Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 476 posts

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#451

Post by IncreasePosts »

throw0101c wrote: post #162
rottencupcakes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's this sort of mentality and the prolitferation of passive investing that gives these companies the opportunity to pass the bag.

> It's this sort of mentality and the prolitferation of passive investing that gives these companies the opportunity to pass the bag. As opposed to normal people trying to pick winning stocks? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street Most stocks suck: > We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 1990 to December 2020 period. We document that th…

So what? One person isn't "most people". It's quite possible that one person has certain insights that the market generally doesn't have or isn't accounting for. I've made 20x what an index fund would have returned since 2002 because I've been weighting all of my investments heavily in tech, because I've believed in the growth potential for a long time.

This sort of logic reminds me how people like to say things like "Everyone thinks they're an above average driver". Yes, it might be true that many 80% of people think they're above the median skill, but that doesn't mean there aren't actual above average drivers out there.

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#452

Post by gizajob »

nostrademons wrote: post #399
gizajob wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hit sell on a vanguard ETF and it sells on the market, then Vanguard isn’t the buyer is it? So in that situation with everyone dumping ETFs there would be a lag on the time taken for the ETF to sell and Vanguard to then dump the stocks back out in the market. It’s never occurred to me the situation where huge numbers of people dump index funds and how Vanguard/Blackrock account for that without becoming bag ho…

If it's an ETF it's a little complicated. The usual mechanism for selling an ETF is that there's a buyer on the other end who's buying shares in the ETF itself, not the constituent stocks. Arbitrage keeps the price in line with the index constituents; if the ETF diverges from its constituent assets, some HFT can buy the ETF and sell the constituents and that will force them to converge. However, most ETFs are also se…

Right, got it. Thanks for the info.

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#453

Post by icedchai »

ethbr1 wrote: post #437
scoofy wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, that's easy to say now. I was a relatively early investor (2008), but I was very hesitant early on because Microsoft was building an integrated search function, which became Windows Live Search, which became Bing. I definitely remember it took me to the beginning of the financial crisis to finally decide that it was going nowhere. I suspect it was the development of Google Maps that changed my mind.

"Google" of today is really AdSense ($102M, 2003) -> Android ($50M+?, 2005) -> YouTube ($1.6B, 2006) -> Google Docs ($50M+?, 2006) Without those prescient and lucky acquisitions, we'd be talking about a "Google" that looked much more like Yahoo. It wasn't search proficiency that built the empire, it was leveraging a transient search quality advantage into cash flow, then plowing that cash into acquisitions to constru…

I remember late 90's, early 2000's Google. Search result quality was still better than the competition (mainly Altavista...)

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#454

Post by chilipepperhott »

ac29 wrote: post #129
chilipepperhott wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most index funds wait for at least a year before adding a new listing. The only exception that I'm aware of is QQQ and SpaceX.

Not true for Vanguard's total US stock market fund (VTSAX/VTI), the largest total US stock market fund in the world. Their CRSP index only requires 20 trading days post IPO, or 5 for large caps (this has been true for many years, this is not a recent change)

Sure, but how often do they rebalance the fund?

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#455

Post by troyvit »

martinald wrote: post #343
pseudosavant wrote: post #197

Up until this point, the potential for an AI bust blast radius was limited to corporate investors, but this is going to cause regular retail/401k investors to get exposure, which could have far bigger impacts on a downturn. Not to mention the insane wake-up call it is going to be for these AI stocks when 3 months after they launch they have to start making earnings calls and showing their financials. That quarter-by-…

Let's get it in perspective though. The S&P500 market cap is currently $70T. Assume that Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX all IPO and get included in SPY with the new fast listing rules. They are likely to be worth $3-4T combined, which means 'retail' investors are going to have perhaps 5% of their portfolio in it. _Arugably_ that's a pretty fair allocation for retail investors to have to these "moonshot" style companies…

> 'retail' investors are going to have perhaps 5% of their portfolio in it.

If they are the only moonshot style companies in their portfolio, and if they crater that's the physical equivalent of a 160lb person carrying a gallon of milk around with them wherever they go. At least until they've drunk it I guess.

Lots of "ifs" in that sentence now I read it back though.

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#456

Post by dmoy »

ai_fry_ur_brain wrote: post #304
dmoy wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe don't buy QQQ in your 401k then if you're concerned about nasdaq100 inclusion

Tell that to everyones 50 year old mother who doesnt even know how to login to their account, let alone modify their allocations.

