial..I was reading something that someone was sharing about like when a AI data center came through, and the impact it had on their water, cause that's a very common thing" "I'm not fully bought into it..but it's an interesting theory..what if the reason there's been seemingly so much more sickness, like it feels like ppl are getting sick more frequently now and a wide variety of illnesses just seem more common..what if AI data centers are hoarding all of the clean water..what if all the clean water is being diverted to the AI data centers and the normal civilians are just getting the sludge runoff..I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility..they are evil enough to do that" (Via penguinz0 on YT)

yeet

3,040,844 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

David Friedberg: “ What if we could make all residential electricity free in the United States?” “We consume, in this country, about 4 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.” “1/3 of that, $250B, is residential consumption.” “2/3 of that, $500B, is industrial and commercial consumption.” “Theoretically, you could increase the price on industrial and commercial consumption by ~50% and make all residential electricity in the United States free.” “And then on the commercial and industrial side, the reason you would then have an incentive to build private power systems would be that you can bring your costs down.” “And instead of centralizing all of this with the utilities, what it can do is it can force a market demand for industrial and commercial users to build their own power systems, which would increase overall electricity supply in the United States.” “The data centers are the tip of the iceberg, but if you make this a pan industrial problem, then all of the industrial companies would have to take this path.”

David Friedberg: “ What if we could make all residential electricity free in the United States?” “We consume, in this country, about 4 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.” “1/3 of that, $250B, is residential consumption.” “2/3 of that, $500B, is industrial and commercial consumption.” “Theoretically, you could increase the price on industrial and commercial consumption by ~50% and make all residential electricity in the United States free.” “And then on the commercial and industrial side, the reason you would then have an incentive to build private power systems would be that you can bring your costs down.” “And instead of centralizing all of this with the utilities, what it can do is it can force a market demand for industrial and commercial users to build their own power systems, which would increase overall electricity supply in the United States.” “The data centers are the tip of the iceberg, but if you make this a pan industrial problem, then all of the industrial companies would have to take this path.”

The All-In Podcast

219,964 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

$Americans are being priced out of playing videos games and the reason is Data Centers The Nintendo Switch 2 is $500 A high-end Xbox is $800 The PlayStation 5 Pro is $900 It’s causing major shifts: - PlayStation is ending physical disks - NVIDIA GeForce is implementing a gaming cap for a maximum amount of hours played per month - XBox is divesting in 5 gaming studios Data Centers are buying and using so much RAM memory that one stick that used to cost $200 now costs over $1,000 “Huge increases across the board” 3 companies make almost all memory chips “these chips are really only made by about 3 companies in the entire world, and those 3 companies have limited output. So they have to decide, do they want to build high-end memory chips for AI data centers or consumer-grade memory chips for all of our devices? As you can probably guess, They didn't choose us. OpenAI reportedly committed to buying 40% of all the memory chips in the entire world just for their Stargate multi-state data center project. For memory chip companies, this was a huge payday, but it meant absolute scarcity for consumer memory chips, which of course means massive price increases for you and I” Gaming companies aren’t going to invest in next gen consoles that will only sell a fraction of the amount of previous consoles because of price. It wouldn’t make sense because game developers are going to focus on the consoles with all the users, the older consoles So gaming console manufacturers are moving towards new revenue streams like controlling how you can buy a game, more subscription costs and more$

Americans are being priced out of playing videos games and the reason is Data Centers The Nintendo Switch 2 is $500 A high-end Xbox is $800 The PlayStation 5 Pro is $900 It’s causing major shifts: - PlayStation is ending physical disks - NVIDIA GeForce is implementing a gaming cap for a maximum amount of hours played per month - XBox is divesting in 5 gaming studios Data Centers are buying and using so much RAM memory that one stick that used to cost $200 now costs over $1,000 “Huge increases across the board” 3 companies make almost all memory chips “these chips are really only made by about 3 companies in the entire world, and those 3 companies have limited output. So they have to decide, do they want to build high-end memory chips for AI data centers or consumer-grade memory chips for all of our devices? As you can probably guess, They didn't choose us. OpenAI reportedly committed to buying 40% of all the memory chips in the entire world just for their Stargate multi-state data center project. For memory chip companies, this was a huge payday, but it meant absolute scarcity for consumer memory chips, which of course means massive price increases for you and I” Gaming companies aren’t going to invest in next gen consoles that will only sell a fraction of the amount of previous consoles because of price. It wouldn’t make sense because game developers are going to focus on the consoles with all the users, the older consoles So gaming console manufacturers are moving towards new revenue streams like controlling how you can buy a game, more subscription costs and more

