Sure... Random train of thoughts on markets now, optics like $LITE / memory + $IREN / Anthropic. On Memory: - Demand visibility on $MU / Samsung / SK Hynix extend into 2030-2031. Samsung has LTAs covering 70% of their capacity into 2031 (likely with SK Hynix type price floors)... and their operating profit is already absurd. There's a consensus that shortage in 2027 will be much more severe than 2026... Even $SNDK expends gross margins to exceed 80% entering 2030. You're going to hear Acer and other CEOs that want memory prices to go down cite bear cases like CXMT/YMTC, and Chinese players. But just looking at supply procurement that $NVDA is doing + hyperscalers, demand visibility is absurd for the next 5 years. And by that time, cumulative FCF coming in from these take/pay + pricing floor contracts might exceed some of their entire marketcaps so it feels like there's some baseline. Near-term is always volatile (IV dropped a ton across $EWY to $DRAM to $MU), so people with call options likely got nuked, along with underlying prices. But if Samsung is 3x 2027E, has 5 year LTAs with 70% of capacity committed from hyperscalers, and price floors, it's kinda hard to see these names suffer a sustained crash... For optics: - $LITE is literally sold out into 2029, starting discussions into 2030. With demand visibility lasting into 2031… with hyperscalers largely funding the capacity buildout. Their 2028 Greensboro fab expansion was ~$5B in UHP laser capacity revenue alone, yet it’s basically allocated toward $NVDA (50%+ with options for more) and co from channel checks. Existing supply chain bottlenecks are extremely severe as optical content/XPU skyrockets entering 2027-2028. So everything from DSPs/TIAs, photodiodes, lasers, InP/SOI substrates, wafers (epi, SOI, etc) are expected to go brrr. And what does that imply to anyone else with enormous amounts of capacity coming online like $AAOI + $SIVE + $MTSI capacity expansion in 2027? Or other players like Sumitomo / Furukawa? But again it's not quite the same situation as memory since the BOM % is extremely low in a cluster... If micron/samsung raised another 2000% hyperscalers would go bankrupt. But doing that for InP substrates seems possible. Or a 100% increase on CW laser content. I actually thought $LITE was overvalued at $100B+ MC, relative to capacity expansion on your smaller optical players to their respective MCs. So I chose to position accordingly (But lumentum does deserve premiums for demand visibility). For the companies leading the charge like $NVDA / $AVGO / $MRVL: - Nvidia has 70% forward revenue growth FY2028 which is supply constrained growth. - Broadcom 100% Y/Y for 2027/2028 which is also supply constrained growth. - Marvell FY2031 upgraded guidance to $70B-$90B from $46B analyst projections... They all seem to be very happy.... and read through on demand for next 2-3 years is enormous (also echoing what $INTC CEO said today on the panel with $AVGO CEO). So you have overwhelming growth on memory + photonics + from the leaders... But the nuance is not everything in the AI supply chain get the same economic benefit. HBM/Laser/CPU/MLCC and other players in the bottlenecks look to be printing money. And seem to be the largest beneficiaries of the current bottlenecks. Test players are also getting price hikes + capacity allocated by players like $NVDA, but economic impact seems a tad lower than other players since forward P/E for many I modeled were still in the 45x+ range even if you hiked prices like 10-30%. As for capex intensive players... there's some like $IREN ($25-30B for 2027) that despite a deal with Anthropic ended up dropping. I don't think markets seem to appreciate players spending a lot of money + ongoing financing (think they're like halfway through their $6B ATM). Just some hopium for $IREN investors, $NBIS also signed a deal with $META at the start of the year (but markets didn't care at all, since Nebius dropped to ~$70-80 at the lowest point?). But did 6 months later, as the time to revenue inflection gets closer and you're past the ATM/capex window, markets would likely care more. I don't think it's irrational but at the same time, the fundamentals have improved from Mirantis acquisition to others. I also think it was known for awhile it was either OpenAI/Anthropic from CEO comments earlier too? But either way to be a more risk-off environment where funds seem to be rotating to larger names as a flight to safety. $CRWD / $PLTR as just two example, but my take is that the valuations of these rotations are reaching clown levels. And that