Live data from Hacker News

S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

heise.de

191–200 of 378 posts

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah.. https://ai-2027.com/

This AGI silliness is predicated on a flawed "Platonic" view of epistemology. The notion that there is some well-defined "idea space" and therefore superintelligence can explore that space faster than any human. In fact, there is no such space. There is a "token space" that can be explored, but that has only fleeting overlaps with reality.

It also completely ignores what we know about evolution. Our brains are the result of billions of years of natural selection. The amount of “training data” that resulted in our neural structures is on a completely different scale than the training data used for today’s LLMs. And this isn’t even up for debate.

The assumption that this process can be “distilled” from written word is completely insane. I’m not sure how people trick themselves into thinking it’s even remotely possible.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ROI on bank loans to Oracle and corporate bonds. Those will have interest rates and returns. If Oracle is highly leveraged or betting the farm on AI, then their credit worthiness goes down. Alternatively, if money floating around to make loans is drying up, companies have to offer better terms to attract the dwindling supply

> ROI on bank loans to Oracle and corporate bonds. Those will have interest rates and returns. Those are intrinsically linked to ORCL equity. ORCL needs an ROI to service their debt.

what point are you making? I was clairifying what ROI the parent was discussing.

There are different ROIs which are not the same, even if related.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the shares tank, the valuation of the company goes down and locked up shares lose value. "Oh no, my $10B became $5B!" They'll still be happy. > If individual investors are buying shares and getting blown up, that’s their problem. Having the general populace fleeced by bad actors is everyone's problem, eventually.

The flaw in your thinking here is that you’re assuming these greedy people that you are creating in your head would prefer to lose half the value of the shares instead of doubling them. The entire proposition that you are putting forth has no real basis in reality, and doesn’t even match the expected behaviors of your trope of strawman investors. > Having the general populace fleeced by bad actors is everyone's probl…

> The flaw in your thinking here is that you’re assuming these greedy people that you are creating in your head would prefer to lose half the value of the shares instead of doubling them.

The flaw in your thinking is assuming it's actually worth the IPO price.

If I'm a bullshit artist, $100 is great, $50 is good, and I'm just trying to avoid the $0 scenario.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Market signals on an impending AI bust are broader than just Oracle’s woes. It's worse than that - I believe that Oracle is one of the (many) companies right now that, if their AI experimentation fails, will stop the music, and everyone will be running for a chair. Oracle is one of a few foundational components in the circular-investing group of AI companies. If they fail to make their commitments they're the first…

Everyone in the tech and media world is dead set on this being a bubble. Yet, even now, Fable is able to do the work of 4-5 engineers when used by a single senior engineer. Teams can and will shrink. Look at all the production and advertising companies switching over to Seedance. I know ad firms bidding 1/4th their typical contract price (pharma, P&G, etc.) and winning contract after contract. This isn't dotcom "dark…

I think the "bubble" is more about return on investment and not usefulness of the technology. So much money has been invested on the assumption that so much return is going to materialize. The more money going in the bigger the expectation of return, that's the bubble.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when do those investors exit? Nobody forces you or any other individual investor to buy shares in their “pump-and-dump company” when it lists.

> And when do those investors exit? Who knows? Who cares? My point is that until those investors exit, there is no ROI. The comment I originally responded to was talking about investors getting ROI from AI companies. I'm pointing out that no such thing will happen until the investors exit.

> My point is that until those investors exit, there is no ROI.

Ok well they can just exit in private markets before these shares are "dumped" on public markets. Therefore there is an exit and ROI. QED.

Anyway your overall point, which was a bad one I'm sorry to say, was about investors dumping shares of overvalued companies on public markets.

You are ignoring things like lockup periods, vesting schedules, and other general machinery that specifically exist to prevent day 1 or short-term dumps of shares. It's not in the interest of the company that is IPOing or the bank - how can the investment bank go to investors and market securities and then on Day 1 those securities (because it's a pump and dump remember?) drop by 10% - 20% - 30% or more. That's bad business and investors will leave investment firms that did that.

When one of these "overvalued" companies IPO (and let's be honest, you don't know how to value these companies anyway so your accusation of them being overvalued is faulty from the start), someone has to buy those shares. If everyone starts selling, the value of the company and the value of the shares drop unless there are buyers. This doesn't really serve anyones interests and even better, you as an individual investor don't have to be a buyer! If someone wants to buy because their own model says it's worth it, that's up to them to decide, not you. Fortunes are made betting against the market (and betting in the general direction of the market). If someone wants to forgo buying, that's fine too.

For investors who don't know about the values or models of valuations of securities they can just take industry standard advice and buy index funds or target-date retirement funds. Stop infantilizing people and assuming that because you lack the knowledge that others must too, or that everyone is just out to scheme and "dump" on public markets, especially without any evidence or without considering how the IPO machinery typically works, who buys these shares, or the incentives.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the 1920s all over again; publicly pump and privately sell into the demand you're creating. It's not the 1920s all over again. > Of the investment banks that helped SpaceX IPO, Goldman Sachs has their price target at $205 (139x implied price to sales), JP Morgan at $225 (152x implied P/S), Deutsche Bank at $255 (173x implied P/S), Morgan Stanley at $300 (203x implied P/S), and Raymond James at $800 (542x impli…

Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available. You've claimed everyone who is disagreeing with you in this thread is not providing a coherent argument. Have a great day mate.

> Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available.

And you can just not buy the shares. It's very straightforward.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#197
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the best way to hedge against this, considering many of us have significant savings in the market? A few puts on SPY dated a year or two out?

Hold short term debt (e.g money market funds or SOFR ETFs). Then you will have cash in hand if either stocks fall or yelds raise. Never buy derivatives as a non institutional investor.

100% this is great advice!

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaw in your thinking here is that you’re assuming these greedy people that you are creating in your head would prefer to lose half the value of the shares instead of doubling them. The entire proposition that you are putting forth has no real basis in reality, and doesn’t even match the expected behaviors of your trope of strawman investors. > Having the general populace fleeced by bad actors is everyone's probl…

> The flaw in your thinking here is that you’re assuming these greedy people that you are creating in your head would prefer to lose half the value of the shares instead of doubling them. The flaw in your thinking is assuming it's actually worth the IPO price. If I'm a bullshit artist, $100 is great, $50 is good, and I'm just trying to avoid the $0 scenario.

> The flaw in your thinking is assuming it's actually worth the IPO price.

Then don't buy it at the IPO price? The bullshit artist will have to lower their price until there are takers in the market.

> If I'm a bullshit artist, $100 is great, $50 is good, and I'm just trying to avoid the $0 scenario.

They're not bullshit artists, they're greedy. If you think you're pulling one over on someone $100 is great but $200 is better - might as well see if you can get $200. Since we're just making up random people and motivations.

Re: S&P Global has lowered Oracle’s creditworthiness from BBB to BBB-

#200

Is it me or do none of the AI companies have a "moat" in the Ben Grahmm sense. I use their services, but I frankly don't care who provides it. I'll chase the chepest/best and have no issue switching from one to another. The only moat I can see is Microsoft providing its services to companies in its Azure system. Nervous IT departments probably like that it's not leaving their control if Bob in the SAP team spins up s…

I've been thinking for a while, there's not real winners here except the incumbent technology providers. Hear me out: all models are converging towards the same level, gains are getting smaller and harder to come by. The models are commodities nothing more. This is the leap, nobody really wants to front a model for someone else. If i build an agent, or a service that requires a model, I'd prefer to push the model ont…

Step 2. Rising competition causes returns to fall below cost of capital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J2Fb1bBufA

Post reply on HN