Wall Street Apes

80,910 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

James Harden on the 3-7 Clippers: “We haven’t had any consistency, for real… We’ve had so many different lineups, so many guys in and out of the rotation… Guys are all over the place. Some guys haven’t played in ever. Some guys are just put in the rotation. Some guys are new here. It’s a lot that goes into it.”

James Harden on the 3-7 Clippers: “We haven’t had any consistency, for real… We’ve had so many different lineups, so many guys in and out of the rotation… Guys are all over the place. Some guys haven’t played in ever. Some guys are just put in the rotation. Some guys are new here. It’s a lot that goes into it.”

Joey Linn

236,064 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

$HOOD $JPM TOM LEE: IN 10 YEARS, THE LARGEST FINANCIAL COMPANY IN THE WORLD COULD BE WORTH $10 TRILLION 🤯 JONATHAN: "The largest financial company in the world right now is J.P. Morgan -- $900B market cap. In 10 years, how large is the largest financial company in the world?" TOM LEE (Thomas (Tom) Lee (not drummer) FundstratDirect.com): "Well, that's an important question. One thing to keep in mind is that because of crypto, more things are becoming money, which means financial services' share of the economy's going to be higher." "Another thing that's true is that in an AI world with agents and robots, that's going to make the financial services world bigger than the physical world." "So financial services market cap should be larger as a percentage of the total market." JONATHAN: "If I'm thinking about the size of Mag 7s in 10 years, I think it might be $10 trillion just to get into the club." TOM: "Correct. So one of these companies, it could be J.P. Morgan, it could be Robinhood, will be a Mag 7." JONATHAN: "And in a world in which Robinhood is a Mag 7 or something like a Mag 7 in 10 years, and $10 trillion is the entry price into that club, that's 100X from here for Robinhood." TOM: "Yeah, and presumably Robinhood won't be consuming a lot of capital. They could be buying back a lot of shares in that time. So actually it should do better than 100X because the number of shares could be lower."

$HOOD $JPM TOM LEE: IN 10 YEARS, THE LARGEST FINANCIAL COMPANY IN THE WORLD COULD BE WORTH $10 TRILLION 🤯 JONATHAN: "The largest financial company in the world right now is J.P. Morgan -- $900B market cap. In 10 years, how large is the largest financial company in the world?" TOM LEE (Thomas (Tom) Lee (not drummer) FundstratDirect.com): "Well, that's an important question. One thing to keep in mind is that because of crypto, more things are becoming money, which means financial services' share of the economy's going to be higher." "Another thing that's true is that in an AI world with agents and robots, that's going to make the financial services world bigger than the physical world." "So financial services market cap should be larger as a percentage of the total market." JONATHAN: "If I'm thinking about the size of Mag 7s in 10 years, I think it might be $10 trillion just to get into the club." TOM: "Correct. So one of these companies, it could be J.P. Morgan, it could be Robinhood, will be a Mag 7." JONATHAN: "And in a world in which Robinhood is a Mag 7 or something like a Mag 7 in 10 years, and $10 trillion is the entry price into that club, that's 100X from here for Robinhood." TOM: "Yeah, and presumably Robinhood won't be consuming a lot of capital. They could be buying back a lot of shares in that time. So actually it should do better than 100X because the number of shares could be lower."

