Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by iso1631 » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 8:29 AM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #151

bpt3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Not just that.

If you have a $10B fund which owns things evenly across the nasdaq, and a new company arrives, you have to buy shares in the new company, which means selling existing shares or getting more funding to balance.

So you buy $1B of SpaceX stock at the IPO price, meaning you have to sell 10% or $1B of existing Nasdaq stock, which (when combined with every other fund) lowers the cost of the other stocks.

If I own stock in everything-but-spacex, then I'm seeing the price collapse because everyone else is selling.

Then if spacex stock collapses to half its initial price, your $1B becomes worth $500m, you get margin called, and you have to sell more stock, pushing the other stocks down, and the problem cascades

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

#162

Post by bpt3 » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 11:24 AM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #161

ffsm8 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Not just that. If you have a $10B fund which owns things evenly across the nasdaq, and a new company arrives, you have to buy shares in the new company, which means selling existing shares or getting more funding to balance. So you buy $1B of SpaceX stock at the IPO price, meaning you have to sell 10% or $1B of existing Nasdaq stock, which (when combined with every other fund) lowers the cost of the other stocks. If…

Maybe if you use the word collapse a few more times in your contrived and completely unrealistic example, it'll actually have some merit!

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

#163

Post by bumby » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 11:44 AM UTC

timacles wrote: post #136

idiotsecant wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means it's like the 1920s even harder, just on a time delay fuse

People really think we have found a way to negate the laws of physics. As of there can exist a system without entropy. Humans are prisoners of the present moment, but just think what a market is. What does it really mean as it accumulates disorder for decade plus. Can the market just continue to deviate from a markets actual purpose forever? Hell, can anything in this universe exist in a particular state forever. If…

Money and economics are not “physics”. They are social constructs and not immutable natural laws. Prices can go up as long as people are willing to inflate PE ratios; this isn’t the same as saying my weight will increase indefinitely because acceleration due to gravity increases.

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

#164

Post by bpt3 » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #151

bpt3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I'm not underestimating its impact.

Of course the recession that would likely occur if/when the AI spending merry go round comes to an ends would have a negative impact on the entire economy. In that scenario, would you rather own a stock that's going to zero, or one has taken a hit because of the other company going to zero but still has a viable long term business?

Would you rather have an unusually large concentration in a few very specific companies in your portfolio, or have increased diversity (and therefore lower risk) in this unprecedented scenario?

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

#165

Post by jjav » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 8:49 AM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #145

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> Both Tesla and Nvidia valuations are irrational from a market perspective.

Different levels though. NVDA P/E is 31 which is slightly high but not crazy. The AI datacenter investments might dry up and then earnings drop, but who knows. So it's defensible, at least.

TSLA is in another universe though, P/E of ~360!

I am convinced spacex will acquire TSLA just to avoid seeing it crash.

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

#166

Post by vfalbor » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 7:21 AM UTC

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

If that were the case, it would be reasonable to expect that companies like OpenAI or Anthropic, which are heavily indebted, would lose part of their business model, not because their models are bad, but because others will be cheaper and not as bad.