It is often compared to the dotcom bubble.
That was the beginning of the internet, and perhaps the beginning of digitalization.
Many companies began, sometimes without capital or substance. Sometimes even in garages and basements.
Many companies generated no profits, and some even no turnover.
But every investor wanted to be involved. And multiples, such as high valuations, were ignored.
After all, these were only available from trade journals.
Today, quality companies have cash flow. Thanks to the Internet, we have completely different ways of analyzing companies and accessing multiples.
This gives us the opportunity to pick out companies with substance.
I therefore only see a bubble in companies without substance.
That was the beginning of the internet, and perhaps the beginning of digitalization.
Many companies began, sometimes without capital or substance. Sometimes even in garages and basements.
Many companies generated no profits, and some even no turnover.
But every investor wanted to be involved. And multiples, such as high valuations, were ignored.
After all, these were only available from trade journals.
Today, quality companies have cash flow. Thanks to the Internet, we have completely different ways of analyzing companies and accessing multiples.
This gives us the opportunity to pick out companies with substance.
I therefore only see a bubble in companies without substance.
â˘
2626
â˘
@Tenbagger2024 I take a more critical view. Even the whole business around OpenAI is becoming more and more of a bubble. And "quality companies" such as Nvidia and Oracle are also playing this game or are part of the strategy.
Oracle and Meta have huge plans. However, we already know today that they will run out of money at some point. Zombie companies like Coreweave (totally over-indebted with loan interest rates of >10% in some cases) are needed to buy Nvidia's chips and keep the spool running.
What Nvidia is currently doing is what Cisco did in the late 90s to keep their business going (taking a financial stake in customers, delivering goods in exchange for promises for the future etc.).
I'm not saying it's an "AI bubble" and it's all going to burst soon, but a lot of things have been built like a house of cards recently. And only one card has to fall...
Oracle and Meta have huge plans. However, we already know today that they will run out of money at some point. Zombie companies like Coreweave (totally over-indebted with loan interest rates of >10% in some cases) are needed to buy Nvidia's chips and keep the spool running.
What Nvidia is currently doing is what Cisco did in the late 90s to keep their business going (taking a financial stake in customers, delivering goods in exchange for promises for the future etc.).
I'm not saying it's an "AI bubble" and it's all going to burst soon, but a lot of things have been built like a house of cards recently. And only one card has to fall...
â˘
33
â˘@Olli68
Yes, of course. These are also the arguments that are always mentioned and associated with the bubble.
Let's start with Nvidia.
Of course things won't go on like this for Nvidia forever. But Jensen emphasizes that again and again. But unlike Cisco, Nvidia has this scenario in mind. And Jensen has been working on a much broader positioning for a long time.
He has long recognized other growth areas. Such as robotics, autonomous mobility. Industrial AI, etc. These are all areas that are only just beginning.
Yes, I'm not invested in Meta and Oracle because I can't assess them very well.
I am in Alphabet and Microsoft.
Microsoft should continue to benefit from its investment in Open AI. Microsoft is integrating AI into existing software. I think this is absolutely necessary in order not to lose customers or to win new ones and to be able to raise prices.
I also see little danger for Alphabet.
Broadly positioned, leading with Waymo.
In the end, autonomous driving can only work with AI. And here it is also necessary to integrate AI into the best products so that customers don't switch browsers.
So companies have no other option than to invest in AI and the associated infrastructure.
Because in the end, the companies that don't invest in new technologies will be the losers.
will be the losers.
Take Nokia, for example, and perhaps it was the same with Cisco in the end.
That's why it will be exciting to see where Tesla and Apple are heading.
Yes, of course. These are also the arguments that are always mentioned and associated with the bubble.
Let's start with Nvidia.
Of course things won't go on like this for Nvidia forever. But Jensen emphasizes that again and again. But unlike Cisco, Nvidia has this scenario in mind. And Jensen has been working on a much broader positioning for a long time.
He has long recognized other growth areas. Such as robotics, autonomous mobility. Industrial AI, etc. These are all areas that are only just beginning.
Yes, I'm not invested in Meta and Oracle because I can't assess them very well.
I am in Alphabet and Microsoft.
Microsoft should continue to benefit from its investment in Open AI. Microsoft is integrating AI into existing software. I think this is absolutely necessary in order not to lose customers or to win new ones and to be able to raise prices.
I also see little danger for Alphabet.
Broadly positioned, leading with Waymo.
In the end, autonomous driving can only work with AI. And here it is also necessary to integrate AI into the best products so that customers don't switch browsers.
So companies have no other option than to invest in AI and the associated infrastructure.
Because in the end, the companies that don't invest in new technologies will be the losers.
will be the losers.
Take Nokia, for example, and perhaps it was the same with Cisco in the end.
That's why it will be exciting to see where Tesla and Apple are heading.
â˘
33
â˘@Tenbagger2024 Alphabet is the only one I see as positive, as they do their own thing and stay out of these ramifications. Their latest Gemini has even been trained with its own cheaper TPUs and clearly beats OpenAI.
How will OpenAI manage to pay the 1.4 trillion $ orders in the next few years? Why is Nvidia not "selling" its CPU for money, but for promises of tomorrow (cloud capacities)? Why is Nvidia's inventory doubling in the last year if demand is so "outstanding"? Why are they entering into sales with a buyback guarantee lately?
I'm not bashing anything or trying to talk up an AI bubble, just perhaps something to get you thinking.
How will OpenAI manage to pay the 1.4 trillion $ orders in the next few years? Why is Nvidia not "selling" its CPU for money, but for promises of tomorrow (cloud capacities)? Why is Nvidia's inventory doubling in the last year if demand is so "outstanding"? Why are they entering into sales with a buyback guarantee lately?
I'm not bashing anything or trying to talk up an AI bubble, just perhaps something to get you thinking.
â˘
22
â˘@Olli68
Yes, I understand that.
But I don't think the current Nvidia figures were fudged.
Yes, I understand that.
But I don't think the current Nvidia figures were fudged.
â˘
11
â˘@Tenbagger2024 No, they are certainly correct. But just enter "Stock of chips, comparison of current and previous year's quarter" or "Comparison of unpaid invoices current and previous year's quarter" in Gemini. It might give you something to think about.
â˘
22
â˘