저자: MichaelBurry/진행EricChoi—소속확인불가부분은미상 · 한국인
요약 보기
Burry는 AI·기술주 버블이 2년 내 붕괴한다고 보고 펀드를 폐쇄해 투자금을 돌려줬다고 설명했다. 핵심 근거 1: 패시브 투자 비중이 약 60%로 액티브(40%)를 넘어서 닷컴 버블 때와 달리 저평가 가치주를 골라줄 액티브 투자자가 없어 모든 주식이 함께 하락할 수 있다는 주장. 핵심 근거 2: S&P500 기업의 CAPEX 규모가 명목 GDP 대비 셰일 혁명·닷컴 버블 정점 수준에 도달했고, 주가는 설비투자보다 먼저 정점을 찍는다는 점에서 2년 내 붕괴를 예상. 핵심 근거 3: AI 투자 발표 시 주가가 투자액의 약 3배 상승하는 현상, 대형주 오라클까지 급등하는 점을 과열 신호로 지적. AI 유료 구독 의향이 낮고 운영비가 높아 수익화 한계가 있다는 회의론도 제기. 팔란티어: AI 기업이 아니라 고가 소프트웨어·SI 성격이며, 현금흐름 대비 주식보상(SBC) 희석 비용이 커서 실질 현금창출이 거의 없다고 비판. Burry 방식으로 계산하면 연 현금흐름 약 8억~10억 달러 대비 시총이 100배 이상 과대하다고 주장. 풋옵션 포지션 보유 언급. 포트폴리오 관점: 미국 주식 전반에 대한 큰 롱 포지션은 부담스럽다고 밝히며, 헬스케어 등 소외 종목 관심. 구글은 가치 투자자 선호주이며 상대적으로 낫다고 평가. 구체 종목 목표가는 제시되지 않음. 거시: 연준 무용론 및 차기 의장 트럼프 체제에 따른 금리 인하 우려, 미국 재정적자 문제 제기. 비트코인은 범죄 연계 등으로 부정적, 금을 대안 자산으로 선호(2005년부터 보유). 출연자 Eric Choi 측은 시리즈 멤버십 플랫폼 안내.
다듬은 글
said that while tech stocks plummeted during the bubble, value stocks, which were left out of the bubble's upward phase, actually rose even during the market crash . yes . But this time, since passive investing is the trend, there is no one to help distinguish those stocks . yes. So, I said that if it explodes this time, it seems like all stocks will just fall .
yes . I think so too. If US stocks explode this time, it's all passive for now, right? I've let go of the loan and everything else, so yes. I think I can really relate to that statement as well . hello. This is Eric Choi's Master Research Lab time. Ah, Eric, who came like a master again today . Which master did you come with today?
Today, I have invited someone who is at the extreme end of negativity and someone at the extreme end of positivity . Ah, you're really good at putting together combinations like that. Horn Zero, but the two extremes. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, then who is the extreme of negativity? The figure who has become hot again recently is Michael Burry.
Ah, Michael Burry didn't really appear in the media . But since I'm doing an interview for the first time in just 10 years, ah, to the media, it's not that X of mine, uh... So, I conducted a somewhat in-depth interview, and I have brought this based on that today. Ah, it looks like it will be so much fun.
Let's get right to it . Yes, we're discarding today's protagonist, Michael. He is so famous that he needs no introduction. As I mentioned earlier, Artificial Intelligence had n't appeared in the media for over 10 years, almost 10 years, but this time, it 's based on the novel by Big Showy, you know.
He appeared for the first time on the podcast hosted by Michael Lewis and said that he came on the show because he is the only person he believes in . yes . yes. I see So, it was also in Michael Lewis's Paquet. yes . Yes, today's main points are as follows. There were many different interpretations in the media regarding Choi Shik’s self-promotion, such as his return to X, closing the fund, and shorting, but he has now spoken about his own story directly.
