[adam_arthur]

So given those numbers, you are projecting to earn a 50% return in total over 10 years, or 4.1% per year.

Current market cap $1T, projected market cap in 10y $1.5T given 50B net income * 30.

That’s quite terrible given the commensurate risks. You aren’t pricing in at all that CPUs can be used for inference, FAANGs will compete, AMD cards will surely become viable too if the market is growing that quickly. Apple’s chips today can be used for fast LLM inference for large models, and they weren’t even designed with that intention in mind. Competitors didn’t care before because it was a small market.

So how is it logical at all to invest at these prices? Even if you double the revenue projection to $400B, the total return is not very compelling over 10 years, and carries a large amount of downside risk versus alternatives.

I have no doubt that people will make money playing hot potato with it over the next few months, but the stock price is likely to go nowhere over a longer timeframe. Eventually the greater fools run out

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > but the stock price is likely to go nowhere over a longer

The only way to make money on nVidia is shorting, mega-caps hit a ceiling and the value of shares simply stops going up.

It's the classic S-curve phenomenon where the ceiling is 1T-ish

[adam_arthur]

Yes, antitrust/legal risks increase as well, and so on. Unfortunately you have a mania here that could last for many months, or even a bit longer (see: dotcom bubble)

There is effectively no rational fundamental argument for nvidia to go materially higher such that compensates for the risks. Rationality is not what’s at play though

[danielmarkbruce]

I can use a pen and paper for inference too. I can even do training with pen and paper.

The claim for AMD has been there for years. They can't write software. Cuda and Nvidia chips are the only real game in town and have been for longer than most expected and there is really nothing that looks like it will take over. Custom ASICs were going to take over, until they didn't.

Anyone making these claims isn't close enough to the market. The real fundamentals are in the details, not in hand wavy nonsense.

[adam_arthur]

None of that matters, the numbers matter.

Investing has nothing to do with whether technology is legitimate, real or cool, and everything to do with the amount of money you can make from that technology. And the numbers show NVDA will be a poor to middling investment in the long run even if the strongest bull case to the fundamentals materializes. Even if you 2x, 3x, 4x the numbers you provided. If you have to use extremely optimistically bullish numbers to get to a 10% CAGR (matching the index), there's a big problem.

Please show me the math otherwise.

[danielmarkbruce]

Competition drives numbers. Nobody mentioned cool or anything like it. You are grasping at straws.

Those numbers are my estimates. I don't own the stock. I don't think it's a great buy. They do illustrate that the situation isn't detached from reality. People who own it aren't idiots, they are just a little more optimistic than I am. A little more optimism on margins (which may be warranted) and market size and it starts to look good. Just increase my 3 assumptions 20% each and it goes to $2.5 tril instead of $1.5 tril, ie ~10% return. Doesn't need 2x, 3x or anything of that nature.