저자: 미상 · 한국인
요약 보기
한 출연자가 테슬라 자금을 엔비디아로 옮기는 것에 동의하며, 2~3년 수익을 원하면 엔비디아가 낫다고 언급. 스노우플레이크 vs 팔란티어 비중(1:3)에 대해 AI 데이터 수요 관점에서 스노우플레이크의 고객 기반과 확장성을 강조. 나이키는 밸류에이션 등급(F)과 브랜드 모멘텀 약화, 중국 노출을 이유로 부정적 평가. 전반적으로 실적은 괜찮으나 주가 모멘텀은 부족하다는 입장.
다듬은 글
Regarding your opinion on moving your Tesla investment funds all the way to MB: Yes, selling all your Tesla shares and going to NVIDIA. Yes, I am asking you first, Master. Yes, as for me... I agree. Yes, I agree. If we are moving there, I agree with moving from there. I am saying this because I have a lot of affection for NVIDIA, and I believe their performance will be much better no matter how you look at it.
When comparing the two, you should n't sell anything else; I only apply to those two. Since I do it this way, I am telling you this in advance and will listen to your answer. As for the direction, well, if you are looking for a profit within two or three years—so-called two or three years—it seems better to go to NVIDIA.
But if you are expecting a big hit, staying with NVIDIA is better. Yes, but there is uncertainty, right? NVIDIA is 100% just... and yes, Tesla has uncertainty, so that is the case. However, since it seems like it will take some time, I also think it wouldn't be too late to go there for a while and come back.
Then, I partially agree. Right. Yes, but yes, for the time being... well, how should I put it? If there isn't a new momentum, it will be a bit difficult. Given the situation, regarding the current momentum, yes, we just have Diablo, the Haegye Munin, don't we? Right, right. Since Tesla doesn't have that, well, if you hold a lot, it is right to just go with at least a portion.
Yes, that is correct. If not, then yes, yes, I have given you the answer. This is a question truly for you, Director. Regarding Snowflake or Palantir, which one should we invest in? Or should we go in half? It's something like that. What do you think, Director? I will just speak from my own perspective.
Yes, yes, yes. 3 to 1. Ah, so 1 to 3, 1 to 3. That is my ratio. My ratio in terms of amount is Snowflake at 1, yes, and Palantir at 3. Yes, it is 3. Yes, that fits perfectly. At 25%, it's 75%, right? So, that is my investment ratio right now. Ah, originally, originally, yes, originally, it was almost the same for Snowflake.
But since I bought some at the point when it dropped so much, it has increased a lot. Yes, yes, anyway, that is my standard. Now, regarding both, as you know, but AI comes next, and then... yes, even when I speak offline, then... Ah, it will play the role of a so-called beneficiary stock. Recently, since so- called "anti-investment"—that is, investment in the foundation of AI—is still fundamentally taking place, it seemed like the software sector would go straight ahead, but that wasn't the case.
If it follows that path, it isn't bad, but that is just my perspective. So, as the importance of data in large-scale language models grows, Snowflake naturally has a share to play. So, in the case of Snowflake, it has many clients from the so-called major global corporations in the US, you know, the Fortune-listed companies.
Yes, it has many. Yes, that is the foundation of their actual base, and it is their so-called strategy. If those companies utilize it well—you know how big corporations often work for smaller companies like subcontractors, right? Then, they are using a strategy to expand in a way that implies, "If you want to work with them, you have to use Snowflake." Yes, that is it.
Palantir, on the other hand, doesn't employ that kind of strategy. Well, it is not exactly that, but it does things quite uniquely, and also... It is something that is continuously being done across various fields. It is the same concept as "those who have used it once use it, but those who haven't might not know." Another point is that they are moving all data to Snowflake; they are performing a migration, but since they are talking about Parant...
well, that means those for whom their own unique data is important will stay here. If that isn't the case, and they need to possess the data exclusively, then using Parant Tier might have emerged. However, if they go to Snowflake, it takes time for the transfer, but if they go there and use the data within Snowflake—that is, the data that can be shared—they can use more data, so that is another advantage.
Anyway, could you take a look at Nike, Doctor? What is there regarding Nike? Let's look at the recent chart first. Nike... uh, Nike stock price... uh, the stock price looks really boring. I think you asked me to look at Star because of what was said earlier that it is similar to Starbucks, but yes, well, it is not particularly poetic.
If it performs well, I might collect it, but I do n't think there is much worth watching. As for Nike, for now, currently, what is it over there? It comes out here, right? From my perspective, in a way, it is related to the sportswear sector. I think brands like Hoka Do or Lulemon are moving in a direction that has color and is somewhat defined.
Actually, isn't Nike primarily focused on mainstream sportswear? From my perspective, so yes, I want to explain that in that regard, it could be seen as falling behind the trend a bit. They are so strong, aren't they? Hoka Do, Lulemon, and 01, too. Anyway, simply put, let's look at the best thing to look at on Seeking Alpha.
If you look at the valuations on Seeking Alpha, look at Nike's rating. It's practically a complete failure. Nike's valuation is at a failing level. This is the valuation grade right now on my screen. It's F failing, F failing, failing. It's really bad. As for Starbucks, it's currently D minor. So that means the situation is that bad overall.
So, the overall rating itself doesn't seem like a very good sign. So, if this is calculated, there ultimately needs to be some change. So... The numbers aren't good, so strategically, they need to find a breakthrough. To find a breakthrough, what needs to be done? Well, ultimately, it needs to become a place where they can sell a lot, but since that is n't happening yet, they either need to discover a truly promising star and find a way to launch them from a young age.
That is indeed necessary. However, they have grown so much, right? Yes, they have increased their sales tremendously. If you look at that process, there have been sports stars intermittently, have n't there? Right. Recently, is there a star representing Nike? I'm not sure. Actually, they need to appeal to the younger generation.
Right? Yes, they need the power of social media. But even I look at it; Nike used to have a very strong vibe with their "Just" commercials, but I don't think they have that these days. Because that kind of thing is necessary for young people to buy and purchase products these days, and seeing that missing is quite unfortunate.
Also, in any case, isn't it a company that is partially connected to China? Exactly. That is a disadvantage, too. So, there are many various downsides. From my perspective, it looks like they are lacking momentum right now, and it seems like there are just a lot of companies like this. I wonder if the stock prices of quiet, subdued companies are subtly falling.
Something needs to be done. Like that person over there—who is it? That Palantir CEO Rum, like Alex Karp—something needs to be done. If you don't do something, nobody will pay attention. But it does look a bit too quiet. However, what I mentioned earlier is that while the situation is generally good, what does "quiet" mean?
It seems there aren't many issues. Especially regarding sports or areas that require some thought or focus, I feel like they might be falling a bit behind, so I wanted to explain. I am watching right now, and the profits are decent; the actual situation is fine. But as I said before, there does n't seem to be any noticeable change worth paying attention to.
The performance doesn't look great, and since there do n't seem to be many issues, is n't it just quiet? That is why the impact on China appears to be growing. I think it would be good if you understood this as a downside. he
Comments 0