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

Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#101

Post by Ekaros »

martinclayton wrote: post #94
brainwad wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want the index to be representative of the top stocks listed on the Nasdaq, even if they are brand new. The Nasdaq 100 in particular is a marketing tool for the stock exchange, it's not a particularly principled index.

Yeah, indeed. See (march) https://www.reuters.com/business/new-nasdaq-rules-include-fa... Quote from Cameron Lilja, Nasdaq's global head of index solutions: "It is not necessarily representative to have a company that's big and could have a sizable representation in the index to keep them out for that long," Lilja said in an interview. "We're seeing share and corporate structures change - and companies that are stayi…

How much will NASDAQ make for getting SpaceX on them? Surely it is not small sum?

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#102

Post by toasty228 »

beernet wrote: post #2

AI doomers really are punching the air these days. They will be right eventually and inevitably. Until then, it's funny watching them build a personal "brand" just to say "I told you so" when the market drops in X years.

Being an AI enthusiast doesn't mean you have to say "yes my lord" to every coked-up delusions dario, musk and altman decide to regurgitate today. This feels more and more like football team shenanigans, or even a cult.

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#103

Post by kys11 »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #46

So the company that actually makes computers programming computers work, ain't worth $1T. Whoever you are Michael Burry, you don't know shit about the implications, and where this is headed, and that the party only just got started. I sure do wish I had a big chunk of that overpriced Google IPO stock, and Amazon, and MS, and Apple, etc etc etc

[dead]

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#104

Post by infecto »

mschuster91 wrote: post #95
bumby wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on how passive investing contributes to this?

Simple. Most "passive investors" are ETFs and pension funds that sometimes by law, sometimes by statute/sales prospect are limited to being low-risk, i.e. the monthly contributions go towards "safe" asset classes, and in addition retail customers prefer low-fee (and thus low-management) funds. That in turn means that a lot of the invested money goes towards ultra-safe stuff like government bonds, which is about the o…

[flagged]

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#105

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

maeln wrote: post #91
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore. It has been broken since ~2008 (ZIRPs, etc.) and has really gone off the rails since BTC and memestocks have taken off. Now everything's a memestock. It's all vibes-based.

I don't think there is a single thing that explain the absolute joke that is the current market. Algorithmic trading, high-frequency trading, deregulation, passive investment, “finance” influencer pump and dumping ... But in general, I do believe it has the same issues that you can say about anything these days. It's not like those things didn't exist into a form or another in the past, but it's just so, so much fast…

It's a confluence of factors, but the really big ones are, IMO, what I mentioned:

- ZIRP and similar policies essentially forced everybody to get into the stock market if they wanted to tread water.

- Then people saw with BTC (and similar, e.g. ETH,) that these so-called "market investments" don't need to be rooted in any kind of fundamental. They can be weightless tokens. This, in short order, lead to silly things like memestocks and NFTs -- but they also twisted the hell out of the markets. The valuation of TSLA has long been an example of this.

Then there's inflation, which has inflated stock market prices as much as it has inflated anything else. And there are toothless regulators who would deserve our sympathy if they weren't so lackadaisical. There are also llms, social media, etc. -- but those feed on the above.

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#106

Post by dgellow »

vfalbor wrote: post #100

This is a very interesting comment. Companies like OpenAI or ChatGPT sell hardware hidden in tokens, and the token is different for each company depending on the tokenizer. The concern is this: when you have an Opus 4.7, Sonnet, or GPT 5X with an Nvidia H100 or H200 GPU, what will happen to this cost when, if not Nvidia, another Chinese company enters the market and starts running these models? The point here is that…

Or the AI labs just take an increased margin? The model is ultimately what people want access to and are paying for

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#109

Post by tristanj »

bumby wrote: post #56
pu_pe wrote: post #11

The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore. So, in some sense, it is immaterial that the rosy scenarios where AI is responsible for >$30 trillion in the next decade are unlikely. If you bet against the hype and it goes on for a few more months/years you lose as much or more than if you went along for the ride. Burry is well aware of this, he has written about how passive investing is contributin…

Can you elaborate on how passive investing contributes to this?

Passive investing funnels money into the market without accounting for business fundamentals. It simply allocates funding by looking at sector and market cap. It's the definition of dumb money.

As long as companies can make it into the index, passive investors will funnel money into buying stock of these companies, no matter how badly these companies are run.

Re: Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

#110

Post by dgellow »

alberto467 wrote: post #89
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I code 8+ hours days with Deepseek V4 flash and it costs me under $1 per day... I dont know how they will charge so much for a sub.

Well... $1 a day is not that far from that hypothetical $50 a month though. Especially if it gives you access to significantly more powerful models (which it does). EDIT: i still find absurd thinking that all those subscription would go to a single company, let me be clear. But that $50 price doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

> Especially if it gives you access to significantly more powerful models (which it does).

Anthropic and OpenAI are losing lots of money with their subscriptions. They are giving away access to those powerful models for cheap. The Deepseek price is the API price, which is the only sustainable approach here

Post reply on HN