certain AI supply chain beneficiaries in comparison are undervalued now. I was thinking markets would just rotate to names that are extremely profitable like Samsung or names that have <2X P/E, so it was surprising to see $KOSPI and some legacy memory players get sold off today. Since all of this is colliding with uncertainty about sht macro environments and renewed sustainability concern of AI capex/commitments from frontier labs like OpenAI/Anthropic from due to that FT piece recently. I've always been sounding the alarm about the contractual backlog OpenAI has with $CBRS, $MSFT, $ORCL and others earlier in the year. But OpenAI did just raise $122B or so , so I don't quite think they're at risk of going down anytime soon. I also don't think overall capex can just exponentially go up, but even if it stalls / hovers around a certain point or even drops... Capex toward certain areas like optics will still explode as hyperscalers fight over allocations when CPO scale up comes about, but might drop in others where more capacity comes online like test or DRAM. So it's a lot more nuanced than capex down = everything down or vice versa. I also slightly agree with community agreements that open weight models wouldn't lessen demand on AI infrastructure (otherwise $NVDA wouldn't be funneling funds into Reflection), but all the contractual obligations that Anthropic has might get messy if their models/company get cannibalized. Either way, I'd expect some of these frontier lab valuations to likely compress but I do think Jensen knows what he's doing though to avoid contagion. But basically: - Extremely difficult market now, can't just throw money at any AI supply chain company like $GLW and expect it to go up. There's cause for concern of rate hikes mixed with financing per $AVGO CEO but not to the point you just blindly sell off everything. Also I think markets are stupid and ties baskets together so that leads to mispricing + individual buying opportunities with certain chokepoints too. If capacity + demand is visible and forward p/e compresses like $AAOI to single digits off hundreds or thousands of percent growth from hyperscalers off $471m transceiver revenues and hundreds of thousands of monthly ELSFP capacity. Or $SIVE coming online with 100M+ laser capacity + multiple foundries with ASP hikes on lasers. I wouldn't lump them into other AI supply chain names in IP like $RMBS or others. My take is that AI supply chain beneficiaries with closer inflection points, demand visibility, and forward P/E compressing due to economic leverage would likely outperform medium term despite current volatility. TLDR: - Memory strongest risk/adjusted return with LTAs + pricing floors extending to 2030's + buybacks. - My opinion is that optical supercycle for 2027-2028 with CPO/NPO is going to look absurd relative to capacity coming online of smaller suppliers. - Overwhelming fundamentals/growth colliding with sht macro + media scares - Markets are stupid and groups things in baskets and sells them all off together or buys overvalued names, creating short/long opportunities I'd give a prayer to people on short term options given underlying drop + IV decline, but there could be a reversal... who knows. Most valuable thing right now is time.
Bro, $AMZN semi ETF portfolio is probably going to end up more compelling than what $NVDA owns... Today Amazon signed a $49.8M private placement into PCB maker Gold Circuit Electronics (2368). So now Amazon has ownership/warrants in: - $AAOI - Alchip - $MRVL (Celestial) - $ALAB - $CRDO - $JBL - $FLEX - $STM - $CBRS - $GNRC - $FN - TD SYNNEX - $QCOM - Gold Circuit Electronics And others.. If we look at the private placement amount for GCE in speciifc, it's like .36% of the company... Kinda small financially, meaningful strategically. Esp. since there were claims that GCE supplies ASIC-server PCBs to the four major hyperscaler CSPs... Regardless it's pretty funny to see Amazon to Nvidia start to own all the worlds leading companies. Since Amazon has exposure to the entire supply chain like PCBs now, optical fabric with Celestial, lasers with $AAOI, assembly from $FN to $JBL, ASIC partners like $QCOM / ALchip.
There was a pretty funny anecdotal complaint from the Machine Learning $RDDT subreddit. On $CBRS + OpenAI: - Needs 1-2K tokens/sec so tries to use Cerebras. - Claims OpenAI reserved all capacity, making waitlist infinite for everyone else not a hyperscaler. - Stated alternatives with Groq’s API not accessible to them Feels bad. But it does show how few players / limited capacity there is for fast inference.
