upvote
reply
Can you please summarize his argument?
reply
The argument is, as I understand it:

* Valuation of the sp500, the hyperscalers and Nvidia is (mostly) reasonable based on earnings

* Build out of infrastructure is demand-driven, hyperscalers are not building just for future demand that would not materialize

* OpenAI, anthropic & co can be overvalued but that does not mean there's a systemic bubble

I think this underestimates contagion effects and the fact that demand appears to be subsidized and may disappear quickly, but it's just MHO.

reply
> * Valuation of the sp500, the hyperscalers and Nvidia is (mostly) reasonable based on earnings

That is a hell of a statement to make (their earnings are mostly negative, after all, except nvidia). Would require exceptional evidence, which doesn't seem to be there.

> * Build out of infrastructure is demand-driven, hyperscalers are not building just for future demand that would not materialize

This does not reconcile with the large amount of empty datacenters and GPUs which have not been installed: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ais-economics-dont-make-sense-ad...

> * OpenAI, anthropic & co can be overvalued but that does not mean there's a systemic bubble

OK? It could also mean there is.

> I think this underestimates contagion effects and the fact that demand appears to be subsidized and may disappear quickly, but it's just MHO.

Even with subsidized demand Microsoft still ended up cancelling over a gigawatt(!) of planned datacenters already back in 2024. But yeah, their arguments are missing a lot.

reply
I think the earnings are suspect and exaggerated. Hardware manufacturers are making real money now, but there is a big question if any of these AI companies can deliver profitability to match their current valuation let alone future valuations when they go public.

Hyperscalers are in big trouble if the build out suddenly stalls. Even Nvidia and Micron are going to see their value significantly trimmed if it looks like growth is stalling. With such concentration at the top of the S&P among tech companies and with SpaceX, Anthropic, and Open AI, three companies that probably burn a combined 50+ billion a year. The whole stock market will be a tinderbox.

The whole thing is so private capital can get their exit. Default rates of private capital are already at 6%. Banks are exposed so they are on board with the fraud.

reply
> Hyperscalers are in big trouble if the build out suddenly stalls.

How would you define stalled? Hardly anything has been built in the last 2 years (and most of those juicy new GPUs must be sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be installed, together with all of our RAM and HDDs).

reply
but google, meta, microsoft and amazon were making a ton of money even before the AI boom.

OpenAI and Anthropic's can go bust, but ads, windows and cloud hosting would still make a ton of money without them.

reply
Oh yes, this time it will be different, of course. (Like the last time.)
reply
You mean "Listen to [someone who started on Wall Street at Lehman Brothers, joined PayPal in its earliest days and worked alongside Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, and eventually became a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley] argue why AI probably isn't a bubble".

Funny how this different framing of the exact same person provides a completely opposite expectation of their incentives behind commenting on whether AI valuations are a bubble.

reply
[flagged]
reply
We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed the rules.
reply
It looks less like capitalism and more like socialism for the rich, marketed as free markets.

Print money. Push most of it into cheap credit for giant corporations and asset owners. Let a little trickle into the real economy so ordinary people feel temporary relief. Then let inflation quietly do the dirty work.

The public pays through higher prices, weaker savings, and future debt.

The powerful collect the upside.

That is the game: privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and call it capitalism.

And all of this is legal under the disguise of "protecting the economy for regular folks", and they can keep doing it repeatedly.

reply
deleted
reply
except the last bubble pop hit fast and hard with post covid inflation.
reply
It worked. The only people upset about it are young people who don't vote. If young people don't want a continual wealth transfer from them to the old, they need to start voting. That's been the case since 2008, and here we are a generation later.
reply
You mean the young people who cannot (or could not) vote because they are under 18?

Also very bold of you to assume voting does much.

(coming from a 22 year old who votes at every federal, state and local election).

reply
People under 40 have much lower voter turnout than people over 40. 75% of 65+ year olds vote. Less than 50% of 18-25 year olds vote. I wasn't referring to children.
reply
The way people voted in the last federal election did a whole lot. Granted, it’s effectively limited to people in swing states.
reply
Old people will be the majority for the foreseeable future, though. To be honest, the only strategy that I currently see for young people is waiting and growing old, unfortunately..
reply
This is a well-known affliction of democracy.

Logically, it seems insane that people who live on other people's taxes have the right to vote. Officials, public sector employees, and anyone else who receives money from the government rather than contributes to it shouldn't vote.

reply
It's hard to take the "just vote" seriously after the rash of gerrymandering happening in the south. Some elections were even downright cancelled.
reply
It's possible that the gerrymandering will come back to bite them. It doesn't give them more votes, it just spreads them thinner over more seats. Which means if the blue wave is larger than expected a lot of their "safe" seats will suddenly be blue instead.
reply
[dead]
reply
It’s never going to happen because too many people want it to happen.
reply
oh yea good way to stay out of market and retire like a poor person.
reply
> If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating...

Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.

reply
Irrational exuberance rarely transitions to a rational drawn down. The minute the first selfish-actor flood-liquidates, everyone else will too. That's now runs work.
reply
but this isn't "irrational exuberance", literally everyone I know paying and kind of attention has "rational dread".
reply
In my opinion the amount of money poured into these companies is the definition of irrational exuberance. And even if you want to call it dread, once they start to deflate people will panic and flee.
reply
Hmm. With respect, I disagree. When the term was first coined, the broader context was "Main St" (ie, retail) investors acting with apparently excessive optimism. Whereas the unfathomable sums being poured into AI by "Wall St" arguably stem from profound but simple greed, a scheme in which the uber-rich are forcing AI and the concomitant bubble risk down the throats of the general public. "Exuberance" has a significantly positive connotation, which in this case I find completely absent.
reply
But where else will people put their money?
reply
That's not the problem, the problem is when they take it out of these companies, where it goes after that is irrelevant. Once the exodus starts prices will plummet and lots of people will lose a lot of value.
reply
Somewhere safe. Gold, usually.
reply

    > "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
That is a quote from Warren Buffett.

More: https://www.gurufocus.com/news/220058/seven-quotes-from-warr...

reply
While this is factual, the world (and humans) haven't functioned this way since ... ever? It doesn't matter what you think logic is, if the people who are providing the services (teacher, worker, doctor, etc..) are illogical and you need these services from these people.
reply
I heard daffodils are where it's at.
reply
The source of your information requires more scrutiny.
reply
Because it is deliberately extracting cash from Mom and Pop into the robber baron's wallets?
reply
Okay? Why does that mean a devastating pop?
reply
Where were you in 2008?
reply
It would be karmic if fleecing led to financial crises. It doesn’t. You’ve taken N = 1 and extrapolated it wildly.
reply
Because traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties. Whether this works or not at some point it becomes an inevitable and self reenforcing feedback loop.

Just investing less in risky things on the run up means you personally perform worse so even in known bubbles you don't see reasonable slow downs instead of disastrous pops.

reply
> traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties

What? Source? Plenty of investment bubbles pop before the bag is passed.

This thread involves a lot of people looking at something they don't like and presuming karmic forces will give them what they deserve. There is no reason these companies, even if massively overvalued, have to "pop."

That's fundamentally different from e.g. the financial crisis, or the 2023 bank collapses, or even the dot-com bubble. Those did not have the ability to self correct. There was no slow deflation other than through a bailout.

reply
> There is no reason these companies, even if massively overvalued, have to "pop."

This is a wild thing say without any qualification.

reply
> This is a wild thing say without any qualification

It’s really not. Bubbles are notable because most elevated asset prices slowly go down. And they have common characteristics that force the reckoning. Usually debt. Sometimes operational leverage.

reply
I'm genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble?

As I see it, this is the exact same situation - wildly overvalued companies based on investor exuberance, the underlying business is not capable of supporting this kind of valuation. IPO tends to be the crunch point at which this overvaluation is exposed. Once exposed, the valuation correction spreads to other similar businesses quickly and the bubble pops.

What's the self-correction ability that AI companies have?

reply
> genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble?

A lot more revenue. Dot coms were going public pre revenue. And Anthropic is profitable. Both it and SpaceX wouldn’t be dependent on further stock sales to stay alive—that lets them weather a downturn.

reply
As I understand the situation, Anthropic is revenue-positive but not profitable. As usual, Ed Zitron covers this well [0].

As with the dot-com bubble, there is a lot of voodoo accountancy (and flat-out lies) about the actual situation here.

As I understand it, the basic problem is that the big three can't charge enough per token to cover costs because they're in competition with each other (and one of those is Google that can afford to buy market share using its other operating revenues), and the OSS/cheap Chinese models.

And this situation is unlikely to get better in the short term because building cheaper per-token capacity is very expensive and time-consuming.

[0] https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...

reply
> this situation is unlikely to get better in the short term because building cheaper per-token capacity is very expensive and time-consuming

They don’t need to fix it in the short term.

Look, this could be total nonsense. But what won’t happen is Anthropic or SpaceX disappearing inside a year. That was true in the 90s because the only cash flow going into those companies came from investors.

reply
I notice you left out OpenAI from that ;)

Agree, some of these are valid businesses. But they are also massively overvalued on that underlying valid business, because of investor enthusiasm. When the bubble pops they are going to have real problems because of that overvaluation. Hopefully they survive, as a lot of the dotcom businesses did.