Hood House

110,255 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Why is Palantir so expensive? You don’t need to look at spreadsheets. Just consider this: The market knows NVIDIA sells the shovels for the AI goldrush. The market is realizing that AI isn’t being monetized at the commercial level because although it’s cool, it’s not unlocking any real insights yet. The market now anticipates that Palantir is selling the maps to find the gold…. Gold being AI-driven insights that actually solve difficult problems. Software that works. Since 2021, NVIDIA’s revenue has exploded from $16B to $96B. Palantir’s TTM revenue is $2.5B. The trajectory of Palantir has changed since AIP released in 2023, which is enabling the company to scale. If NVIDIA sells the shovels, and Palantir provides the maps, then the market believes Palantir will see the same explosion of growth within the commercial market, which the market believes has an almost unlimited TAM for Palantir. A lot of people missed out on NVIDIA. While Palantir’s market cap is expensive at $95B, it is nothing compared to NVIDIA’s $3.26T market cap in terms of size. The market doesn’t want to miss out on the next big thing. At this point, investors have thrown all standard methods of valuation out of the window… Those days were years ago. To me, at this point, buying the stock is betting on NVIDIA-like growth (No I’m not saying the company will shoot to a $3T market cap in 2 years — you get the point). If the company does not show this sort of revenue growth, the stock will be punished. This is the risk investors are willing to take. While I am very bullish on the company in the long run, I, like everyone else, have no clue what will actually happen in the short term. This is not a stock to play on the short term. This is why I continue to hold, regardless of how “expensive” the stock gets. I personally believe Palantir does in fact carry the potential to see explosive revenue growth to more than enough justify its current ratios. I’m not saying it will happen this quarter. But the potential is there. It’s a matter of when, in my opinion. I would never risk selling what I view as my golden ticket to wealth with the justification of “it’s too expensive, the price will come back down and I can buy even more then”. If the stock crashes, I can start buying more shares regardless — I don’t want to get greedy and try to time the market. I would never forgive myself if I sold and the stock ended up soaring so high that even after a crash, it would be far too expensive for me to get back in with my original position size (plus capital gains tax). I don’t care who agrees with me or who thinks I’m crazy for saying this — it’s a real risk to me and I’m not willing to take it. This is not me telling you to buy $PLTR. My average is $8.50. Only you can decide what is right, and your decision should be made on your own level of conviction from studying the company — nothing else. This is me telling you why it’s so expensive. Again, I believe that if the stock does not continue to crush earnings each quarter, even the slightest miss, the stock will be punished in the short term. For longs, it’s another opportunity to accumulate more. This is my opinion, of course. 5-10 years from now, we’ll see who was right. Chips & Ontology.

Why is Palantir so expensive? You don’t need to look at spreadsheets. Just consider this: The market knows NVIDIA sells the shovels for the AI goldrush. The market is realizing that AI isn’t being monetized at the commercial level because although it’s cool, it’s not unlocking any real insights yet. The market now anticipates that Palantir is selling the maps to find the gold…. Gold being AI-driven insights that actually solve difficult problems. Software that works. Since 2021, NVIDIA’s revenue has exploded from $16B to $96B. Palantir’s TTM revenue is $2.5B. The trajectory of Palantir has changed since AIP released in 2023, which is enabling the company to scale. If NVIDIA sells the shovels, and Palantir provides the maps, then the market believes Palantir will see the same explosion of growth within the commercial market, which the market believes has an almost unlimited TAM for Palantir. A lot of people missed out on NVIDIA. While Palantir’s market cap is expensive at $95B, it is nothing compared to NVIDIA’s $3.26T market cap in terms of size. The market doesn’t want to miss out on the next big thing. At this point, investors have thrown all standard methods of valuation out of the window… Those days were years ago. To me, at this point, buying the stock is betting on NVIDIA-like growth (No I’m not saying the company will shoot to a $3T market cap in 2 years — you get the point). If the company does not show this sort of revenue growth, the stock will be punished. This is the risk investors are willing to take. While I am very bullish on the company in the long run, I, like everyone else, have no clue what will actually happen in the short term. This is not a stock to play on the short term. This is why I continue to hold, regardless of how “expensive” the stock gets. I personally believe Palantir does in fact carry the potential to see explosive revenue growth to more than enough justify its current ratios. I’m not saying it will happen this quarter. But the potential is there. It’s a matter of when, in my opinion. I would never risk selling what I view as my golden ticket to wealth with the justification of “it’s too expensive, the price will come back down and I can buy even more then”. If the stock crashes, I can start buying more shares regardless — I don’t want to get greedy and try to time the market. I would never forgive myself if I sold and the stock ended up soaring so high that even after a crash, it would be far too expensive for me to get back in with my original position size (plus capital gains tax). I don’t care who agrees with me or who thinks I’m crazy for saying this — it’s a real risk to me and I’m not willing to take it. This is not me telling you to buy $PLTR. My average is $8.50. Only you can decide what is right, and your decision should be made on your own level of conviction from studying the company — nothing else. This is me telling you why it’s so expensive. Again, I believe that if the stock does not continue to crush earnings each quarter, even the slightest miss, the stock will be punished in the short term. For longs, it’s another opportunity to accumulate more. This is my opinion, of course. 5-10 years from now, we’ll see who was right. Chips & Ontology.