I've reached 900k followers, thank you everyone! Just some reflection, it's actually a nightmare at higher counts... Which is new to me, since I started at almost nothing earlier this year. 1. Threats of safety, which I don't enjoy. - Random new accounts sending personal threats - Mysterious foreign accounts, sending coercive messages the moment I mention a foreign ticker If I hold an opinion about a stock, I'd prefer not to have anyone show up on the street with a knife at night since it's safety risk at this point... Never felt like I'd have to take that into consideration for holding an opinion. 2. Egregious media narratives - Lot of outlets try to dismiss my ideas like $RPI or $SIVE as "meme stocks" or me as "meme trader" when I talk about supply chain chokepoints or fundamental catalysts to revenue due to AI. Without ever covering the core ideas or hyperscaler mapping I've done. I let success validate my ideas, but it's annoying when they can just pretend their claims like "___ will imminently crash as a fact" which ends up not happening. Or that "___" is just a retail meme stock without mentioning $JBL, Ayar, $GFS or others for CPO scale up or pluggables. I'm grateful to some outlets, like in Belgium for $XFAB coverage, but many others try and paint their own narrative rather than covering a very nuanced thesis objectively. - When I mention a ticker in a foreign market, some try to frame me as some "adversarial account"! I'm just sharing ideas, and I'll always disclose positions/financial interest if I have them. If I say I have none, they just make up some narrative that I'm some foreign institution or random group inside their country that does. Some have even tried hilariously forging screenshots of me to harm my reputation, which was annoying to deal with. Since it's easier to textedit a photo and spread it around than it is to dispel disinformation. Lot of institutions know me personally by now. I just don't go broadcasting my identity to random people in the media/public, since personal security gets expensive and I just want to live about my day. 3. Endless X bot spam - I have endless hundreds of comments a day trying to link external communities pretending they're me. I manually delete, and block thousands of these accounts, sometimes hit regular people by accident. And it's extremely exhausting to the point my fingers cramp certain days. Even if I give the most blatant warnings in bio, people still get scammed and think it's me. Then I get blamed for it too. I actually had a conversation where someone asked if a scammer was me. I said no verbatim, then they double checked like 2-3 more times because they didn't believe I said no because someone had the same username on another scam platform. In another world, maybe we'll get automod type tools. But until then, it's mentally exhausting dealing with all of this. But I do so anyways since I don't want my followers to get scammed. 4. Endless engagement baiting - I have tons of people making up fake stuff about me, tagging me in posts, randomly bashing my ideas while missing any technical nuance in order to get me to comment or farm views. It's a catch 22 since the moment I reply, they get a lot of views, which was their goal. And if I don't reply it just looks like I'm avoiding something (which is not true). I'm very transparent, I always try and entertain people who disagree first. But when it gets into personal attacks or leading questions/disinformation rather than substance then I don't engage. It's a little sad though when people I've interacted with end up caring more about engagement over relationships down the road. 5. People missing the nuance - I share ideas pretty often and I always maintain I don't want people to copytrade or blindly follow, which is why I haven't set up any copytrading apps. Before it was just posting with a few $RDDT friends on ideas like $AXTI, $NBIS, or $ALAB, and people were more knowledgeable traders. Then seeing if markets validate my guesses like with InP substrate bottlenecks. But because many turned out directionally right, to the point it became a central talking point between China/US trade relations, lot of random folks started to follow my account last few months. But many of them miss nuances with float dilution, or material updates along the way such as rate hikes, and I get blamed if a thesis changes. Now since there's so many random people, even if I share an idea about $CBRS last Friday. At market open I had people panicking over a 2% drop, asking me if I did something to a $44B+ company, even if it went up 20%+ today. Now I have compliance review for posts, which delays things a lot but makes sure people don't get the wrong idea. And I have to be careful about my timing, so I post new ideas when markets close. Before, it was just sharing ideas the moment I had them during lunch or in the shower, so this is becoming a headache. 6. I post my core ideas for free. And I've always said this from the start. I actually made my subscribers chat literally by accident, and set the bare minimum amount on purpose since I didn't want to take people's money. But kept it so I could avoid the bots and not spam the main timeline with random thoughts/scrapped research. I think me becoming the #1 most subscribed to person on X was literally by accident. But lot of weird narratives out there when media or others don't believe that I just genuinely want to share my ideas for free. And that people shouldn't need to pay $300 in a paywalled community to see them. _ Not sure if people want to read it all, but just some things I've gone through. It's not as much fun at higher numbers and it would be nice to go back to when I was smaller. Regardless, I'd rather not turn this into a job, or make it feel like one. Will probably take a break when I hit 1M as a milestone and do something else that will help out the community like sharing my research pipelines and such. Think a lot of my friends at 10-50K follower counts, seem to experience some of these issues too. But problems get magnified a lot at this level. I never needed the X creator fees or anything, just wanted to share ideas for fun if people wanted to listen. And didn't expect any popularity, but it's nice to see that people find my ideas compelling.
Kinda nutty OpenAI’s is launching its heavyweight 5.6 Sol frontier model on $CBRS. At up to 750 tokens/sec, which is obscene performance. American inference go brrr. I actually picked up starter positions on Cerebras for the first time in the ~170s (below $185 IPO price) after seeing this news yesterday. Feels like validation of its tech. IMO a bit overvalued compared to profitable companies like $JBL at the same valuation. But there’s likely premiums for OpenAI exposure, as long as they stay the leader.
