161–170 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like he's sold 10% ish of his shares in 2025, not really that extreme
10% seems pretty high, running out of shares to sell of a company you own over the course of a decade? Definitely seems like you're hedging against a downturn.
They know the market is going to crash soon-ish.
Nvidia seems to be operating more like a sovereign wealth fund than a traditional business. They have a very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever, and is getting their fingers in as many pies as possible with the money and influence while they have it.
Yes but they're using this fund to prop up their core business (and share price) by artificially creating demand for their own products. Most of the money that they invest comes back to them when these companies buy GPUs.
Yup, give them $1B so they can build out AI DC’s stocked with $1B of Nvidia chips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the context is clear from what was written: > As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now. i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other opti…
How is Sweden worse than Finland? Considering they both are neighbors and have been a neutral country? (technically Sweden has been for longer).
As a Finn, rather than bore you with a 2846 bullet point list, I'd say that technologically not a lot, but we do have a lot more to lose, so it is easier to bargain with our industry compared to Sweden's. Our population is not always big enough to compete head-to-head with some sectors Sweden is also a part of.
Nvidia seems to be operating more like a sovereign wealth fund than a traditional business. They have a very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever, and is getting their fingers in as many pies as possible with the money and influence while they have it.
Nvidia seems to be operating more like a sovereign wealth fund than a traditional business. They have a very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever, and is getting their fingers in as many pies as possible with the money and influence while they have it.
Nvidia is not diversifying, but investing in it's customers, which are very very linked to it's own performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it seems now, they are into producing silicon that does massive parallel calculations, and variants on it thereof. To me, that seems to be a requirement for the computing industry for a long time. And, they seemed to have amassed enough capital to comfortably pivot to the next great thing that requires similar calculations. I think this is their super power. The next logical step would be to get into CPUs, to beco…
> The next logical step would be to get into CPUs, to become a fully integrated computing solutions provider. They already tried it 5 years ago [1][2] but it was promptly blocked by regulators. [1]: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-to-acquire-arm-for... [2]: HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24464807
Nvidia seems to be operating more like a sovereign wealth fund than a traditional business. They have a very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever, and is getting their fingers in as many pies as possible with the money and influence while they have it.
Yes but they're using this fund to prop up their core business (and share price) by artificially creating demand for their own products. Most of the money that they invest comes back to them when these companies buy GPUs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but they're using this fund to prop up their core business (and share price) by artificially creating demand for their own products. Most of the money that they invest comes back to them when these companies buy GPUs.
I wouldn't say they are artificially creating the demand. They artificatially create capacity to make a purchase by enabling their customers to pay with ownership of their business rather than with money. It's just an alternative financing scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but they're using this fund to prop up their core business (and share price) by artificially creating demand for their own products. Most of the money that they invest comes back to them when these companies buy GPUs.
I wouldn't say they are artificially creating the demand. They artificatially create capacity to make a purchase by enabling their customers to pay with ownership of their business rather than with money. It's just an alternative financing scheme.
If the company did not intend to purchase anything but Nvidia used the investment to "incentivize" a purchase then this is artificially creating demand where there used to be none. It's very different from Nvidia allowing a company to purchase Nvidia products that they already wanted to purchase but pay with stock.