Jack Prescott

278,422 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Power is 5-7% of data center revenues. Some geothermal and nuclear stocks are trading at 50-70x earnings to supply it. Jim Chanos on iConnections: the AI halo has reached its furthest extension into alternative energy. The bull case is that data centers need power and there's a shortage. Chanos's counter: the US doesn't have a power shortage. It has a permitting bottleneck and turbine delivery delays. Both resolve in 2-3 years. When the permitting clears, the scarcity narrative collapses. And even if these companies win a power contract - power is 5-7% of a data center's revenues. Companies at 30-40x EBITDA for potentially supplying a fraction of a 5-7% cost line are priced for a constraint that is transient. Full breakdown of the alternative energy overhang: Source: iConnections -$

Power is 5-7% of data center revenues. Some geothermal and nuclear stocks are trading at 50-70x earnings to supply it. Jim Chanos on iConnections: the AI halo has reached its furthest extension into alternative energy. The bull case is that data centers need power and there's a shortage. Chanos's counter: the US doesn't have a power shortage. It has a permitting bottleneck and turbine delivery delays. Both resolve in 2-3 years. When the permitting clears, the scarcity narrative collapses. And even if these companies win a power contract - power is 5-7% of a data center's revenues. Companies at 30-40x EBITDA for potentially supplying a fraction of a 5-7% cost line are priced for a constraint that is transient. Full breakdown of the alternative energy overhang: Source: iConnections -

Podcast Alpha

75,076 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon Musk turned down all shares when he left OpenAI because he believed nonprofits are not meant for self-enrichment. "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI. At my birthday party, he, in front of a large group of people, called me a speciesist, for favoring humanity over computers. So after that, I was like, We got to have some counterbalance to Google, because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not. So I thought, what's the opposite of Google? It would be an open source nonprofit, and that's where the word open, in OpenAI comes from. It means open source. I provided all the money, recruited the key people, and taught them everything I know. I actually even got them to deal with Microsoft. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever. The reason I actually took down the offer for shares is because, I mean, I felt like what are the shares, and why like nonprofits supposed to have shares? Nonprofits are not supposed to be self enrichment, so that's why I turned on the offer of shares." — Elon Musk

Elon Musk turned down all shares when he left OpenAI because he believed nonprofits are not meant for self-enrichment. "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI. At my birthday party, he, in front of a large group of people, called me a speciesist, for favoring humanity over computers. So after that, I was like, We got to have some counterbalance to Google, because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not. So I thought, what's the opposite of Google? It would be an open source nonprofit, and that's where the word open, in OpenAI comes from. It means open source. I provided all the money, recruited the key people, and taught them everything I know. I actually even got them to deal with Microsoft. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever. The reason I actually took down the offer for shares is because, I mean, I felt like what are the shares, and why like nonprofits supposed to have shares? Nonprofits are not supposed to be self enrichment, so that's why I turned on the offer of shares." — Elon Musk

DogeDesigner

22,818,264 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The American people hate these AI data centers so much, even Democrats are saying screw it, Thomas Massie is the only politician in Washington DC who’s not afraid to take on AIPAC. If he’s able to take down AIPAC, taking down these data centers will be a walk in the park. I’m a democrat but I would vote for Thomas Massie if he runs for President.

