저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
AI 성장의 병목은 칩 설계보다 에너지·소재 등 공급망 투입요소로 이동하며, 해당 요소를 쥔 기업이 부상할 것이라 주장. 엔비디아는 HBM 장악력으로 AMD 대비 매출 격차가 크고(엔비디아 약 2250억 달러 vs AMD 약 300억 달러), 올해 두 차례 25% 조정에도 불구하고 PER은 선행 25~30배 수준으로 버블과 다르다고 봄. 버블 논쟁은 있으나 AI는 인터넷급 전환이며 변동성은 건강한 신호. 소비자 시장은 승자독식 성향으로 OpenAI가 유리하다고 보나 구글·메타의 AI 활용은 인정. 엔터프라이즈 시장은 Anthropic 등 다수 참여자가 경쟁하는 구도.
다듬은 글
put this quote up there which is this famous quote from Nathan Rothschild where he said I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.
Why is that quote so interesting as applied to AI? I think that what you're going to see and you're seeing it in those revenue graphs is that there is a traffic jam that's happening in growth where it won't be the ability to actually build nextgen silicon but it'll be the energy inputs that will constrain it and it will be the ingredient inputs that constrain growth and so the companies that then control those elements of the supply chain will actually come into power and rise to power.
So what is one example of this? One example of this is when you look at the architecture, the famous statement of Nathan Rothschild, I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets should be shown. I am in charge of the British money supply and the individual who manages it also controls the British Empire.
When it comes to AI, why is that quote so intriguing? I believe that what you're going to see and you're seeing it in those revenue graphs is that there's a growth bottleneck where the ability to build next generation silicon won't be the limiting factor rather it will be the energy inputs and ingredient inputs as a result the businesses who have control over certain supply chain components will genuinely gain influence.
What is one instance of this then? The architecture of Nvidia's chips serves as one illustration of this. HBM is one of the items they have placed a significant wager on. It's a memory structure, too. And what's really intriguing about that is that when you look at the HBM market, Nvidia essentially controls the bulk, followed by Google.
Furthermore, AMD's upcoming architecture must truly be built on top of HBM. They will now need to enter that supply chain and attempt to request a portion. Outstanding organization. You know, I reside in Silicon Valley, of course, but what Paul Tudtor Jones and that group have done to alleviate poverty in New York for the past 40 years.
They held an event last night when they announced more than half a billion dollars for their new endowment. So, it's fantastic. Today is their investing conference. I'm excited to discuss it. The big question is now. If it hasn't already been mentioned last night, I'm sure the phrase bubble will be brought up several times during this conference.
Are we all in one? Where are we if we are? I'm not sure if you think it's artificial intelligence or some sort of market or economic bubble. I might also add that you brought up Paul Tudtor Jones. He stated that he believed we were in a bubble when he came on our show approximately a week and a half ago.
He also placed us on an equal footing. He recalled the intriguing month of October 1999 when the market still had 40% left. Yes, it is correct. First of all, when the most popular book in New York is about a stock market crash and everyone who appears on the show speaks about bubbles, bubbles, bubbles, you hardly ever have a bubble.
Everyone is talking about a bubble. Therefore, it's too early. Howard Mark said using multiples as an example. Bernstein was referring to Nvidia's roughly 50fold lower PE, which I thought was fantastic when you called him out yesterday. The forward PE is 25 to 30 times. Generally speaking, bubbles are not composed of that substance.
However, Andrew, you will undoubtedly run into situations that leave you baffled the farther you venture out on the risk curve. I wouldn't have done that deal, you say. Additionally, there will undoubtedly be meme stocks that Becky have no income and are in the quantum area or something similar where you claim that the valuation is illogical.
However, we always have this. The most significant query is, is this the AI phase shift? With the advent of computerass assisted intelligence, all computing is changing. Is it comparable in size to the internet? Furthermore, I contend that it is just as large as the internet. Additionally, if you spend all of your time hand ringing about the internet, as many people did in 2001 and 2002, and saying, "I told you so," you will miss the next 20 years of compounding, which includes Amazon, Google, and all of these major companies.
By the way, I concur with you that artificial intelligence will transform the world. We are all experiencing a generational transition. The question is, is there a chance that something may go wrong? When you compare the positive and negative aspects of the current market, how does that glitch appear to you?
Earlier this morning, an analyst we spoke with stated, "You know what? It's going to be hard to reach materially higher numbers right now." But she also speculated that the market might be down 5 or 10%. That didn't sound completely irrational to her. She said Nvidia has experienced two 25% draw downs this year.
