Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by j4coh 628 days ago
Is there any evidence they have already peaked?
4 comments

What kind of "evidence" of future stock market movement are you expecting?
Any kind of signal in current buying or selling behaviour on either the stock or its derivatives that might indicate the price is going to plateau or fall, such as (for example) a change in the market for shorts.. though this seems obvious and I don’t mean to be insulting, so I might be misunderstanding your question? If so please let me know.
There's no such thing. If there was, market participants would start selling.
If there are no signals which people can use as evidence in their models predicting market direction, what are people buying or selling on? Why would anyone read a quarterly report or have an investment thesis if it’s just a perfectly efficient market of spherical cows on a random walk, and analysis is a fools game as no evidence of where a company might be headed could possibly exist? It’s a very postmodern way of looking at things, I suppose.

Anyway I was just curious if the person had any facts on which they were basing their assessment that they could share. Seems not, which is fine. Opinions are allowed too, but I was curious since they stated it so matter if factly.

Well, Microsoft certainly is running into some challenges at this point: https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/microsoft-open-three-...

If nothing else, physics starts to become a limiting factor.

I legitimately want to live in a world where fundamental physics is the only limiting factor to our work. That sounds like the future.
The fundamentals of physics can change.
i want to live in a world where super science is invented and we get sci fi tech
Are you serious?
Its already priced in, things are still moving as expected. They could go up higher in the future, but not from this information.
You don’t know if it’s priced in. Was it priced in 5 years ago?
If it's news on a major website, it's priced in. So yes, we know it is priced in.

Obviously, it wasn't news 5 years ago, so no it wasn't then.

There is a gray area which is where professional investors who have an informational advantage make their money. But by the time something is mainstream news, that gray area is long gone.

CEG jumping 20% on the MSFT deal means it isn’t all priced in imo. Everyone has known there are rising energy needs and had bid up CEG. Then the Three Mile Island restart news hit and apparently it wasn’t already priced in
Nobody (well the market) expected Nvidia's revenue to start growing exponentially, though. Now it's forecasted to grow by at least 20% per year for the next 3 years. So presumably everything above that is not priced in.
Actually people did expect that, which is why the market does not accurately "price things in." People working in ML, Cuda, ~GPT2 were pretty confident in the eventual impact of AI and knew of Nvidia's monopoly on it.

There's a sort of midwit meme here where the naive take "oh this company is going to sell more next year, i should by stock at whatever price", -> "no, everything's already priced in" -> "if everything was priced in, you'd see a historic price graph as a straight line with a slope of interest rates"

> Actually people did expect that

Obviously some did and they made a lot of money. So what? The market as a whole didn't.

> There's a sort of midwit

If the company grows by as much as it is expected to grow barring any external factors then yes, your "meme" certainly makes sense.

6.5 Billion won't move NVidia's needle at this point. You need exponentially growing revenue from AI firms to drive increased spend on compute.
> You don’t know if it’s priced in. Was it priced in 5 years ago?

It wasn't priced in 5 years ago, that is the point today it is priced it, people expected this. You should have bought when Microsoft invested billions in them 2019, today more investments like this are expected once these investments stop NVIDIA stock will drop since they were expected.

So saying now is the time to invest is dead wrong, NVIDIA is currently priced as if these investments will continue to ramp up so these things are already priced in. Only idiots thinks "positive event -> I must buy stocks!", no if the positive event was expected then the stocks wont move, if a positive event was expected but didn't happen then stocks go down, that is the situation we are in currently with NVIDIA.

How do you know it was priced in? You look at what people say they expect, and this is what people say they expected, hence we know it was priced in.

Anything obvious is priced in.
What if I were to tell you Nvidia's monopoly and the implications of AI were obvious many years ago? Many people on HN bought large amounts of Nvidia stock a while ago. Karpathy's "Software 2.0" was widely read here predating much of Nvidia's market cap increase:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15678587

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34881881

It was "obvious" C3.AI was not a real AI company worth much. The market still "priced in" at $18 billion for months: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AI/

If "obviously undervalued stocks" were a widespread phenomenon, active investors that beat the market in the long-term wouldn't be a rarity.
No. This is the same logic that I used when I did not buy Amazon and missed that ride. The market is not always rational.
My hot take: the market is good at pricing in possibilities, but less so at pricing in certainty (or lack thereof).

When AMD launched the Zen architecture, everyone said they were on the up-and-up, and the market gave them a boost. The company's shares only started to climb much higher later on, when there were irrefutable revenue numbers. There was plenty of time to buy and make money. Someone with the domain knowledge like us can definitely have an edge in the market because we understand the product well enough to formulate better odds, then we can profit off the difference between our odds and the market's odds.