You can just choose not to play the accounting game, and only choose the ones that actually gaap viable as investment opportunities. For example mag7 - tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip.
Some times the best play is just not to play. If you think they are too risky, walk away. There are enough good oppotunities
> mag7 (minus) tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip
I asked ChatGPT for a list of Magnificent 7 stocks and their most recent price to earnings (PE) ratios.
Company Ticker P/E Ratio
Apple Inc. AAPL ~33
Microsoft Corporation MSFT ~25
Alphabet Inc. GOOGL ~29
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN ~30
NVIDIA Corporation NVDA ~38
Meta Platforms Inc. META ~28
Tesla Inc. TSLA ~378
In the last 50 years, I think the median PE ratio for S&P 500 index is about 15. Seven and below is considered rock bottom, and 30 and above is very high. These PE ratios look pretty damn high to me.
How much do these names need to "dip" for you to consider them cheap?
There are a few things to consider if you are in the investment space:
- Growth rate: you can't compare them to the average single digit growth companies or dividend focused companies. Most of these tech companies revenue are still growing at double digit with good moat. Pe is a good measure but it's not absolute. If you believe they sustain their growth then it's a good bet. And you can choose not to buy in their growth stories too. At the end of the day investment is about judgement call
- History benchmark: some of their pe is at historical low. So they are actually cheaper than before.
- Pe ttm and forward pe: how much pe ttm are they at? how much forward pe are they projecting? If forward pe is significantly lower, that means the current analysts consensus is that they will grow in future
- Pe is the a number but it's not everything. You need to consider multiple things to decide if that's undervalued for you. It's highly subjective as different interpretations are common.
- This post is about if you want to play the gaap game with private tech companies. My point is that there are still many public companies that are cheap at certain point. You just need to be patient and be willing to research and wait. For example, meta at around 500 was a buy for me, but since then it has rebounded it's still good but not as undervalued as a few days ago
The problem is that their current capacity is literally full. They were running a highly profitable business for the last 2-3 years and recently switched up the strategy to build more datacenters to meet the ai demand.
I can see they want to do it as they are currently demand constrained.
We can have different opinion on how much inflation is too much. But the universal consensus is that a little bit of inflation is good. It's ok if you think 2% too high. Maybe 1.25% is better.
But we cannot just dispute this basic economic model and thinking that 0 or negative inflation (which would cause the stop of investment), or no consensus(that would just cause more chaos) is better. That's just absurd
Not sure how that works when there are fierce competitions, and openai's product is not substantially better than the rest. There are US competitors, then China.
Take ozempic as an example. The word is already part of the culture, but the company is losing badly to lly. Novo nordisk is projecting revenue DECLINE while eli lilly is still growing massively. I am not even sure people know other glp1 drugs other than ozempic. I don't even remember lilly drugs name.
I think people should not underestimate the market. It's a dynamic game where engineering intuition might not be enough
The value is well worth over $60-$80/mo. But conflating that with the market condition is very different.
In the world where you cheap open weight models and free tier closed sources models are flooding the market, you need very good reason to convince regular people to pay for just certain models en masse in b2c market
After 30 years with a shit operating system known as Windows, Linux still cannot get over 5% adoption. Despite being free and compatible with every computer.
"Regular People" know ChatGPT. They know Gemini (largely because google shoves it in their face). They don't know anything else (maybe Siri, because they don't know the difference, just that siri now sucks). I'm not sure if I would count <0.1% of tokens generated being "flooding the market".
Just like you don't give much thought to the breed of grass growing in your yard, they don't give much thought to the AI provider they are using. They pay, it does what they want, that's the end of it. These are general consumers, not chronically online tech nerds.
> After 30 years with a shit operating system known as Windows, Linux still cannot get over 5% adoption. Despite being free and compatible with every computer.
You need to install linux and actively debugging it. For ai, regular people can just easily switch around by opening an browser. There are many low or 0 barrir choices. Do you know windows 11 is mostly free too for b2c customers now? Nobody is paying for anything
> "Regular People" know ChatGPT. They know Gemini (largely because google shoves it in their face). They don't know anything else (maybe Siri, because they don't know the difference, just that siri now sucks). I'm not sure if I would count <0.1% of tokens generated being "flooding the market".
You just proved my point. Yes they are good, but why would people pay for it? Google earns money through ads mostly.
> Just like you don't give much thought to the breed of grass growing in your yard, they don't give much thought to the AI provider they are using. They pay, it does what they want, that's the end of it. These are general consumers, not chronically online tech nerds.
That's exactly the points, because most of the internet services are free. Nobody is paying for anything because they are ads supported
It's nothing to do with Windows but with the applications (including games) that just run on it and the fact that most companies just run it it by default.
Many years ago, I used Redux to build real time streaming data processing layer. Basically I need to receive, merge, and process multiple data streams into a single realtime data pool. After that,consuming the realtime data becomes dead easy.
Even now I am not sure I could find a better tool to deal with real time data and synchronization. But for simple crud Redux is mostly overkill
you got to the crux of it. Redux became a trend, surfing on its popularity at a time React wasn't providing the reactive piece it needed, plus the time machine demo just amazed everyone. The author got his job at Facebook. It carried millions of developers to use that lib, the author even said it isn't necessarily the go to mechanism, but hiring manager stuck with the idea that all projects redux magicians, since all projects needed React.
For the anecdote, I remember my manager admitting we can't fix the legacy app, but we can put lipstick on the pig with React.
You can just choose not to play the accounting game, and only choose the ones that actually gaap viable as investment opportunities. For example mag7 - tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip.
Some times the best play is just not to play. If you think they are too risky, walk away. There are enough good oppotunities
reply