@acemoney21 Been some surprising dispersion in HC. Prob need rates lower to some extent for the full complex, but does seem like strong possibility if so
@viggy_krishnan@CousinGraig@evrgn11112231 The dynamic of scaling laws only increasing, amort periods so far shrinking, and a pot cap on intelligence needs for prob a vast majority of workloads is a tough dynamic. Do new/unknown ones open up larger px gaps? Don’t need ASI for back office work and amort 12 figs gets tough.
@CousinGraig@bubbleboi Always noisy though and with ANSS big year-end Q1, always was going to be a big headwind there (look at historic backlog for them Q4/Q1). Also w divestitures headline rates messy. Not surprised but think “headline” nums missing the nuance a bit.
@viggy_krishnan@CousinGraig@evrgn11112231 The dynamic of scaling laws only increasing, amort periods so far shrinking, and a pot cap on intelligence needs for prob a vast majority of workloads is a tough dynamic. Do new/unknown ones open up larger px gaps? Don’t need ASI for back office work and amort 12 figs gets tough.
@evrgn11112231@EmperorChud_ Yeah I hear you. Wouldn’t speak for anyone else, but if you listen to Ricky’s interviews just don’t think he’d describe himself as strictly fama/french or old school value investing.
@evrgn11112231@EmperorChud_ Totally fair and I understand, my only comment was in regards to “value” being restricted to something as simplistic as TTM or NTM GAAP. I get you’ve got a diff view on the TV angle.
@evrgn11112231@EmperorChud_ I think painting every software company in the same light makes no sense. You have a diff view on that, same way you disagreed when the market might’ve thought MCO or META had AI risk. On both of which I agreed with you. But end of the day, that’s a view everyone needs to take.
@evrgn11112231@EmperorChud_ I understand you don’t and that’s fine, it’s what makes a market. Personally don’t understand the obsession with singular point in time GAAP metrics vs a broader mosaic, but different ways to fish.
@evrgn11112231@EmperorChud_ If you model forward incr margins and dilution you’ll find there’s plenty interesting. If you don’t have a view on the terminal risk that’s fine and its own issue, anyone going to -20%+ growth in 3 years is uninteresting regardless of mult.
@pekwat@SouthernValue95@JigsawCap@BagholderQuotes It’s no different than valuing the hyperscalers on current FCF. It assumes no ROIC, there’s no fwd modeling of increased dilution and depreciation period, etc. No one would honestly say hey put a mkt mult on $0 of FCF for AMZN, GOOG, etc.
@pekwat@SouthernValue95@JigsawCap@BagholderQuotes The point is it’s overly simplistic to assume companies with the potential to grow FCF above market by a drastic amount deserve to be valued on a depressed number. SBC is often amortized over multiple years when investment in S&M made sense (2% dilution for 20%+ topline?)