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

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

heise.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 378 posts

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

#201

Post by ericmay »

3848484894 wrote: post #111
ericmay wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The exit plan is to offload overpriced shares, that they paid billions for, onto the public market. If they don't IPO, those investors get nothing. I keep seeing these unsubstantiated claims. They’re out to get us and just pump and dump on public markets! Yet, before they IPO they have to go around and do what? Who sets the IPO price? Who buys the shares? If the shares tank, the valuation of the company goes down a…

With a couple million dollars, you can buy many many articles on the financial times and barron's. With a couple friends, you can get other friends in pension funds to allocate into you. With other friends, you can get beneficial messaging from all sorts of public and private channels. Banks and funds can pump your offerings for something in return if you went to the right bar mitvah. Of course this only lasts for so…

Sure, but this applies to any sufficiently advanced conspiracy theory and wouldn't be limited to markets. Secondly you the individual can just not buy the shares if you think they are overvalued. You're confusing your own interpretation of the valuation of some company with "the right valuation". Maybe you're just wrong and they're not over valued? Maybe you're right? It doesn't matter much, except you can buy shares in companies that your investment thesis and modeling suggests you might buy.

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

#202

Post by rsoto2 »

boron1006 wrote: post #51
hobonation wrote: post #4

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 think anthropic with its enterprise strategy and google with its integration in everything have a bit of a moat. But I switched from ChatGPT to Claude 3 months ago because my account was down for like 6 hours. I haven’t used it since. It’s too easy to switch away from chatbots on a whim. There is no moat for that.

google might have tons of integration. But if it invested too heavily into AI then it will also suffer when increased competition causes returns to fall:

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

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

#203

Post by neo_doom »

Analemma_ wrote: post #96
LaurensBER wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we tried to do a pilot with their cloud we couldn't even sign-up. None of the corporate credit cards were accepted. In addition to that the form basically only worked in Edge. We emailed support, they changed something on the backend. It still did not work. We gave up. In retrospective that was a very clear warning sign that their priorities were misguided. I'm glad we did not waste any further time and effort o…

Oracle Cloud sometimes feels like an elaborate prank that I'm not in on. I know people and companies on AWS (obviously), Azure, Google Cloud, Hetzner, CloudFlare's various PaaS offerings, etc., but I can't name a single thing running on Oracle Cloud. Somebody out there is clearly using but I'll be damned if I know who it is.

We host more than 200 customers in OCI (because we have to). Its terrible. The service is terrible and they are breaking stuff all the time. Amsterdam down for a few hours today alone. We spend millions with them and can’t even get someone to join a bridge. It’s baaad

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

#204

Post by rsoto2 »

Vexs wrote: post #102
lelanthran wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think anthropic with its enterprise strategy and google with its integration in everything have a bit of a moat. But... Anthropic doesn't have a moat. It's clear at this point that SOTA models are not a moat, and Opus 4.6-level (or GLM 5.2) is sufficient. Google, though... they own the entire vertical, from the semiconductors to the end-user software. They may have a moat.

Observationally, for people that /aren't/ using models to code but to just do their white-collar job, claude.ai /is/ AI, now. The entire perspective for how to use AI is through claude skills, claude projects, claude cowork, etc. They've massively won the corp buy-in at the moment I believe.

doesn't matter. that just means they've incentivized all competitors to enter the market and let's be honest none of their tools are that novel.

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

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

#205

Post by kazinator »

lelanthran wrote: post #88
cmiles8 wrote: post #31

Market signals on an impending AI bust are broader than just Oracle’s woes. For example, Amazon just had a challenging bond offering where the market is clearly starting to seriously question the ROI on all this money being pumped into AI buildout. That does not bode well at all for AI-only companies without broader cash flow from other businesses. And when the cash dries up this whole thing comes crashing down like…

> 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…

It would be great if they open sourced the proprietary bits in the VirtualBox suite before that.

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

#206

Post by rsoto2 »

solatic wrote: post #64
hobonation wrote: post #4

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…

AWS and Google at least own their own hardware (Trainium and TPUs, respectively). It's a moat in the sense that designing, building, and deploying your own chips at scale is quite a feat and not easily replicated. The vertical integration will allow them to continue to be profitable once the models get good enough and competitors' prices race to the bottom. Google has Gemini; AWS may not deploy its own models (yet?),…

That's exactly what giant train corporations thought. "We own all the railways, we've squashed the competition"

and they STILL went out of business because they over-estimated the demand for their shitty rails they built to the middle of nowhere. Same with "AI."

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

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

#207

Post by marojejian »

pid-1 wrote: post #171
someuser54541 wrote: post #117

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.

Why should a retail investor never buy derivatives? spreads?

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

#208

Post by dragonwriter »

rawgabbit wrote: post #9
hobonation wrote: post #4

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…

Uhh. I actively and vocally avoid all things Microsoft. I see Microsoft and I immediately think buggy software with zero security.

Maybe so, but you clearly aren’t a representative sample of corporate decision-makers when it comes to AI (or broader IT) services.

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

#209

Post by rich_sasha »

pid-1 wrote: post #171
someuser54541 wrote: post #117

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.

It's worth adding that conventional wisdom says, you can't time the market. On average, people shifting between cash and stocks to time shocks lose out over just holding a fixed portfolio.

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

#210

Post by ceejayoz »

ericmay wrote: post #198
ceejayoz wrote: post #193

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 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 i…

> Then don't buy it at the IPO price?

I think you're getting lost here.

If I invested $0.50/share, I know my company is worth realistically $10/share, and I can convince you to buy at $100/share, and it plunges to $50/share before I can offload, I am still a pretty happy camper.

Retail investors are the marks, not the scammer here.

> They're not bullshit artists, they're greedy.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Musk is both, for instance.

Post reply on HN