bmikes33

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@Market_Maestros Just another chance for me to buy my leaps back after selling at $18-19

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@smatthewschultz @mikealfred Putting with my 2 hybrid

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@Sprawl__Network @TrustlessState @vandy_prod Agreed think we all just block

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@valarauca1 @FrontRowBrian @michaeljburry I can both understand the post and his reasoning, while still making a judgement on the presentation. Unfortunately for most humans the way info is presented can be just as important as the content. Especially if they don’t understand the rationale and logic behind it.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@FrontRowBrian @michaeljburry It’s almost like Burry tried to make the chart look more confusing than it really is to, I don’t know, scare people? The irony that AI makes a clearer and better chart for his own argument may be the best part of this thread lol

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@DataDInvesting @eightadam8 @micah_erfan Understanding data and trends is hard for people. Everything you said is spot on. You are definitely engaging with the rage baiters…

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

Here’s what the $155B is: ~$119B chip/capacity purchase orders + ~$30B cloud + ~$6B leases. The ~$95B supply piece is the bulk of the “$101B due this year.” ~77% of the total is supply NVDA intends to sell at ~75% margin — that’s not “liabilities,” it’s a supply-constrained chipmaker pre-committing to a year-plus of wafers.

And those obligations aren’t the cost of the $37.5B in growth — they’re forward inputs. ~$95B of supply backs a full year of revenue; at a ~$364B annual run-rate that’s product worth ~3.6x the commitment, ~$270B in gross profit. Framing it as “$138.5B in obligations to get $37.5B” treats inputs as if they were the price of one quarter’s growth increment.

The one real risk here: if AI demand cracks while NVDA is locked into ~$95B+ of supply commitments, that committed supply becomes unsellable inventory and they eat the writedown — exactly what happened with the $4.5B H20 charge. That’s the legitimate concern, and it’s a bet on demand durability, not a hidden liability.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

Georgi the did $19.3B in buybacks and $18.6B in investments.. $2B is cash and cash equivalents is irrelevant. They are actively deploying capital… you know like a business should.

If anything I think the concern here is they are using a lot of cash flow to invest in other companies or providing back to shareholders like a mature business. If they weren’t growing like crazy it may be a red flag that future growth through product innovation is a concern. Or AI just now makes innovation a lot easier and cheaper…in which case their moat could get attacked easier as well. Hence their investments and growth in networking and expanding the product portfolio.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

That’s completely incorrect and misleading. The circular part is not 95%, more like 37% or approximately $18.6B (non marketable securities increased on the balance sheet up to $43B from 22B) in equity stakes in OpenAI, CRWV, xAI, etc. Which is up substantially from the previous year. $19.3B in buybacks is not circular, it’s literally return of capital back to shareholders.

I’d also argue however, if OpenAI, CRWV, xAI deploy NVDA infrastructure and make money with said infrastructure, and the value of those companies go up substantially, then the equity investments could be a valuable deployment of capital. You’re acting like those companies buying NVDA chips will not generate profitable business. If those companies do not grow and succeed, it will present a problem for those investments.

Think of it this way. If a steel mill took stake in a company that builds cars, is that a Ponzi scheme? The mill is producing a good (steel) which then sells it to an automaker who forms the steel into a car frame and then sells it to a consumer. There is value created in taking the base resource and building a tangible product for a consumer beyond the initial steel roll or beam.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@sunny051488 @AaronWilson_95 @vrexec What if high performers don’t need to work the exact hours we’ve always assumed aka 8-5? I think working at Nvidia right now would be exciting because you are working on tech that is changing the world.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@bootybender996 @HormuzLetter A bot that can’t spell, fancy

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

My wife just had our second kid this past Saturday. They provide plenty of diapers at hospitals during your stay as it typically gets covered by insurance. Many people go home with the open packs to cover the short term.

I would agree the voucher system would have to be thought out and there are logistical items to think about. You could also just reduce taxes on families or say cut sales taxes on baby products to assist. Money directly back in the hand of the consumers is my preference. The more hands that touch the process the more inefficient it becomes. Best regards

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

Sam you seem like a nice person, but you clearly do not understand how economies of scale operate for low margin generating products like diapers. Walmart and target and Costco have already have these supply chains. They sell thousands of products across it which is why the cost of distribution and supply across many products drives down the cost to distribute diapers. They probably only make 10-15% so let’s say $.05 per diaper to be generous. The real savings would be in MAKING your own diapers but I am vehemently opposed to govt doing that as well for many reasons.

Again, to be generous, let’s say the amount of years it will take the CA govt to grow its operations to have the scale necessary to BEAT what it could just have everyday consumer buy now via a voucher is 3 years. If they spend an average of .$15 more per diaper for 3 years and eventually beat it by $.05, it would take another 9 years to break even. Thats 12 years… to start saving $0.05 per diaper. I am more than willing to look at any audit of this program down the road, and am confident it will be inefficient.

I am not the person that believes government has zero role. The government already played its role in building the transportation system and should maintain its focus there (which as someone who worked in that space I can tell you it’s also extremely inefficient but necessary).

This is just a publicity stunt which all politicians are good at.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

What evidence do you have that they will beat “bulk deals” once everything is built? $20MM is a joke in terms of construction costs in CA to build, lease and build out a distribution network. What’s more than likely the case is they will continue to overpay “advisors” or “NGOs” to sell them diapers through their “network”.

In addition, just to respond to your other multiple posts, you clearly stated that the government was getting diapers at a rate of $1 per 400 diapers which is PATENTLY FALSE AND MISLEADING unlike the OG post. Now you’re trying to walk it back and say what I meant was it’s not thattt much money what’s $1. That’s how the money sink that is government continues to drain money from every day people.

I am not going to engage further. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

You don’t understand basic economics. You are conflating the “revenue” being taxes being used with the “cost” meaning what’s being paid for the diapers. Yes the average taxpayer is spending $1 per year but that doesn’t mean it costs the government $1 for 400 diapers… not all 20M are getting 400 diapers.

The point of the post is that for the same $20M, the government is spending $.50 per diaper (assuming the 100,000 families and 400 diapers per family is correct). Yes not all families can “afford” $60-120 to belong to Costco but Target sells Pampers for $.25-$.30 per diaper. Government building distribution networks and warehousing is stupid when we live in an economy with this infrastructure already. Regardless with the purchasing power the State of CA has, they should be able to get them for CHEAPER than the average consumer. But they never do because there’s people that need to get paid.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@TheLongInvest You should try sumo it’s great

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@RPKent This was literally created because of central banks. Cool thesis.

[bmikes33 @bmikes33]

@marketswithmay @SoFi_Outsider_ It’s enough for me, I’m just explaining that I understand why some would feel that way. The fact that’s it’s already accretive, I know how conservative the are and once they deploy the capital more means it’s only up is certainty for me.