Just some random thoughts, I do think AI is the most disruptive technology in human history. To the level of agricultural or industrial revolution. Since Anthropic, OpenAi, XAI, and others are racing to build superintelligence. The amount of economic impact can't be measured if AI helps find cures for cancer or accelerates discovery for Quantum Computing. Or if AI end up displacing the workforce, which increases profitability for companies. The US Gov has every incentive to keep the buildout going too, as the implications from Warfare, Cybersecurity, is also immeasurable if China takes the lead. So there's likely to be incentives and subsidies to win, even if there's not enough profit derived LLM training/inference. As for sustainability, when you look upstream, $GOOGL is able to fund it majorly with their own cashflow, same with $AMZN, $MSFT. More lukewarm on $META. Very iffy about $ORCL. But I do see some bubbles forming around debt interest like $CRWV. Maybe circular valuations that's happening with OpenAI backlog agreements or $NVDA / $AMD agreements with Neoclouds to buy their GPUs. But as seen with $MSFT and having OpenAI be a major part of the backlog, it did correct off the information, so "bubbles" like that do pop despite the overall markets increasing. Definitely don't see a bubble in upstream semiconductors from $LITE to Sk Hynix though since the amount of profit they get from the buildout would likely be insane to make up for capex decreasing. OpenAI was actually my biggest fear from contagion, eg. $CRWV, $CBRS and others, but they just raised a lot. So think it will be fine for another 1 1/2 years of capex, especially if they IPO this year. I also don't think we'll get massive Fed tightening despite "predictions" since this will trigger a contagion since many of these players rely heavily on debt. And although the Fed is independent, don't think Trump would have supported someone who is against his administration goals. As for semiconductor valuations going up every day like $AMD or $MU, there's probably going to be some corrections here and there. Everything going up together is kinda unhealthy. Can't time the capex peak but just from $AVGO and other projections, it just keeps accelerating exponentially into 2028. Especially as everyone is starting to sign multi year agreements as well. OpenAI contagion / hyperscaler capex decreasing / fed tightening was what I'm looking out for, and no blaring signs of any of those yet. So I think the music will keep playing for this year at the bare minimum.
Pre-IPO market on @tradexyz has SpaceX at > $2T - considering how accurate this was for $CBRS, @elonmusk is set to be the world’s first trillionaire by a comfortable margin.
Not a fan of $CBRS, especially at ~$90B-100B MC valuations. But I do like the company. There’s a lot of short term valuation disconnects with float dynamics after IPO as seen with $CRCL or $BULL though. So would not be surprised if it ends up trading at absurd valuations for a short time until things correct.
RT @charaninvests: $CBRS IPO this week and I think it goes nuclear Cerebras built what nobody thought was possible. One chip. An entire silicon wafer. No stitching together hundreds of GPUs, no bottlenecks, no bs. Up to 15x faster inference than Nvidia’s best. Groq has been getting all the hype for fast inference. Cerebras makes Groq look slow. OpenAI just signed a $20B deal with them -> $510M in revenue last year -> every major tech company on the planet is trying to find an alternative to Nvidia and this is the only thing that actually delivers. “Cerebras is the first architecture in decades that actually challenges the GPU at its own game” -> Dylan Patel, SemiAnalysis They are IPOing at the perfect time. Just look at $SMH. AI infra spend is going vertical. The window is open right now. IPO range $115-125. I expect it opens above $170. Already trading above $250 on Hyperliquid. Fills will probably be shit given how oversubscribed (~20x) the IPO is - I am watching $WYFI and $VICR as sympathy plays
$CBRS IPO this week and I think it goes nuclear Cerebras built what nobody thought was possible. One chip. An entire silicon wafer. No stitching together hundreds of GPUs, no bottlenecks, no bs. Up to 15x faster inference than Nvidia’s best. Groq has been getting all the hype for fast inference. Cerebras makes Groq look slow. OpenAI just signed a $20B deal with them -> $510M in revenue last year -> every major tech company on the planet is trying to find an alternative to Nvidia and this is the only thing that actually delivers. “Cerebras is the first architecture in decades that actually challenges the GPU at its own game” -> Dylan Patel, SemiAnalysis They are IPOing at the perfect time. Just look at $SMH. AI infra spend is going vertical. The window is open right now. IPO range $115-125. I expect it opens above $170. Already trading above $250 on Hyperliquid. Fills will probably be shit given how oversubscribed (~20x) the IPO is - I am watching $WYFI and $VICR as sympathy plays