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

301–310 of 378 posts

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

#301

Post by ceejayoz »

ericmay wrote: post #286
ceejayoz wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you can just not buy the shares. It's very straightforward. Sure, but the SEC exists, in theory, to make that decision one you can make an informed decision on, because con artists don't typically put a disclaimer in that says "this is bullshit".

You can't make an informed decision on it unless you do your own research and analyze an individual stock. Then it's up to you to decide if it's worth investing in. This is true for any investment. Just because you think something is bullshit doesn't mean it is. Maybe you're just wrong. Buy the security or don't.

> You can't make an informed decision on it unless you do your own research…

Most retail investors suffer from significant information asymmetry. We have regulations, in part, to mitigate this fact.

> Just because you think something is bullshit doesn't mean it is.

A point you yourself might remember when arguing on the internet.

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

#302

Post by ceejayoz »

ericmay wrote: post #287
ceejayoz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wrote in another post which I think fits nicely here: 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…

> 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.

No, I am not. That’s the “it plunges to $50/share before I can offload” period.

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

#303

Post by bpavuk »

surgical_fire wrote: post #285
bpavuk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he is correct on most counts and for the rest I lack the competence to vouch for or denounce his research. a rare sight!

I like his work. I think he is wrong when he says AI is useless. I agree that it's far from being as useful as assholes like Amodei claim it is, but it clearly has use cases. Then again, that is the weak part of Zitron's argument, and laughably the only thing his critics like to engage. When he brings up the bonkers economics of AI, and how absolutely unsustainable it is, his arguments are very solid. I am still to s…

well, I've been working on the Zig compiler lately, there you have to swear off using AI in any capacity. even your tab-complete, yes. I find that yes, I'm a little slower with regexes instead of GPT mini/Luna models as a find/replace engine, but I am quickly getting grasp of it, and I see the future where I'm faster with Neovim and ripgrep than Codex. the structure of the standard library is super-logical and the code is eye-wateringly readable. I don't even feel the need in, or will to, use Codex in any capacity when working on such a great project. DVUI is also great to work with.

that said, I also used to work in environments where even Claude Opus tripped over itself when trying to untangle its own slop. that made me looking forward to AI going bust and folding back into tab-complete. that bubble revealed a lot of projects that always were slop, even before AI. the LLM policy became a great proxy of the quality standard the codebase and the community upholds itself to

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

#304

Post by BeetleB »

overfeed wrote: post #298
BeetleB wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that whether there will be a crash or not is incredibly hard to predict. COVID did not come with a stock market crash, but it affected employment much more than a possible AI crash will. > The AI crash is about stock market indicator ratios matching those that preceded other major crashes. The way to put faith in such indicators is not (only) by looking at prior crashes, but by forward testing them. Over…

> My point is that whether there will be a crash or not is incredibly hard to predict. COVID did not come with a stock market crash As someone who had early PUTs against the obvious industries (travel, hospitality) - what I didn't foresee was the insane amounts of government liquidity poured into the markets.

> As someone who had early PUTs against the obvious industries (travel, hospitality) - what I didn't foresee was the insane amounts of government liquidity poured into the markets.

They did it in 2008 as well. Although the amount in COVID seems insanely high, back in 2008, $700B was insanely high. People couldn't believe the government would spend that much to keep the economy going.

The real question is:

What else are you not foreseeing?

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

#305

Post by quickthrowman »

gruez wrote: post #128
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?

>A few puts on SPY dated a year or two out? You think the hedge funds selling SPY options don't have this priced in already? Of course, you can still make money on this bet, just like you can win money at a roulette table, but unless you think have some special insight that hedge/quant funds don't have, buying options should be negative EV.

Options market makers have no idea where the S&P will be in one year, options are priced on the current implied volatility. The bid and ask will be slightly lower and higher than the true current option price so the MM can make their nut on the spread and then hedge so they’re delta neutral.

If you buy a put you are making a bet that realized volatility will exceed implied volatility. This may or may not happen and there’s no way to predict the future.

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

#306

Post by quickthrowman »

UltraSane wrote: post #98
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…

That is crazy. One of the main rules of business is to always make it as easy as possible for customers to give you money.

Not if the goal is to get you into a sales funnel with a sales exec to juice the contract value. Oracle doesn’t give a single shit about someone spending $500/month

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

#307

Post by inigyou »

solumunus wrote: post #282
inigyou wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You almost always lose a lot of money if you're seeking safety. Protection from downside risk on your S&P500 investments may cost 20-30% of your investment at which point you're better off just selling the investment and hoping it doesn't go up by that much.

> Protection from downside risk on your S&P500 investments may cost 20-30% of your investment What? Absolutely not.

What did you buy and for how much?

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

#308

Post by protocolture »

lelanthran wrote: post #124
SirFatty wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> yeah.. https://ai-2027.com/ That site is too funny :-) > [mid-2026] But China is falling behind on AI algorithms due to their weaker models.

Website is just "What if line go up forever"

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

#309

Post by icedchai »

chasd00 wrote: post #256
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?

> What's the best way to hedge against this, considering many of us have significant savings in the market? honestly, if you're >= 10 years away from needing that money (retirement or whatever) then the best hedge is to ignore the news and just keep contributing to your investment as always. I got caught up in a couple moments (tarif drama April before last was one) where i panicked and sold and then it only took a f…

I knew guys who panicked in Feb 2020, at the start of covid. They moved everything to cash, never got back into the market. Things recovered faster than they thought. The unfortunate truth is they would've more than doubled their money if they stayed invested.

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

#310

Post by therobots927 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #299
surgical_fire wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the best possible interpretation of them. Correct. Because a less charitable interpretation will squint at their marketing spend and wonder if they are just sweeping a lot of their expenses on categories they don't belong to make their business look less bonkers to those that prefer to not ask the ugly questions.

That. I'm personally on the team that think it's honest. But then they have to explain why their marketing numbers are so weird.

I don’t know how $5B+ in marketing for OpenAI is actually possible.

To put it in perspective, that’s about the combined campaign budget of the Trump and Harris campaigns.

I would expect to be seeing a lot more openAI ads than I’m seeing right now. And they would be everywhere.

Post reply on HN