Correct. Do you recall the Deepseek incident? The stock had dropped 25%. The shares then dropped to $92 per share throughout the tariff period. Today it is at 180. Thus, volatility is crucial for two reasons. First, in the midst of a super cycle, our president is attempting to restructure both national and international trade policies.
Thus, there is just a great deal of uncertainty that in my opinion is a healthy market. It's not a straight line to the right and upward. This year has seen a number of draw downs. And if you look at these stocks and ask yourself, as their top line has grown much faster than 50%, does it make sense that Nvidia is up 35%.
Yes is the response. Compared to when the stock was $200 per share, it is now less expensive. The actual key though is that we can distinguish between Nvidia and some wacky meme stock or you know a brand new cryptocurrency junk coin that we've never heard of. However, as an investor, how do you identify those intermediate gradation?
When it's not that extreme, how do you distinguish between what is genuine and what isn't? Becky, I believe that's a really good question. We are major investors in Open III and definite breakout market winners. If you look at how the venture capital industry uses the barbell technique which we are also using.
However, we are investing in extremely tiny businesses purchasing 10 to 20% of the business. These inflection growth assets which have extremely high valuations but haven't yet demonstrated that they are multi-year compounders are in the middle. Over a billion dollars and more than a thousand of them are currently attempting to raise money in Silicon Valley.
I predict that a significant amount of the chop and washing out will occur there. You'll notice that in the public marketplaces as well, won't you? The creative destruction is at its height right now. Both winners and losers are present. And for that reason, there is volatility. How is Oracle's earnings up 25%.
Joe, since they are accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in market capitalization in a single morning, it is confusing when they announce these agreements. Only when there is this degree of doubt about the future do you have that. All right. So let's discuss your perceived level of certainty regarding the future.
Yes. So who do you think will emerge victorious from all of this at this point? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, Nvidia is clearly a winner. Would you come in contact with an AMD? Would a Broadcom be touched? Yes. Broadcom is owned by us. AMD has been owned by us. I would suggest that if you go back to 2022, just 2 and a half years ago, Andrew AMD M Nvidia had the same revenue.
I recently displayed this image on the radio. Yes, Nvidia will do 225 billion this year, whereas AMD will do slightly over 30 billion. Nvidia has essentially taken over all of the additional market share that AI has brought about. Correct. Lisa deserves credit for raising her hand and declaring, "I'm betting the farm." Even though AMD missed the wave, I'll wager that the MI450 will function and be competitive with Nvidia.
And I'll give Openi 10% of my business. Although it's a realization, that's not exactly the stance of strength you want to be taking. We're in the second year of a 10-year super cycle to build out the compute in America. Lisa explained, "You won't be able to take advantage of all that if you're not on the AI wave.
Open eye at least is certain to emerge victorious when considering the major LLMs. I'm not sure where you think Anthropic fits into any of this. Google, you own Meta. I know that they are attempting to play this game in an open-source manner. Is that effective? Yes. Let's divide it into two categories.
Consumer and enterprise. That seems like the simplest approach. I've now invested in three or four super cycles from the consumer side, including the social, mobile, and internet super cycles. Winner take most usually goes to the winner. Don't you think? There were 20 competitors in the search market.
And while all of them had outstanding technologies, Google took 98% of the benefits that search had to offer. Apple of course with the app store meta in the case of social media. I believe that chat GPT had more than 800 million weekly users and well over a billion and a half monthly users at one point.
Additionally, the involvement is something that most individuals don't discuss. Engagement is increasing. As a result, the cohorts beneath those numbers are remarkable. Therefore, I believe they are currently a consumer breakaway. Will Google be able to capture them? It's really difficult in my opinion.
Is Meta able to capture them? I consider it difficult. Will they use AI to create successful businesses? Indeed, these are money-making machines, the greatest companies in capitalism's history. They're not moving. The work that Sundar is doing is impressive. The work being done by Alexander Wong and the Meta team also impresses me.
However, they are aware of how challenging it will be to catch up with consumers. This will be a free-for-all on the business side. No one is leaving. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are all on board with Claude Code and their work with Cursor. Anthropic is undoubtedly one of the market leaders in enterprise today.
The players we just mentioned will be in the hunt, but there will still be a large number of participants in the game. Consider the 50 businesses that follow them. Raising money is becoming more and more difficult if you're the next foundation model, isn't it? If you're the next person to learn how to code, in my opinion, the market is rapidly settling into a dominant position.
Comments 0