Offshore
Photo
The Long Investor
$LCID do we think $2.20 is going to hold?
Below this level and $LCID is in danger. https://t.co/0uFOGbZIgU
tweet
$LCID do we think $2.20 is going to hold?
Below this level and $LCID is in danger. https://t.co/0uFOGbZIgU
$LCID bonkers that this has a market cap of $6 Billion.
$2.20 will hit but will it hold? tweet
Offshore
Photo
The Long Investor
$PYPL second fight in the battle zone and bulls have lost again.
Price is being held up by the 50 and 200 Day MA's so far.
US 10YR rising is the cause of this rejection we believe, we need to see that come down. https://t.co/YEPDsPf2Ok
tweet
$PYPL second fight in the battle zone and bulls have lost again.
Price is being held up by the 50 and 200 Day MA's so far.
US 10YR rising is the cause of this rejection we believe, we need to see that come down. https://t.co/YEPDsPf2Ok
$PYPL continues to ride the storm. https://t.co/En4p3hSJ8J tweet
Offshore
Photo
The Long Investor
$SPY the 200 Day MA is exactly at the 2021 High Line at $463.
Not a coincidence.
Rule of thumb for all Long Term Investors, accumulate under the the 200 Day MA in the $SPY and you will outperform every single Fund on Wall Street over a 10 year period.
You do not need a PM, guidance or need to pay any 2% and 20% bullshit fees.
tweet
$SPY the 200 Day MA is exactly at the 2021 High Line at $463.
Not a coincidence.
Rule of thumb for all Long Term Investors, accumulate under the the 200 Day MA in the $SPY and you will outperform every single Fund on Wall Street over a 10 year period.
You do not need a PM, guidance or need to pay any 2% and 20% bullshit fees.
tweet
The Long Investor
$SPY I have gone through every correction since 1993 and only once has the $SPY not retested the 50 Day MA from below before rejecting further down.
This happened in 2020 due Covid and the abrupt decline.
I suspect earnings will help retest the 50 Day MA but a rejection here and the correction is confirmed.
tweet
$SPY I have gone through every correction since 1993 and only once has the $SPY not retested the 50 Day MA from below before rejecting further down.
This happened in 2020 due Covid and the abrupt decline.
I suspect earnings will help retest the 50 Day MA but a rejection here and the correction is confirmed.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Antonio Linares
$NVDA bulls think that the company has mitigated the risk of being disrupted by $AMD's chiplet approach with the launch of the Blackwell architecture, but this is not totally true.
An in depth review of Blackwell’s architecture reveals that the chip essentially consists of two large chips connected to each other.
Previous $NVDA architectures were fundamentally similar. But for the first time, Blackwell’s two chips now act as one at the software and network level. As such, Blackwell is technically made of two chiplets and thus represents a tentative first step towards chiplet architecture.
In this sense, Blackwell is a provisional confirmation of my original observation: that Nvidia was going to have to pivot towards chiplets at some point.
However, each of these two chiplets are as large as they can be, right at the limits of reticle size. Nvidia is therefore already brushing the physical limit that makes producing monolithic chips exponentially harder as we move towards smaller process nodes.
To add more computational power from here, $NVDA faces either skyrocketing complexity within each of the two existing dies or the prospect of adding subsequent monolithic chips to its Blackwell architecture.
Therefore, if $NVDA does not fully pivot to $AMD's turf, over the long term one of two things can happen:
1. $NVDA stays ahead simply by connecting more monolithic chips (each at the limit of reticle size) as if they were chiplets, with $AMD staying a marginal player.
2. The above approach doesn’t scale so well, relative to $AMD’s ‘pure’ chiplet architecture, with $AMD gaining considerable market share even at the highest end.
A review of AMD’s CDNA3 architecture (that powers the MI300 family) reveals that, as anticipated, it is highly scalable, and each component (chiplet) is far away from the reticle limit.
