The AI bubble is still ahead of us
-
@Mik said in The AI bubble is still ahead of us:
We haven't made any significant moves.
Well someone else manages your money. Professional money managers will do what they do, to minimize risk.
@Mik said in The AI bubble is still ahead of us:
We haven't made any significant moves.
Well someone else manages your money. Professional money managers will do what they do, to minimize risk.
Based on my experience with professional managers (never used one myself but I sit on the finance committee of three different foundations which use household name brokers) they usually have money in the latest thing, presumably because the latest thing is in the news and their clients will notice if they underperform AND are not in the latest thing which the client’s friends are in.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
-
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
Complicated hedging strategies don't make much sense to me. If you want to be both long and short highly correlated equities in order to insure the primary bet, maybe just discard the insurance and invest a reduced amount of capital in the primary bet. But if you want to potentially profit on a massive reverse move, I guess you'd have to do something more complicated.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Mik said in The AI bubble is still ahead of us:
We haven't made any significant moves.
Well someone else manages your money. Professional money managers will do what they do, to minimize risk.
Based on my experience with professional managers (never used one myself but I sit on the finance committee of three different foundations which use household name brokers) they usually have money in the latest thing, presumably because the latest thing is in the news and their clients will notice if they underperform AND are not in the latest thing which the client’s friends are in.
@Mik said in The AI bubble is still ahead of us:
We haven't made any significant moves.
Well someone else manages your money. Professional money managers will do what they do, to minimize risk.
Based on my experience with professional managers (never used one myself but I sit on the finance committee of three different foundations which use household name brokers) they usually have money in the latest thing, presumably because the latest thing is in the news and their clients will notice if they underperform AND are not in the latest thing which the client’s friends are in.
Being "in" an investment doesn't say much. But they're almost certainly not "concentrated" in meme investments, unless they run a very specialized service.
-
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
Complicated hedging strategies don't make much sense to me. If you want to be both long and short highly correlated equities in order to insure the primary bet, maybe just discard the insurance and invest a reduced amount of capital in the primary bet. But if you want to potentially profit on a massive reverse move, I guess you'd have to do something more complicated.
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
Complicated hedging strategies don't make much sense to me. If you want to be both long and short highly correlated equities in order to insure the primary bet, maybe just discard the insurance and invest a reduced amount of capital in the primary bet. But if you want to potentially profit on a massive reverse move, I guess you'd have to do something more complicated.
The short gives you a lot more money to invest. You’re betting that the AI companies will compose a larger and larger percentage of the tech stock universe, which could pay off regardless of what happens to the overall market. It’s actually how hedge funds got their name.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
-
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
Complicated hedging strategies don't make much sense to me. If you want to be both long and short highly correlated equities in order to insure the primary bet, maybe just discard the insurance and invest a reduced amount of capital in the primary bet. But if you want to potentially profit on a massive reverse move, I guess you'd have to do something more complicated.
The short gives you a lot more money to invest. You’re betting that the AI companies will compose a larger and larger percentage of the tech stock universe, which could pay off regardless of what happens to the overall market. It’s actually how hedge funds got their name.
I’ve read some interesting perspectives on why it isn’t in a bubble, both looking at PE ratios (much lower than in the dot com era) and the fact that the infrastructure companies aren’t building ahead of demand (like Cisco and the telecoms did in the dot com era). No one is laying the equivalent of dark fiber. Every gpu nvidia makes gets lit up right away.
Gavin Baker’s fund is interesting- he owns all these AI stocks but has a huge short position in QQQ as a hedge.
Complicated hedging strategies don't make much sense to me. If you want to be both long and short highly correlated equities in order to insure the primary bet, maybe just discard the insurance and invest a reduced amount of capital in the primary bet. But if you want to potentially profit on a massive reverse move, I guess you'd have to do something more complicated.
The short gives you a lot more money to invest. You’re betting that the AI companies will compose a larger and larger percentage of the tech stock universe, which could pay off regardless of what happens to the overall market. It’s actually how hedge funds got their name.
I had ChatGPT explain it to me. The reason I was confused is that it's not really an insured long on the AI stocks. It's a pairs trade where the investor is betting the AI stocks will outperform the broader QQQ, regardless of the overall direction of either. I guess that's a "hedge" by some other definition than the one I'm familiar with. I know it as a pairs trade, or arbitrage.
-
NVidia CEO reminds the world that large portions of the masses are insane:
"Remember last year when we were together, the rhetoric and the narrative around the investment were, 'What's the ROI?'" he added. "Give me one example of some crazy person saying that now. They're going to sound insane."
This notion that AI has no ROI is still abundant in online stock discussions. Lots of people can't disentangle their hatred of a new technology from a sober assessment of its economic potential.
-
There's also abundant breath-holding from people in computer game discussions about how they'll never purchase a game that used AI in its development. It's interesting watching a social movement that is so obviously a flash in the pan, participated in by people who are only telling on themselves that they're afraid of change, and prefer to scream at the clouds rather than accept it.
-
There's also abundant breath-holding from people in computer game discussions about how they'll never purchase a game that used AI in its development. It's interesting watching a social movement that is so obviously a flash in the pan, participated in by people who are only telling on themselves that they're afraid of change, and prefer to scream at the clouds rather than accept it.
There's also abundant breath-holding from people in computer game discussions about how they'll never purchase a game that used AI in its development.
If the cost of video cards and memory continue to rise, they may not be able to afford to play it.
I was only joking
-
Is necessary to have high resolution video playing at a high frame rate to enjoy computer games?
Beyond 30 frames per second, is there a practical difference other than bragging rights?
-
Is necessary to have high resolution video playing at a high frame rate to enjoy computer games?
Beyond 30 frames per second, is there a practical difference other than bragging rights?
-
There's also abundant breath-holding from people in computer game discussions about how they'll never purchase a game that used AI in its development.
If the cost of video cards and memory continue to rise, they may not be able to afford to play it.
They need to invest in chip stocks.
-
Is necessary to have high resolution video playing at a high frame rate to enjoy computer games?
Beyond 30 frames per second, is there a practical difference other than bragging rights?
Is necessary to have high resolution video playing at a high frame rate to enjoy computer games?
Most of the games I play have intentionally retro graphics, ostensibly for aesthetic reasons, but really because the small indie creators can't draw and can't afford artwork. AI will be a positive difference there IMO.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login