The American people hate these AI data centers so much, even Democrats are saying screw it, Thomas Massie is the only politician in Washington DC who’s not afraid to take on AIPAC. If he’s able to take down AIPAC, taking down these data centers will be a walk in the park. I’m a democrat but I would vote for Thomas Massie if he runs for President.

RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅

57,564 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Qullamaggie on Price Always Tells You When It’s Time to Get Out and When It’s Time to Get In “There’s no money in speculating what the market will do. Just follow the price action, and especially the price action of the leaders. I’ve unfollowed so many people on Twitter and I’ve completely stopped financial media because I realized no one knows anything. It’s all just entertainment. Yeah, I used to too but now I just… I can’t figure any of it out. Macro is not really my thing. And especially if you get it right, you also have to get the timing right. Like all these people — if you’ve seen The Big Short — all these hedge funds and investors who saw the financial crisis coming… they were like three, two, three, four years too early. Like, what’s the point, right? It’s just so hard. That’s why I’m a very nimble trader and I just follow the price. The price will always tell me when it’s time to get out and when it’s time to get in. Not interest rates, not media — no one other than price.”

Qullamaggie on Price Always Tells You When It’s Time to Get Out and When It’s Time to Get In “There’s no money in speculating what the market will do. Just follow the price action, and especially the price action of the leaders. I’ve unfollowed so many people on Twitter and I’ve completely stopped financial media because I realized no one knows anything. It’s all just entertainment. Yeah, I used to too but now I just… I can’t figure any of it out. Macro is not really my thing. And especially if you get it right, you also have to get the timing right. Like all these people — if you’ve seen The Big Short — all these hedge funds and investors who saw the financial crisis coming… they were like three, two, three, four years too early. Like, what’s the point, right? It’s just so hard. That’s why I’m a very nimble trader and I just follow the price. The price will always tell me when it’s time to get out and when it’s time to get in. Not interest rates, not media — no one other than price.”

Lone

16,060 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

SpaceX at $2 trillion is either the most obvious buy or the most expensive lesson in IPO history They cut the cost of reaching orbit by 95% compared to the Space Shuttle era. They own two thirds of all low Earth orbit satellites. No dorm room startup will ever compete with that But incredible companies and great investments are not the same thing at any price Amazon built distribution centers and 747s and that moat made it worth trillions. SpaceX is building the same kind of irreplaceable infrastructure in space The difference is Amazon spent a decade losing money before it earned its valuation. SpaceX wants you to price in the decade it hasn't had yet Scott Galloway said it best: "digital companies scale fast but analog companies have moats that are nearly impossible to cross" That is not a startup. That is infrastructure The question is not whether SpaceX is great. It is whether you are the right buyer at this price

SpaceX at $2 trillion is either the most obvious buy or the most expensive lesson in IPO history They cut the cost of reaching orbit by 95% compared to the Space Shuttle era. They own two thirds of all low Earth orbit satellites. No dorm room startup will ever compete with that But incredible companies and great investments are not the same thing at any price Amazon built distribution centers and 747s and that moat made it worth trillions. SpaceX is building the same kind of irreplaceable infrastructure in space The difference is Amazon spent a decade losing money before it earned its valuation. SpaceX wants you to price in the decade it hasn't had yet Scott Galloway said it best: "digital companies scale fast but analog companies have moats that are nearly impossible to cross" That is not a startup. That is infrastructure The question is not whether SpaceX is great. It is whether you are the right buyer at this price

plutos

124,108 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"I think ZEC is a top 5 crypto asset" Tushar Jain reveals he doesn't set price targets for $ZEC - he ranks it "When it comes to something like Zcash, I think about it: where is it on the list? Is it number 20, is it number 15, is it number ten, is it in the top five? I think it's going to go top five" "That also allows you to adjust for the market movement. My price target for Zcash is different if Bitcoin is at 80k versus if Bitcoin is at 200k. Everything is relative to each other" "When it comes to an asset like that, I think about: is it in the top five, is it in the top ten?" Multicoin Capital