Uh, I talked about two years while doing the law . He said it would explode within two years and explained the reason. Then, regarding why he specifically targeted Palantir, he explained his reasoning in this way, so I completely agree with the third point. It seems like we have the same thoughts, and I am very curious about numbers 1 and 2.
yes. That is the situation. Ah, I'm getting excited . good. yes . First, the reason I haven't appeared in the media until now is that since becoming a star after the Big Show, I've been receiving an excessive amount of attention. So, he says that he became more careful with his words because the SEC and other agencies were overly scrutinizing him even just for his body language.
Then, when he asked his company's compliance officers, they told him that he could do whatever he wanted on Twitter as long as he didn't talk about stocks. However, since he did everything except talk about stocks, everything else became a problem and caused controversy, leading him to delete his account.
He says he has returned recently after closing his fund and being removed from the SEC's registration list . I see The reason they didn't give an interview is that distrust of the media is now too severe. In the case of the Palantir put option recently, it was originally just an option purchased for about 10 billion won, but the notional value was almost 1 trillion won, was n't it?
People aren't the type to be unaware of that, but because CNBC just reported it like that, people said they really couldn't trust it, so they mentioned today that they appeared on the Big Show writer's podcast. great. First of all, I mentioned earlier that I passed on the fund. The reason I passed on it is that it seems like it could become a long-term bear market like the Da Combe Bell .
So, he said that he closed the fund again and returned the investment because he was confident that he could go through such a difficult time together with the customers . He even said that he considers the situation to be somewhat more serious than the Dacombubble . okay. First of all, the reason it is more serious than the dark bubble is passive investment.
This graph shows the proportion of active and passive investments among these ETFs and funds; in the early to mid-2000s, active investments accounted for 80% and passive investments for 20%. Now, that ratio has been reversed. That's right . Because it is the era of passives. That's right . The passive is 60 and the active is 40, so why is that a problem ?
It is said that during Cumber's time, even though dot-com stocks—that is, tech stocks—crashed, value stocks, which were left out of the bubble's upward phase at the time, actually rose even during the period when the market crashed . yes . However, the reason for that is that there were many active investors who recognized the value of undervalued value stocks and bought them, so those stocks rose even amidst the market crash.
But this time, since passive investing is the trend, there is no one to distinguish such stocks for you. yes. yes . So, I said that if it explodes this time, it seems like all stocks will just fall . yes . I think so too. If US stocks take off this time, it's all passive, right? I've let go of the loan and everything else, so yes.
I think I can really relate to that statement as well . So, in this situation, he says that he could not take such a large long position in U.S. stocks in order to protect his assets . It’s not that I didn’t take a long position at all. I will talk about this later, but there are positions I have secured myself.
yes. yes. At the same time, he said that the bubble would burst within two years . Regarding why it is two years, I brought up the relationship between the CAPEX cycle and the stock price . Yes. This graph is one that Michael Burry has quoted and posted again on his Twitter . This white bar represents the net capital of S&P 500 companies relative to the nominal GDP of the United States .
That represents the ratio. And the parts marked here in red, yellow, and purple represent the peaks in the respective asset markets: red indicates the peak during the bubble , yellow indicates the peak during the real estate bubble and financial crisis, and purple indicates the peak of the energy index during the shale revolution.
yes . If you look at the part I have circled, it is near the peak . However, the stock price picked out before the CAPEX investment peaked. yes . yes. So, since stocks have the property of reflecting this in advance, it is being said that the nature of technological advancement is to peak out first, regardless of whether CAPEX investments or infrastructure are fully installed in the real economy .
However, it is said that now, the ratio of CAPEX investment to GDP has reached the level of the shale revolution and the stock price peak during the Dacom bubble, so they predicted that the bubble would burst in two years and called for two years. yes . yes. That is true when considering the increasing trend.
you're right. And it is emphasized that not only the ratio, but also if you look at the trend line, you can confirm that the current trend line is aligned with the high period when CAPEX investment reached its peak in the past. yes . It’s refreshing to see shale brought in as a bubble now . yes . And yet, ultimately, this is shelf-type logic, isn't it?
They are saying that the speed of shelf-type machines is gradually increasing. I have been observing that when a company announces an investment in AI, its stock price rises three times the announced investment amount . yes . yes. So, since investing $100 million has the effect of increasing the market capitalization by $300 million, people are asking just how fast the shelf-type strategy is being executed .