I mean, idk what's in your 401k fund choices, but in all mine I'd have to take serious manual effort to get in to QQQ or equivalent

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#457

Post by ethbr1 »

icedchai wrote: post #453
ethbr1 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google" of today is really AdSense ($102M, 2003) -> Android ($50M+?, 2005) -> YouTube ($1.6B, 2006) -> Google Docs ($50M+?, 2006) Without those prescient and lucky acquisitions, we'd be talking about a "Google" that looked much more like Yahoo. It wasn't search proficiency that built the empire, it was leveraging a transient search quality advantage into cash flow, then plowing that cash into acquisitions to constru…

I remember late 90's, early 2000's Google. Search result quality was still better than the competition (mainly Altavista...)

But that only would have lasted until the next search innovation and/or competitors copied Google's indexing.

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#459

Post by icedchai »

ethbr1 wrote: post #457
icedchai wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember late 90's, early 2000's Google. Search result quality was still better than the competition (mainly Altavista...)

But that only would have lasted until the next search innovation and/or competitors copied Google's indexing.

There were many search engines around during that time. Yahoo, Excite, Microsoft Live Search, Lycos... I don't recall any of them improving enough to rival early 2000's Google.

Re: Anthropic confidentially submits draft S-1 to the SEC

#460

Post by throw0101c »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #451
throw0101c wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's this sort of mentality and the prolitferation of passive investing that gives these companies the opportunity to pass the bag. As opposed to normal people trying to pick winning stocks? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street Most stocks suck: > We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 1990 to December 2020 period. We document that th…

So what? One person isn't "most people". It's quite possible that one person has certain insights that the market generally doesn't have or isn't accounting for. I've made 20x what an index fund would have returned since 2002 because I've been weighting all of my investments heavily in tech, because I've believed in the growth potential for a long time. This sort of logic reminds me how people like to say things like…

> Yes, it might be true that many 80% of people think they're above the median skill, but that doesn't mean there aren't actual above average drivers out there.

An observation form Nick Maggiulli:

> Instead, I am going to argue that you shouldn’t pick stocks because of the existential dilemma of doing so. The existential dilemma is simple—how do you know if you are good at picking individual stocks? In most domains, the amount of time it takes to judge whether someone has skill in that domain is relatively short.

> For example, any competent basketball coach could tell you whether someone was skilled at shooting within the course of 10 minutes. Yes, it’s possible to get lucky and make a bunch of shots early on, but eventually they will trend toward their actual shooting percentage. The same is true in a technical field like computer programming. Within a short period of time, a good programmer would be able to tell if someone doesn’t know what they are talking about.*

[…]

> But, what about stock picking? How long would it take to determine if someone is a good stock picker?

> An hour? A week? A year?

> Try multiple years, and even then you still may not know for sure. The issue is that causality is harder to determine with stock picking than with other domains. When you shoot a basketball or write a computer program, the result comes immediately* after the action. The ball goes in the hoop or it doesn’t. The program runs correctly or it doesn’t.* But, with stock picking, you make a decision now and have to wait for it to pay off. The feedback loop can take years.

> And the payoff you do eventually get has to be compared to the payoff of buying an index fund like the S&P 500. So, even if you make money on absolute terms, you can still lose money on relative terms.

> More importantly though, the result that you get from that decision may have nothing to do with why you made it in the first place. For example, imagine you bought GameStop in late 2020 because you believed that the price would increase as a result of the company improving its operations. Well, 2021 comes along and the price of GameStop surges due to the wallstreetbets inspired short squeeze. You received a positive result that had nothing to do with your original thesis.

[…]

> This is the existential crisis that I am talking about. Why would you want to play a game (or make a career) out of something that you can’t prove that you are good at? If you are doing it for fun, that’s fine. Take a small portion of your money and have at it. But, for those that aren’t doing it for fun, why spend so much time on something where your skill is so hard to measure?

[…]

> I know I won’t convince every stock picker to change their ways, and that’s a good thing. We need people to keep analyzing companies and deploying their capital accordingly. However, if you are on the fence about it, this is your wake up call. Don’t keep playing a game with so much luck involved. Life already has enough luck as it is.

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/why-you-shouldnt-pick-individua...

Post reply on HN