"I think ZEC is a top 5 crypto asset" Tushar Jain reveals he doesn't set price targets for $ZEC - he ranks it "When it comes to something like Zcash, I think about it: where is it on the list? Is it number 20, is it number 15, is it number ten, is it in the top five? I think it's going to go top five" "That also allows you to adjust for the market movement. My price target for Zcash is different if Bitcoin is at 80k versus if Bitcoin is at 200k. Everything is relative to each other" "When it comes to an asset like that, I think about: is it in the top five, is it in the top ten?" Multicoin Capital

MR SHIFT 🦁

40,589 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Mark Cuban says one of his companies is saving $50K/month using an AI agent that just takes pictures "One of my Shark Tank companies is called RebelCheesedotcom, they sell vegan cheese and ship it all over the world and they like a lot of companies that ship products in boxes" "You know there's different size boxes for UPS or DHL and there's a different price to ship to a different zone, also they don't ever charge you the right price" "So they wrote a little agent that took a picture of the box when it's getting ready to ship and determined the size looked at the price list, look at the invoice, took a picture of the invoice, compared them and when they were different created the credit request and are saving $50,000 a month and it's all automated they don't have to touch it"

Mark Cuban says one of his companies is saving $50K/month using an AI agent that just takes pictures "One of my Shark Tank companies is called RebelCheesedotcom, they sell vegan cheese and ship it all over the world and they like a lot of companies that ship products in boxes" "You know there's different size boxes for UPS or DHL and there's a different price to ship to a different zone, also they don't ever charge you the right price" "So they wrote a little agent that took a picture of the box when it's getting ready to ship and determined the size looked at the price list, look at the invoice, took a picture of the invoice, compared them and when they were different created the credit request and are saving $50,000 a month and it's all automated they don't have to touch it"

katsu

1,490,684 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨 SPACEX IS DONE? It opened at $150, ripped to $225 in three days, and everyone called it the buy of the decade. Now it's at $145 - an all-time low, below the open, sitting a few dollars above the IPO price. Down 35% from the top. The chart isn't breaking. It already broke. And this was the easy part. Here's where it goes from here: $145 → $135 → $120 → $100 Why this has to happen the math is brutal and public: → Only ~4% of shares actually trade. Nasdaq bent the float rule just to let this listing through. → It got jammed into the indexes, and every passive fund on the planet was forced to buy near the top. → Insiders still hold 96% of the supply. → The first unlock hits on August 6 - right at Q2 earnings. About 20% of insider shares go free, and the float doubles overnight. → Then it doubles again through the fall, all the way to a full unlock. Sit with that. This entire 35% collapse happened on a tiny float, with no supply. The actual wall of stock hasn't even arrived yet. And look at the backdrop: Apple's printing new all-time highs while SPCX bleeds to fresh lows. That's not a market problem that's a SpaceX problem. The hype died, the capex is enormous, the valuation is priced at ~100x sales, and the unlock cliff is dead ahead. Everything I said would happen is happening. No surprises. The next leg is where the real money gets made but not on the long side yet. Save this. Turn on notifications. Or come back in 30 days wishing you had.

🚨 SPACEX IS DONE? It opened at $150, ripped to $225 in three days, and everyone called it the buy of the decade. Now it's at $145 - an all-time low, below the open, sitting a few dollars above the IPO price. Down 35% from the top. The chart isn't breaking. It already broke. And this was the easy part. Here's where it goes from here: $145 → $135 → $120 → $100 Why this has to happen the math is brutal and public: → Only ~4% of shares actually trade. Nasdaq bent the float rule just to let this listing through. → It got jammed into the indexes, and every passive fund on the planet was forced to buy near the top. → Insiders still hold 96% of the supply. → The first unlock hits on August 6 - right at Q2 earnings. About 20% of insider shares go free, and the float doubles overnight. → Then it doubles again through the fall, all the way to a full unlock. Sit with that. This entire 35% collapse happened on a tiny float, with no supply. The actual wall of stock hasn't even arrived yet. And look at the backdrop: Apple's printing new all-time highs while SPCX bleeds to fresh lows. That's not a market problem that's a SpaceX problem. The hype died, the capex is enormous, the valuation is priced at ~100x sales, and the unlock cliff is dead ahead. Everything I said would happen is happening. No surprises. The next leg is where the real money gets made but not on the long side yet. Save this. Turn on notifications. Or come back in 30 days wishing you had.

