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

151–160 of 166 posts

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

#151

Post by ffsm8 »

bpt3 wrote: post #87
iso1631 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not great when every other share price collapses as they get sold as funds are rebalanced. Almost every stock in VIG is in the S&P.

The "almost" portion of your statement is the entire point, and re-balancing isn't going to cause "every other share price to collapse".

From your statement it seems like you're underestimating it's impact.

Their impact would be felt across the whole market by their sheer valuation - even if you tried to exclude them specifically.

So yeah, if eg ai crashed and took Nvidia, meta, goog or MS for the ride... You'd have massive impacts all across the board, even if you specifically tried to exclude them from your index, just because of how gigantic it's share on the economy is.

But this is purely theoretical. It can only be considered an opinion until something actually happens - because the market has never been in a situation like this before - no matter what some people may claim.

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

#152

Post by simianwords »

prewett wrote: post #140
simianwords wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strategy should be to put money into AI broadly and not necessarily tie to a certain company -- something pension companies already know. So evidence that internet was a bubble is wrong, it in fact shows that pensions did the right thing by putting money in the internet.

Since you couldn't "put money in the internet", you had to choose some actual companies. Your results varied by which company you chose, and when you invested. (This is always the case, obviously) Sun Microsystems? Let's say you bought the dip at the end of May 2000, at $150. It's ending price when it was bought by Oracle in 2010 was $9.50. [1] Suppose you bought Cisco at the same time for $37.30. You would have wait…

> Since you couldn't "put money in the internet", you had to choose some actual companies

Why not NASDAQ?

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

throwfaraway4 wrote: post #44
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that once it's in the S&P500, Russel, Nasdaq100 etc indices - everyone with a pension or tracker fund will be buying it without thinking

This is why direct indexing is important. I can simply exclude these tickers. Will it skew it slightly from the index? Sure but I’m ok with that

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by arevno »

batperson wrote: post #117
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…

If you check openrouter there are a tons of providers selling API access to open source LLMs at a fraction of the cost compared to SOTA models (codex/claude). What model you're serving and what kind of platform you serve is a big factor. I'm no expert but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them and a that will absorb a chunk of the market, similar to what ha…

NN-specific ASICs won't buy you much more FLOPs per watt than GPUs/TPUs will. These chips are already extremely good at NN computation. Sure, you could remove GP shader support and free up 5% of your die for a few more cores (which btw is what TPUs pretty much are), but that's about it.

Either way, you'll still be starving for data.

The best work in this area is memory-integrated Big-Ass-Die or Big-Ass-Chiplet solutions like Cerebras which park SRAM right next to your cores, not ASICs.

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

#156

Post by rstuart4133 »

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.

The rational was: SpaceX will list with you, if you change that rule for us.

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

#157

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> What's the rationale offered by NASDAQ for their new "15-days and you're in the index" rule for these massive IPOs?

This actually makes sense to me. The NASDAQ 100 is—brand wise—geared towards the largest technology companies. It isn’t trying to pick good investments. It’s trying to represent that market. All of these AI companies fit that bill.

I’m more sceptical about S&P suspending its float and profitability requirements. But despite financial influencers on YouTube banging this drum for views, S&P hasn’t actually decided that yet.

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

#158

Post by conorcleary »

monooso wrote: post #13
lifty wrote: post #6

It’s very risky to make these kind of claims. If the denominator (USD) gets obliterated they might very well be worth $1T. It’s all about liquidity and central banks have a whole bag of tricks at their disposal. They never want to see deflation shocks again and they prefer asset inflation.

That seems like a hollow win.

Yea, the rest of us run on timestamps.

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

#159

Post by vallassy »

batperson wrote: post #117
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…

If you check openrouter there are a tons of providers selling API access to open source LLMs at a fraction of the cost compared to SOTA models (codex/claude). What model you're serving and what kind of platform you serve is a big factor. I'm no expert but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them and a that will absorb a chunk of the market, similar to what ha…

>but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them

This has already happened and is very interesting.

https://www.anuragk.com/blog/posts/Taalas.html

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

#160

Post by throwaway85825 »

vallassy wrote: post #159
batperson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you check openrouter there are a tons of providers selling API access to open source LLMs at a fraction of the cost compared to SOTA models (codex/claude). What model you're serving and what kind of platform you serve is a big factor. I'm no expert but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them and a that will absorb a chunk of the market, similar to what ha…

>but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them This has already happened and is very interesting. https://www.anuragk.com/blog/posts/Taalas.html

I think he means they will be commercially relevant and most AI compute won't be on GPUs.
Post reply on HN