There's an intermediate option: sell high P/E stocks and buy lower P/E stocks with dividend paying history. There are ETFs designed for this purpose too.
I am indeed short TSLA (or rather, am taking an inverse position), and have greatly reduced my exposure to NVDA, AMZN, META, MSFT, and AAPL. I keep some exposure to GOOGL, NFLX, AMD, because I believe they are going to "win" in their industry in the long run. I plan to keep exposure to them for like 10+ years.
Author isn't non-financial, but the "moat 2.0" doesn't feel right.
> More than anything, though, I believe in the market power and defensibility of 800 million users, which is why I think ChatGPT still has a meaningful moat.
It's 800M weekly active users according to ChatGPT. I keep hearing that once you segment paid and unpaid, daily ChatGPT users fall off dramatically (<10% for paid and far less for unpaid).
Poe's law applies, it's deadpan humor, finance Borat
IMHO it is very well executed, pushes the right buttons, and ultimately raises the question of financial realism (if the market acts like it's true is it true? how far is it from something that you can use to pay your taxes with? and so on)
> It's a satire blog that's confusing or misleading people (See top HN comments.)
I think it’s equally possible that we have a blind-leading-the-blind situation here, ie one guy didn’t get the joke, posted a serious chat gpt summary, and some people assumed it was a serious article. Seeing as that was the top comment for a while, I’d bet that this discussion is a great example of how using LLMs to “understand” things can actually have the reverse effect.
There's probably an audience that doesn't read mainstream business outlets, but still has some adjacency to it through VC/startup/entrepreneurship circles.
Is it confusing people though? Have you read the real one?
Poe's law is when sarcasm is confused for something serious. Using /s to mark you're sarcasm as sarcasm is a cop out (which I reflexively downvote on).
I sent it to my friend that works in corporate accounting and she thought the post was hilarious, so I guess the intended audience is pretty narrow? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That aside, I don’t think that this post by a made up bond rating agency called the Flexible Standards Group that uses phrases like “unbothered by reality” “downgrade when the shit hits the fan” is particularly difficult to parse as being humor (or at the very least not an actual bond rating)
The issue is the short, 4y renewal cycle, which allows Meta to attempt superficial arguments to avoid accounting consolidation for the variable interest entity that they...pretty much (a) control and (b) have skin in the game.
In other words, big brother (Border patrol/DEA) use surveillance to fence generic "yellow flags" to little brother (local cops) who pull over drivers.
Is this just a Texas thing due to border vicinity?
I assume Big Brother hasn't published results data, but I'm curious whether the results are performing and catching bad guys. The article's sample appears to show a false positive.
I know what you're saying, but pragmatic doesn't apply here.
We're talking about secretly dating a teenager while married with children. This is more than serving "societally taboo" urges on a transactional basis.
Suppressing what is going on tends to make things come out in even worse ways. If not suppressing it gets you murdered….
Not great. But could be worse, and it seems like it was done mindfully with minimal damage. That’s the pragmatic part.
He could have been hooking up with randos at clubs (dramatically higher disease risk), or worse, instead of what seems like a relatively stable (outside) relationship?
I’ve seen a lot worse. Not condoning, but the math seems obvious.
And his daughter may not like it, but she’s also literally only here because of it. So….
In most of the major Asian cultures, you have a very specifically shaped box to fit in. If you refuse to fit in it, you’ll be hammered on until you do. It’s not a great environment if you’re not box shaped. But society doesn’t particularly care - this was especially true 30+ years ago.
Some exceptions of course (Thai, some areas in big cities), but it’s largely still the case.
I know too many people that've gotten fancy EMBAs paid for by the company as retention/networking tools along with the countless others (read: majority) that don't use the annual tuition reimbursement available to all employees.
Even if the company is subsidizing, earning a degree while working is a pretty substantial time commitment even as a part-time thing though some people obviously do it.
Skepticism is easy.
reply