It's not about whether they'll grow, it's about whether they'll grow more than is priced in

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.

That's an example of "growing more than is priced in"

I thought if the market is efficient then everything is always priced in?

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.

Shouldn't TSMC be the most valuable company in the world then?

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.