I think the real bloodbath will be the second-tier businesses that are mostly reselling cheap tokens to a market niche with custom prompts, and also massively overvalued as "AI businesses". And that kinda mirrors what happened in the dotcom bust - all the overvalued "webscale" businesses that hadn't really worked out a solid model yet went to the wall immediately

reply
> notice you left out OpenAI from that

OpenAI seems to have made debt-like commitments to spending on infrastructure. If those are indeed binding, they may have less flexibility than the others. (If Anthropic’s revenue growth stalls and its valuation halves, it should still be a going concern.)

reply
If what you say is true and it predicts the future, then everyone would be selling right now. The fact is, no one knows when or if the bubble will pop, and we will only be able to say in hindsight whether your comparison is correct.
reply
I said attempt to offload see mortgage backed securities for one such attempt.

The point is that nobody wants to be the first out of a hot market nor the last so that bubbles everyone knows are bubbles first hang on despite it being broadly believed to be so and then crash as people head for the exits.

Broadly people are taking on debt to realize profits that may not exist. Retrospectively widely acknowledged bubbles like every crash in the last century all popped im not aware of any big enough to cause a recession that petered out slowly. Since we don't need to look up 100 years of crashes together can you name some similarly large issues that were resolved slowly over time?

reply
Once the liquidity is transferred, that's it? There is nothing there (datacenter in space, that dude is really smoking some serious stuff), so the money will be spent/transferred and then there is no revenue/new sources of money.

It's the same scenario of a ponzi scheme. Everything looks fresh and fine until everyone realizes there is nothing in there.

reply
Why would that pop the bubble?

Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands.

Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.

reply
Not related - many robber barons went bankrupt in the severe economic crashes of the time, such as the Panics of 1873 and 1893. The Gilded Age continued despite bubbles popping.
reply
I mean, isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? If it slowly loses value over time, its not really a bubble.
reply
> isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly?

There is no consistent definition of a bubble. We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.

reply
Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping? That's literally the metaphor.

> We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.

I would agree, but i think that is just saying that the current situation is potentially not a bubble. Which may be true. We will only find out after the fact.

reply
> Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping?

I’ve seen it commonly used to refer to any period of high multiples.

reply
deleted
reply
One thing I have come to realize, is that worrying about bubbles will keep you poor.

If everyone is in the bubble and it pops, everyone is in the same boat, so you’re not really going to be poorer than your peers by comparison.

If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.

Also, just because something is a bubble doesn’t mean it has to end in a devastating pop. Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused. The exponential rise stops and prices plateau, but it just becomes a new normal and things stagnate for a while before resuming normal upward growth.

reply
Ask Warren Buffet how concerned he was of "missing" on bubbles... He got richer than pretty much everybody else by just avoiding bubbles and then buying assets at fire sale prices when they inevitably popped.
reply
https://x.com/Mr_Derivatives/status/2022796755621060695

Chamath says Warren Buffett outperformed the $SPX by 2 times pre-2000’s because he used "insider info".

Berkshire Hathaway completely exited its investment in Paytm (One97 Communications) in November 2023. This divestment occurred just two months prior to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) initiating its strict regulatory and KYC-related crackdowns on Paytm Payments Bank in early 2024.

I think Warren has been doing insider trading.

reply
No, Warren Buffet became so rich because he was making deals to pick up stock at favorable prices the public didn’t have access to. You will not be Warren Buffet just by buying after stocks crash.
reply
deleted
reply
> If everyone is in the bubble and it pops, everyone is in the same boat, so you’re not really going to be poorer than your peers by comparison.

> If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.

I don't get? First scenario, you get richer vs. the average and in the second you gt poorer. So in total you average out? I don't see how not participating makes you poorer in average.

> Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused.

That's not what a bubble is. A financial bubble is defined by the "burst" at the end.

reply
Normal people generally won't be able to beat professionals in the "market timing game". So when Joe Sixpack decides to sell off his index funds with intent to buy back in at a lower price, he's usually making a mistake. Staying invested in the market is a better choice for most investors because being in cash is about -2%/year EV whereas being in stocks is about +6%/year EV.
reply
[flagged]
reply
There is literally nothing creative about circumventing existing regulations. By definition of there already being rules in place to prevent them, the pump methods being used are already a known quantity. That those safeguards are being bypassed is just boring old corruption.
reply
The wrong lessons were were learnt in 2008 after no individual suffered any negative consequences for their part in causing horrible losses for a lot of people.
reply