Michael Burry a.k.a. "Big Short",discloses $1.1B bet against Nvidia&Palantir

Post by astrange » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 8:10 AM UTC

solumunus wrote: post #172

rurp wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the Fed chart is accurately measuring what it's measuring but when I was a kid in Southern California it was normal to buy a house and raise kids on a single teacher or construction worker salary. That has become nearly impossible over the past couple decades. Many others have seen similar changes in their own areas and I don't think they're being crazy when they say it has gotten much harder to finance a no…

Inflation measures aren’t fit for purpose. The biggest expense is housing and housing as a proportion of income is what is killing people financially.

Post by astrange » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 8:16 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #120

astrange wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recessions can be avoided if you know about them ahead of time, so if you ever successfully predicted one your central bank isn't good enough.

Intervening as if there were a recession inminent when it is not also has harms (the exact same as the harms when recession interventions are maintained too long or employed too intensely, in terms of inflation, etc.), so I wouldn't agree that your central bank is bad if you happened to have guessed right once, but only if you have a demonstrably accurate objective method.

Post by moralestapia » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 9:11 AM UTC

zahlman wrote: post #140

moralestapia wrote: post #39

Does Michael Burry actually have $1.1B liquid? That margin call could obliterate him. Also, this is not an argument in favor of Nvidia or Palantir.

Putting aside that he's using puts (which caps the downside), with a classical short sell you don't need the current value of the stock liquid, but typically some percentage. That represents how much the stock can go up before you get the margin call. A short position is fundamentally unlike a long one, in that the future price movement of the underlying is bounded below at $0 but not bounded above. The sources I can…

Post by willis936 » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 10:51 AM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #236

willis936 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the kafka trap you think it is because any reasonable reader would see the glaring false equivalence. Supporting atrocities is upsetting and something we have agency over. How do you not see this?

I honestly don't understand how this relates to people actively supporting Hamas attacking Israel and killing civilians.

Post by nodesocket » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 3:10 PM UTC