Nvidia is heavily overpriced at the moment. My personal prediction is that in the long term, Nvidia can expect a similar situation to what happened to Tesla, which involves a relatively slow price correction after the AI hype diminishes. The EV hype slowly died out, and we can see it reflected in the prices of all EV companies.
Tesla still seems to be over-valued. I don't see why they would be worth 10x other car manufacturers, especially ones that have quality manufacturing already down.
Not based on the fundamentals. Tesla maintains a high profit margin and doesn’t carry immense debt loads like the traditional manufacturers. Additionally Tesla has some degree of self-driving success priced in. Traditional auto also returns most profit as dividends and the stocks do not grow.
They still sit at roughly 50x PE Ratio though. You'd have to expect such high growth (way more than even they forecast) to make sense of buying into that if you're not reliant on making money on hype and brand awareness, which is brutally fickle.
Is there a reason why you didn't include their current battery production operations and future plans in this regard, along with solar, along with the TeslaBot that once far enough along will basically create a feedback loop that will make practically everything we currently do "free" to do?
The TeslaBot with even a dumb level of "AI" for learning and mimicking actions the Bot is shown to perform and can mimic based on its non-meat stick appendages - whole systems and funnels from farming to getting a cooked meal on the dinner table could be (eventually) fully automated with little to no human oversight, where the only initial inputs are raw-natural resources; the problem then that 100% of humanity needs to focus on is then heavy oversight and real-time in-person witnessing that such systems aren't being corrupted-captured by bad actors.
There are other synergies with companies Elon is involved with that people seem to fail to see the synergies of, including but not limited to his effort towards colonizing Mars - of which there will be plenty of ongoing
Elon also controlling Starlink, assuming every Tesla vehicle will have capacity in future for their vehicles to be connected, they'll be able to undercut competitors - and will also act as downward pressure on competition to not overcharge; I believe Elon stated his goal is $5 billion/month from Starlink subscriptions to pay for his Mars efforts, with the first organization to get space mining operations into play - able to extract and send home refined product - has then tapped into the unlimited abundance of the universe, the profits of which reinvested fuels progress along an exponential path; once these systems are in play and self-sustainable, reaching that point by being a better offering, value-price wise, then that frees up time to focus on launching the next puzzle piece - each puzzle piece compounding with the others; his "free" time, fortunately for us, most recently leading to him somewhat impulsively - but clearly his impulses are existential crisis-importance driven - he bought Twitter to protect free speech and unveiled-unmasked the corruption and treason via releasing the Twitter Files.
Elon's arguably 20 years ahead of everyone else in regards to the holistic possibilities that his ecosystem of companies will allow for, and arguably every year there is the possibility he leapfrogs another 10 years ahead.
> TeslaBot that once far enough along will basically create a feedback loop that will make practically everything we currently do "free" to do?
How can this happen? This sounds like some serious hype.
What I find really funny about the TeslaBot is that it looks as capable (if not less) than Honda’s ASIMO which is a 2005 era product. What makes you think the TeslaBot won’t hit the same wall that Honda’s bot did?
TeslaBot will be using the same AI chip and system that Tesla's Autopilot uses to understand the vector space of the world around it.
They've already demoed teaching a robot to repeat-mimic the movements that a human dose with its arms-hands-fingers, and so training will be as simple as that. You could 1 single robot who could clean your whole house as well, say during a 10-hour period while you're out, getting every nook and cranny - and where speed isn't really an issue in that situation; other tasks like a delivery comes in, and the bot can immediately take that delivery and put the items in their proper places - whether that's fridge, freezer, cupboard, or left out on counter for cooking a meal later.
What'd it be worth to have 1 extra human worth of productivity at your command for 24/7? How much more value it creates compared to cost will depend on your circumstances of course. Having a small apartment it may not be that useful, but maybe if you have multiple properties and at once property you've cut down a tree for firewood - the bot can move the logs into a splitter and then stack them for you, etc.
Once you realize that a single robot that can switch between very different tasks in a chain of tasks is possible, the size of production required to reach the same efficiencies of economies of scale will be far lower than currently required for mass production ,e.g. where maybe the equipment needed beforehand required needing to be able to produce say at least 100,000 of something per month but now maybe only 10,000 of those units need to be created for the same margins; which makes the environment more competitive, the barriers to entry lower, derisking and distributing power-profits by allowing more decentralization, a reduction in how much large industrial complexes can capture production and sales.
The battle will be on 2-3 fronts: 1) making sure industrial complexes and bad actors don't try to try to prevent the general population from having access to these technologies, and 2) making sure bad actors don't try to capture and corrupt-takeover these systems to then weaponize them against society, and a possible 3) preventing the companies that produce these technologies, perhaps including AI, from trying to extra value from what "their" bots are capable of doing. E.g. they start trying to take a % off of every business type, depending on the added value the bots create for them, so instead of those values and gains being distributed to all of society - they try to capture and hoard as much of that value creation for themselves, reminding me of the rent-seeking behaviour of what I call the Landlord-Rental industrial complex; "leasing" the technology rather than selling it.
How about addressing and countering any of my specific points, ideally each one in sequence so you can't cherrypick to avoid the ones where I'm certainly correct - rather than what's essentially ad hominem as your response?
How many variations out driving across the US and the world do you think there are compared to a relatively static environment that a Bot can be trained in-tailored for?
It's not 2005 anymore and LLMs have far surpassed Markov Chains from the 80's thanks to advancements in computing technology, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to think there's a chance they'll get past ASIMO level of performance.
It's not. Shorting bubbles or frauds is not a good idea, unless you find an instrument through which you can do it for a long time, without paying too much premium. This is very rare.
Doesn't that assume the market is perfectly able to assess value?
As an example the market decided Netflix was a terrible value when they announced they were a video streaming company in like 2008ish losing around half their value. Except we all know now that was not a priced in moment.
The market is clearly not efficient, otherwise there would be no opportunity for alpha.
You can go onto the market today and buy like-kind stocks at double digit discounts to valuation just because they're smaller cap/lesser known. e.g. Retail REITs, where the business and risks are almost identical.
EMH as commonly interpreted is clearly wrong in my view.
What is true is that the majority of people can't beat the market picking stocks, but that doesn't mean there aren't observable inefficiencies. Just that most people don't care or know how to observe them
You could have said the same thing about netscape, yahoo, enron, &c.
"it's too big to fail", "xyz is now part of life and will never ever disappear nor change in any way shape or form",... People really lack imagination, they take the last 2 years and extrapole it to the next decades as if there were no variables whatsoever.
AI still has to bring a profit to anyone other than the company providing them. And even if their wet dreams somehow manifest (aka replacing all human labor) you're opening another Pandora's box and all bets are off when it comes to stock valuation, global finance, & c.
True but various companies will start produce more hardware in house in the future too. For now Nvidia is the sole king in that but other companies will catch up sooner or later.
It's still the sole king for cloud consumers, but for internal use, which is bigger than their cloud, Google mostly uses its own stuff, and with the amount the other big companies have to give Nvidia it is worth it for them to do the same.
There doesn't seem to be a moat we'll see how high it can go but in the long run they're a ridiculously overvalued commodity (eventually) producer.
TSMC doesn't seem to use their market power to push price. Their take of the final consumer sale price is quite low... they're selling chips to NVDA for ~2k which NVDA turns around and sells for ~60k.
I haven't researched it in-depth, but my take is that they don't have the culture to really be aggressive on pricing.
