3 ms·

The thing about hypotheses is that they can be either true or false. And seeing NVDA triple in the past year, even while there are many people devoting their wo

The thing about hypotheses is that they can be either true or false. And seeing NVDA triple in the past year, even while there are many people devoting their working lives just to do financial analysis of the stock, tells us the hypothesis is false.

Iulioh 2y ago
The Nvidia situation wasn't predictable as they sell an unique item with pratical applications. There are no alternatives to Nvidia GPUs if you want to efficiently train an AI, they have an effective monopoly. Personally i would have invested in TSMC/ASML or Intel as this point. Buy the shovel maker.
- bluecalm 2y ago
  NVidia make those things for quite some time you know? They also have done heavy investments in software side and had total dominance there for years. It's not like your needed to know 10 years ago. >>TSMC Relatively low margins, few good well negotiating customers. Can't grow fast. >>ASML What do you think market could have missed there? Good company with simple business model. Very unlikely to grow fast. >>Intel Terrible company with long track record of stupid decisions and deception. What make you think they will suddenly turn around and start innovating?
  - Iulioh 2y ago
    Good points but they have the fabs. That's why my bets are on them. Everyone is reliant on ASML and unlikely to change. Intel has fabs and is too big to fail, the us government won't let it happen. I'm making a safe bet on the long term, not a speculative one based on a technology that will or won't be worth that valuation.
michaelt 2y ago
I share your skepticism, but the EMH doesn't mean stocks would never move in price. After all, if it's election day, my analysis says FooCorp is worth $50 under a Biden administration and $100 under a Trump administration, and the candidates are neck-and-neck, that means the shares are worth $75. But tomorrow the shares will have either gained or lost $25.
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  Yes, that is true. But as detailed recently in Going Infinite, Jane Street's losses around the 2016 election were because they didn't know outcome was worth the example $50 and which was $100.
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
It's not that kind of hypothesis. It's more like a mathematical proof, with some underlying assumptions that aren't actually true in reality. Figuring out which ones, and to what extent, is an unorthodox but effective path to wealth.

Iulioh 2y ago

The Nvidia situation wasn't predictable as they sell an unique item with pratical applications. There are no alternatives to Nvidia GPUs if you want to efficiently train an AI, they have an effective monopoly. Personally i would have invested in TSMC/ASML or Intel as this point. Buy the shovel maker.

bluecalm 2y ago
NVidia make those things for quite some time you know? They also have done heavy investments in software side and had total dominance there for years. It's not like your needed to know 10 years ago. >>TSMC Relatively low margins, few good well negotiating customers. Can't grow fast. >>ASML What do you think market could have missed there? Good company with simple business model. Very unlikely to grow fast. >>Intel Terrible company with long track record of stupid decisions and deception. What make you think they will suddenly turn around and start innovating?
- Iulioh 2y ago
  Good points but they have the fabs. That's why my bets are on them. Everyone is reliant on ASML and unlikely to change. Intel has fabs and is too big to fail, the us government won't let it happen. I'm making a safe bet on the long term, not a speculative one based on a technology that will or won't be worth that valuation.

michaelt 2y ago

I share your skepticism, but the EMH doesn't mean stocks would never move in price. After all, if it's election day, my analysis says FooCorp is worth $50 under a Biden administration and $100 under a Trump administration, and the candidates are neck-and-neck, that means the shares are worth $75. But tomorrow the shares will have either gained or lost $25.

WorkerBee28474 2y ago
Yes, that is true. But as detailed recently in Going Infinite, Jane Street's losses around the 2016 election were because they didn't know outcome was worth the example $50 and which was $100.

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

It's not that kind of hypothesis. It's more like a mathematical proof, with some underlying assumptions that aren't actually true in reality. Figuring out which ones, and to what extent, is an unorthodox but effective path to wealth.