Shelpid.WI3M

356,362 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

(TRIGGER WARNING!) THE STOCK MARKET IS GOING TO CRASH SUPER HARD. JIHAD ALLINFUBAR ATTACKS AND MEGA DATA CENTER HACKS INCOMING IN 3... 2... 1... Here's the big picture of fundamental analysis. It explains why you can't just keep printing money to make the stock market go up. Not even the Federal Reserve can prevent the AI apocalypse crash. If you're the sensitive snowflake type, do not watch this. Most people are happier when they are ignorant.

(TRIGGER WARNING!) THE STOCK MARKET IS GOING TO CRASH SUPER HARD. JIHAD ALLINFUBAR ATTACKS AND MEGA DATA CENTER HACKS INCOMING IN 3... 2... 1... Here's the big picture of fundamental analysis. It explains why you can't just keep printing money to make the stock market go up. Not even the Federal Reserve can prevent the AI apocalypse crash. If you're the sensitive snowflake type, do not watch this. Most people are happier when they are ignorant.

Prediction Markets Algo

35,427 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

🚨: Brad Garlinghouse predicts the total crypto market cap could soar to $5 TRILLION — and if XRP captures its share, it could reach a price of $89 per #XRP!! MASSIVE CAPITAL IS LINING UP TO ENTER THE #XRPL — spearheaded by REAL Token, the initiative set to transform real estate into fully digital, on-chain assets. With a $100B market cap target, REAL has the potential to surge from just $0.043 to a staggering $998.90 — the upside is hard to ignore. 🔗 Grab REAL Token here: ⚠️ PHASE 1 SUPPLY IS BELOW 100 MILLION — PRICE NOW AT JUST $0.035. THE CLOCK IS TICKING TOWARD A MAJOR SUPPLY SHOCK AND SURGE IN VOLUME!

🚨: Brad Garlinghouse predicts the total crypto market cap could soar to $5 TRILLION — and if XRP captures its share, it could reach a price of $89 per #XRP!! MASSIVE CAPITAL IS LINING UP TO ENTER THE #XRPL — spearheaded by REAL Token, the initiative set to transform real estate into fully digital, on-chain assets. With a $100B market cap target, REAL has the potential to surge from just $0.043 to a staggering $998.90 — the upside is hard to ignore. 🔗 Grab REAL Token here: ⚠️ PHASE 1 SUPPLY IS BELOW 100 MILLION — PRICE NOW AT JUST $0.035. THE CLOCK IS TICKING TOWARD A MAJOR SUPPLY SHOCK AND SURGE IN VOLUME!

CryptoGeek

48,331 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This family checked into an Airbnb in San Diego, California They look at this well and there is a large picture of people at the beach. The dad looks at it and says, “That looks like me” about a guy in the water The picture is of them, the girls, the dad, the whole family is at the beach playing in the water in this painting on the wall of the Airbnb they just checked into According to AI, the odds of this happening are so extremely low it’s hard to comprehend The odds are 1 in hundreds of millions for a random booking to have this picture of you

This family checked into an Airbnb in San Diego, California They look at this well and there is a large picture of people at the beach. The dad looks at it and says, “That looks like me” about a guy in the water The picture is of them, the girls, the dad, the whole family is at the beach playing in the water in this painting on the wall of the Airbnb they just checked into According to AI, the odds of this happening are so extremely low it’s hard to comprehend The odds are 1 in hundreds of millions for a random booking to have this picture of you

Wall Street Apes

7,075,942 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten