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

141–150 of 166 posts

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

#141

Post by rlt »

brainwad wrote: post #80
martinclayton wrote: post #43

What's the rationale offered by NASDAQ for their new "15-days and you're in the index" rule for these massive IPOs? Seems equivalent to removing road safety rules for the least-tested, most-powerful new vehicles only.

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.

It seems like the index funds’ problem to solve.

They should just have their own criteria for inclusion in the fund.

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

#142

Post by simonsarris »

pjmlp wrote: post #37
jstummbillig wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minus, of course, all the times where it did not go bum, right?

Such as?

On November 16 2022 Michael Burry tweeted "You have no idea how short I am"

On January 31st 2023 Michael Burry just tweeted out "Sell"

that period was the market bottom, which has rocketed since then. (QQQ more than doubled)

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

#143

Post by directevolve »

chvid wrote: post #75

Coinbase IPOed 5 years ago and is (and has mostly been) trading below its IPO price. Perhaps private equity has become so skilled that when they finally sell to the public they leave nothing on table.

IPOs are one-shot, sealed-bid auctions, and the winner’s curse applies. There are separate equilibria where the company maximizes its cash gains or its fully diluted market cap. It can pick which to target.

“Leaving nothing on the table” would mean selling few enough shares at the IPO that you have to overpay to get shares at the IPO. Previous valuations are known, as is that implied by each choice of IPO price when looking at the book. So the skill is just in the company not needing all that much money and being great at generating hype.

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

#144

Post by jstummbillig »

pjmlp wrote: post #37
jstummbillig wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minus, of course, all the times where it did not go bum, right?

Such as?

On average, all the time. By any reasonable measure, more wealth has been created the longer the time horizon. Looking at the S&P500 over time gives an indication.

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

#145

Post by ffsm8 »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #66
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…

> 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 ... Well, no he isn't well aware of this, apparently. He's been right in 2008 but he has been spectacularly wrong for the last 5 to 10 years, like shorting Tesla or Nvidia at the worst possible moments - and eventually closing his hedge fund...

> shorting Tesla or Nvidia at the worst possible moments - and eventually closing his hedge fund...

He just didn't take to heart that the market can stay irrational for longer then he could stay solvent.

Both Tesla and Nvidia valuations are irrational from a market perspective. Doesn't mean they'll crash within the next months or even years, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did

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

#146

Post by mschuster91 »

bumby wrote: post #134
mschuster91 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't a counter argument that there are index funds for just about everything? Ie, I'm sure there will be an index for "Everything in S&P Except SpaceX" for those who think SpaceX doesn't belong there. There are even "anti-index index funds" that are defined by being the opposite of another ETF.

Pension funds don't use these and most retail users are lazy af. The only ones putting funds into niche funds are gamblers and nerds, a tiny minority.

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

#147

Post by dualvariable »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #65
bumby wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People have seen others make insane, life changing money at this slot machine and are wanting to take their chances. Isn’t this the exact same sentiment from the late 1920s when people were making “insane, life changing” money by buying equities on margin?

This time is different. It may well though, because now we have an automatic buy from the government to 'fix' the market if it 'breaks'. The line goes up.

The fact that so many people think the Fed will step in and magically keep the number up is why I'm pretty certain this is going to turn out like the late-20s.

The cynical nihilists have capitulated to the stock market always going up, that has to be flashing a very bearish warning sign.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

rlt wrote: post #141
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.

It seems like the index funds’ problem to solve. They should just have their own criteria for inclusion in the fund.

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by IAmBroom »

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

For those that can't parse it, weewee was apparently saying:

Burry says that the company making "computers that can program other computers" isn't worth $1T.

However, if you can't even be bothered to find out who Michael Burry is, your opinion is nothing more than a driveby internet shooting. Adds nothing but noise.

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

#150

Post by f2rf »

rchaud wrote: post #138
throwfaraway4 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extent to which you’re exposed to long term principles is directly related to the time you’re in the market. Ie trader vs investor “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine” - benjamin graham

Graham died back when stocks were traded by guys shouting orders from a pit. High frequency trading was decades away, as was Wall Street's push for: - creative accounting (Enron, Worldcom) - zero-interest rate policy - SPAC IPOs - exotic securitization (credit default swaps) ...that made valuation more opaque over time. The age of value investing is long gone.

[dead]
Post reply on HN