$AMD therefore does not have to push the limits of physics to continue making higher performing GPUs from here. Rather, AMD just needs to carry on adding more chiplets–a skill it’s been honing for a decade now.
From a low level perspective, connecting monolithic chips as if they were chiplets is bound to deliver much lower yields than $AMD’s approach. In the former case, if one component goes wrong you have to throw away a highly costly marvel of modern engineering. In the latter approach, throwing away a tiny chiplet won’t cost as much.
If $NVDA does end up with meaningfully lower yields than $AMD, this does not automatically mean that it won’t produce the highest performing products.
Yield is a metric that concerns that manufacturing process and does not say anything about the performance of the chip in question.
What is clear to me, however, is that $AMD has a structural advantage to bring AI compute engines to the market with a differentiated price to performance ratio.
tweet
$NVDA bulls think that the company has mitigated the risk of being disrupted by $AMD's chiplet approach with the launch of the Blackwell architecture, but this is not totally true.
An in depth review of Blackwell’s architecture reveals that the chip essentially consists of two large chips connected to each other.
Previous $NVDA architectures were fundamentally similar. But for the first time, Blackwell’s two chips now act as one at the software and network level. As such, Blackwell is technically made of two chiplets and thus represents a tentative first step towards chiplet architecture.
In this sense, Blackwell is a provisional confirmation of my original observation: that Nvidia was going to have to pivot towards chiplets at some point.
However, each of these two chiplets are as large as they can be, right at the limits of reticle size. Nvidia is therefore already brushing the physical limit that makes producing monolithic chips exponentially harder as we move towards smaller process nodes.
To add more computational power from here, $NVDA faces either skyrocketing complexity within each of the two existing dies or the prospect of adding subsequent monolithic chips to its Blackwell architecture.
Therefore, if $NVDA does not fully pivot to $AMD's turf, over the long term one of two things can happen:
1. $NVDA stays ahead simply by connecting more monolithic chips (each at the limit of reticle size) as if they were chiplets, with $AMD staying a marginal player.
2. The above approach doesn’t scale so well, relative to $AMD’s ‘pure’ chiplet architecture, with $AMD gaining considerable market share even at the highest end.
A review of AMD’s CDNA3 architecture (that powers the MI300 family) reveals that, as anticipated, it is highly scalable, and each component (chiplet) is far away from the reticle limit.
$AMD therefore does not have to push the limits of physics to continue making higher performing GPUs from here. Rather, AMD just needs to carry on adding more chiplets–a skill it’s been honing for a decade now.
From a low level perspective, connecting monolithic chips as if they were chiplets is bound to deliver much lower yields than $AMD’s approach. In the former case, if one component goes wrong you have to throw away a highly costly marvel of modern engineering. In the latter approach, throwing away a tiny chiplet won’t cost as much.
If $NVDA does end up with meaningfully lower yields than $AMD, this does not automatically mean that it won’t produce the highest performing products.
Yield is a metric that concerns that manufacturing process and does not say anything about the performance of the chip in question.
What is clear to me, however, is that $AMD has a structural advantage to bring AI compute engines to the market with a differentiated price to performance ratio.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
The Long Investor
The greatest investors to ever exist only modestly beat the S&P 500 performance and this was mainly due to reinvesting dividends.
Traders simply get nowhere near as close to performing as well as the S&P 500 performance, they may get lucky on some but overall, the market will catch them and humble them.
What is most bizarre is that everyone is aware of this but still think they can beat the market.
The same way people are aware that consuming too many calories will make them overweight, they know this but still indulge because they are addicted to short term dopamine hits.
One of the greatest inventions to ever exist in the US came from John C Bogle when he invented the first ETF with Vanguard, Wall Street did everything they could to discredit this invention and have somewhat succeeded.
Almost 50 years on, people still think they need to pay Wall Street fund managers who consistently underperform against the S&P 500.
