원문 보기
We need to do something. We should abandon the term “trade” such as “AI trade.” This is the wrong way to talk about a giant industry that has been around for a long time. Too often we hear traders ask: is AI trading over , is it dead? This confuses you. When you talk about "AI trading," it sounds like there is a group of high-performing stocks that are constantly on the verge of collapse.
This is as far from the truth as possible. Let's take the last 48 hours. We heard about a small Australian data center developer that had to cancel its IPO. But the deal was poorly structured and overpriced even before it was canceled. More than half of the insider shares were available for sale as soon as this thing started trading.
This is madness and stupidity. Typically, most insider sales are frozen for at least the first 6 months. No one questioned the incredibly absurd structure of the deal. All I heard was: is that all? Is this how AI-Trade is falling apart ? Is "Shi- Trade" dead? Then we heard about the alleged slowdown at OpenAI that I mentioned earlier.
We heard the same nonsense. There are so many panickers around. It's surprising that anyone even owns these shares. Some seem determined to criticize this group no matter what happens. But people don't understand one thing: when the world's largest companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars, believe me, they're not just participating in some kind of " trade." They invest in something they are sure will make them a lot of money, and they understand their business better than we do.
The idea that all of this will simply collapse or disappear because of some poorly structured Australian IPO is a farce. Yes, it's true that a hedge fund that used too much leverage blew up back in July due to situational awareness, and that temporarily crushed the entire AI complex. It made us feel like the whole group was fragile, because how else could it be brought down by one hedge fund?
But that fund controlled billions and billions of dollars using margin . They bought stocks on margin. They didn't quite understand it. And in this way, you can collapse any stock if it starts to fall when you have a huge position on borrowed money and you are forced to sell everything at once. This happened to many of the stocks this hedge fund owned .
The person who ran the fund only saw AI. And the person who ran the fund didn't understand the consequences of trading with borrowed money. So, what should we call AI trading? Listen, there are companies that build data centers and companies that provide energy sources. There are companies that supply components.
There are companies that have data storage both in the cloud and on flash drives and hard drives. Ultimately, I would call it the artificial intelligence industry, because that's what it is. Of course, there is a huge collection of Nvidia chips that SpaceX controls. They generate what is called computing power.
You can call it the computer industry if you want. Computing power can be bought, sold, and traded. SpaceX is currently receiving $3 billion to $4 billion per month from several hyperscalers that need additional computing power. This is not what I'm talking about when I mention the AI industry. I'm saying you should view these companies as part of, say, the new oil that drives the economy.
She is everywhere . It is comprehensive. And if you don't use it, you're riding a horse-drawn cart, just waiting for the competition to crush you. Listen, at one time Standard Oil had almost 100% of the oil market. It was a monopoly. The government broke it. Although at that point they weren't too concerned, because they simply made even more money as separate businesses.
What is important is that Standard Oil introduced a product that became universal, with trillions of dollars of infrastructure behind it. Was it a trade? No. It was an investment. As do many oil companies, oil service companies, pipelines, refineries, gas stations. AI is the new oil. This is also an investment.
Let's call it that and admit that it's not going to go away, regardless of whether some Australian IPO fails or a bad headline appears in the Financial Times. Standard Oil was impossible to remove. It was impossible. There will simply be many companies created to exploit what we now see in this version of Standard Oil.
You can call them whatever you want, but trading is not about them. I'm not going to convince you to sell any of this, because I'm just saying don't trade. Hey, we had a good deal when I said buy Apple there, somewhere around 332 today. But here's the problem. And JP Morgan, I think they'll have a good quarter, not a great one, but a good quarter.
But the shares are a little high compared to others, but that's okay. This is a nice steady climb. Buy JP, buy more JP Morgan if they fall. Okay, so these are companies where Matt Murphy runs Marvell, I've known Matt for years, and then we have Andy Jassy at Amazon. They both trade in sync , and the point of diversification is that you don't want to have too many stocks moving together.
We're going to have to— Matt Murphy, cover your ears. We'll have to sell Marvell, and next week when J&J reports, we'll buy some of their stock, okay? So on Monday we will sell Marvell and buy J&J. We'll let you keep Amazon for now, because Amazon is acting a lot ...I mean, listen, I should tell you to sell Amazon too.
I just don't want to do this. I don't want to sell all the stocks I really like. Mary, I'll make an exception for you . I love Amazon, but there's too much tech here , and you're going to suffer on a bad tech day like yesterday. But thanks for the call. I'm glad you got out of Chewy. Although they can't seem to hold at 25.
Jim Cramer just said something that should be taped to every trader's desk. Enough to call it "AI trading." Because every time bad news hits—an Australian IPO is canceled, OpenAI's growth slows, a hedge fund implodes—traders immediately ask: is this the end of AI trading? It's as if the entire ecosystem is balancing on a knife edge , waiting to collapse.
This is complete absurdity, and Kramer points it out. Here is his main point. When the world's largest companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars on AI infrastructure, they are not engaging in some dubious speculation. They are making calculated bets that these investments will bring them huge profits.
And these companies understand their business better than traders. Companies don't spend hundreds of billions on guesswork. Look what happened in the last 48 hours. An Australian data center company canceled its IPO because the deal was terribly structured, the price was too high, terrible conditions for insiders, and more than half of the shares could be sold immediately after trading began.
This is madness. IPOs don't usually work like that. But what was the immediate market reaction? Is this the beginning of the end for AI trading? This is a completely wrong question. The real question is: does one poorly structured Australian IPO change anything about the fundamental development of AI infrastructure happening globally?
No, it doesn't change. It only means that this particular deal was ruined. That's all it means. Cramer then mentions a hedge fund that went bankrupt in July using huge leverage. This temporarily collapsed the entire AI sector. And everyone said, "See? This is all very fragile." But here's what actually happened.
This hedge fund was tens of billions of dollars in debt, didn't understand what it owned, and was forced to sell everything at once. This can be done with literally any stock if you use leverage as a weapon. This is not a sign of weakness in artificial intelligence. This is a sign of what happens when you are unwise to use margin trading.
That's where Cramer is right. The language we use shapes our thinking. If you call this an " AI deal," you're thinking about an exit. You're thinking about timing. You think about when to escape. But if you call it an industry, which it really is, you think about scale. You are thinking about duration.
You think about where the money will flow in the next decade. That's why he compares it to Standard Oil. Standard Oil was not a "deal." It was the basic infrastructure that fueled the economy for a century. Yes, the government divided it up, but it just turned into several companies that individually made even more money.
Infrastructure has not disappeared. She simply evolved. This is what is happening with AI right now. Companies build data centers, provide energy, components, storage, and computing power. Nvidia receives $3-4 billion a month from hyperscalers just for chips . This is not a trading model. This is structural demand.
Here is the main conclusion. Every company that doesn't implement this technology is riding a horse-drawn cart, expecting to be crushed by competitors that do . This is not trading. This is an industry building, and it won't disappear because one IPO failed or one leveraged hedge fund went bankrupt.
Refusing such terminology is not just a play on words. This is the difference between short-term thinking and thinking in decades. This is the difference between expecting an exit and understanding the scale. Kramer makes a deeper point than it seems at first glance. Language drives narrative, and narrative drives the distribution of capital.
Comments 0