Infact, studies have shown that the more expensive the fees are for a fund directly correlated to poor performances.
You do not need to trade everyday, you do not need to take high risks, you do not need a portfolio manager
You need to win with the market.
$SPY
tweet
The greatest investors to ever exist only modestly beat the S&P 500 performance and this was mainly due to reinvesting dividends.
Traders simply get nowhere near as close to performing as well as the S&P 500 performance, they may get lucky on some but overall, the market will catch them and humble them.
What is most bizarre is that everyone is aware of this but still think they can beat the market.
The same way people are aware that consuming too many calories will make them overweight, they know this but still indulge because they are addicted to short term dopamine hits.
One of the greatest inventions to ever exist in the US came from John C Bogle when he invented the first ETF with Vanguard, Wall Street did everything they could to discredit this invention and have somewhat succeeded.
Almost 50 years on, people still think they need to pay Wall Street fund managers who consistently underperform against the S&P 500.
Infact, studies have shown that the more expensive the fees are for a fund directly correlated to poor performances.
You do not need to trade everyday, you do not need to take high risks, you do not need a portfolio manager
You need to win with the market.
$SPY
tweet
The Long Investor
RT @dubinvest: Your abridged Earnings Calendar this week:
Monday (4/22)
Premarket:
$VZ
Afterhours:
$CLF
Tuesday: (4/23)
PreMarket:
$FXC
$GM
$GE
$SPOT
Afterhours:
$TSLA
$V
Wednesday: (4/24)
Premarket:
$BA
$T
Afterhours:
$META
$IBM
$F
$CMG
$VKTX
Thursday: (4/25)
Premarket:
$AAL
$CMCSA
Afterhours:
$GOOGL
$MSFT
$SNAP
$INTC
Friday: (4/26)
Premarket:
$XOM
$CVX
tweet
RT @dubinvest: Your abridged Earnings Calendar this week:
Monday (4/22)
Premarket:
$VZ
Afterhours:
$CLF
Tuesday: (4/23)
PreMarket:
$FXC
$GM
$GE
$SPOT
Afterhours:
$TSLA
$V
Wednesday: (4/24)
Premarket:
$BA
$T
Afterhours:
$META
$IBM
$F
$CMG
$VKTX
Thursday: (4/25)
Premarket:
$AAL
$CMCSA
Afterhours:
$GOOGL
$MSFT
$SNAP
$INTC
Friday: (4/26)
Premarket:
$XOM
$CVX
tweet
Offshore
Photo
The Long Investor
$BABA has so far bounced on the wedge line at $69
But will need a breakout to the upside to change this trend
tweet
$BABA has so far bounced on the wedge line at $69
But will need a breakout to the upside to change this trend
$BABA still in its long wedge
I am finding it difficult to ignore these prices and will start adding more shortly. https://t.co/uARTE6GMoJ tweet
AkhenOsiris
tweet
Citigroup provides some color on positioning in semis after their trip; here's the summary:
As a surprise $QCOM was the most pitched stock, closely followed by $TXN. Investors had a positive outlook on $NXPI as well. Though $NVDA and $AVGO are heavily owned, there's little contention among investors about these stocks.
Investors were notably bearish on $AMD and $ON Semiconductor, driven by concerns over AMD's potential order reductions from $MSFT and risks related to ON Semiconductor's exposure to Chinese OEM expansion.
They mention investor skepticism regarding their positive outlook on $INTC due to challenges in the foundry business, but remain confident in expecting a positive EPS surprise.
Post-trip, we have increased conviction that $QCOM might see a post-earnings drop, while $INTC and $AMD are likely to gain. The recent semiconductor sell-off, driven by mixed results and slowed AI growth, is seen as a temporary setback and a buying opportunity.
$MU remains their top pick, supported by the start of a DRAM upturn. Other favored stocks include $AMD, $AVGO, $ADI, $MCHP, and $ON. - Scrooge McDucktweet