At the same time, they are saying that what is more serious is that while it would be understandable if only small-cap stocks were running wild like this, it is a problem because large-cap stocks like Oracle are also surging wildly in such an instant . yes . Second, the low growth potential of AI was also pointed out.
In the case of the United States, there was the Internet revolution in the late 90s and 2000s, you know . However, they say that distribution proceeded very slowly . Now, you know how a company called AOL is called PC communication . They say the high-level business connecting via phone for the Diet Up service has officially ended this September .
Adoption proceeded very slowly to that extent, but even amidst that, the Internet gave rise to companies like Mamujeon reflecting the desire to sell goods, and social network companies were born reflecting the desire to strengthen relationships. On the other hand, the question is raised as to what can be born in AI, especially in LM .
In particular, there is a view that LM is already widely adopted . This graph shows how many companies subscribed to AI subscription services from the fourth quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of this year. This indicates how much companies are adopting AI, and it shows that 42% of U.S. companies adopted it as of the first quarter .
Wouldn't it have increased a lot more by now ? In the fourth quarter. That's right . yes. So, seeing how quickly the discarded items are being distributed, it seems like the distribution is already finished. Are n't all the people who wanted to use it already using it? They are talking about AI. yes .
But now, will users have the will to use Euros for this? Now, I am raising a question about that. Now, while developers or specific professions might be willing to pay for it, the rest of the general public uses it perfectly well for free. Since there is no willingness to pay for it, I do not expect that subscriptions or purchases driven by AI will change significantly from the current level .
But the problem is that AI is very expensive to maintain. You know, one curry costs a few tens. That is why people are raising concerns, asking, "There aren't many people willing to pay to use this, but the costs are high. Isn't there something wrong with this?" So far, that was my commentary on the AI industry and the overall market.
Now, regarding Palantir, I will speak frankly first. Palantir is not an AI company . yes . Yes. It's not this company; the essence of Palantir is a company with very expensive applications. So, I said that the essence of the company was selling expensive programs and earning money by educating the customers who use those programs, and it was a company completely unrelated to AI.
However, now that AI has become mainstream after the launch of Chaeji T, they have cleverly wrapped up their AI packaging to appear as an AI company, which seems like a case of breaking away from the AI image . yes . So, well, it was successful up to this point because Palantir's original business was a government project, you know.
However, riding this wave, private companies have been doing very well in their business operations, and looking at the third-quarter results, the revenue breakdown is 54% from the government and 46% from the private sector. It is being said that this is a case where sales were successful because the pivot was packaged well and the trend was ridden effectively, having risen to almost 50/50 .
that's right. But the number is too small, so still... but now, what is the problem? I am talking about the small number you mentioned earlier. Palantir's annual revenue was about $4 billion as of last year. However, there are five people who became billionaires through Palantir stock. So, the scale of someone who became a millionaire solely through stock options in Palantir is $5 billion, but does it make sense that this company's annual revenue is $4 billion?
yes . Lee Eun-beo is pointing out just how many small shares are being scattered around. So, we process things like this individually and package them very beautifully like this. You said it's cash and non-cash expenditure . But from Bury's perspective, the stocks scattered like this must eventually be gathered up .
yes. So, considering the dilution costs he currently perceives for Palantir and the future buybacks, he stated that Palantir is a company that has generated almost no value in terms of cash flow. yes . Since it is exactly the same as my thinking, I have no particular desire to refute it . You mean Palantir is an SI company .
It is intended to become an internet company that provides services, and if that revenue is generated with AI integrated, it should literally lead to explosive sales growth; however, to my eyes, it just rose like any other ordinary SI company. So I was wondering if this is really an AI company, but compared to that, the company size is too big, and I was thinking that, of course, they are probably having negative thoughts like Bury .
yes. And then again, besides the cash flow aspect, the core of this blue frame is ontology, isn't it? So, we are creating a digital twin by mapping it. Yes. Is this even realistic? I haven't checked it myself right now, but even back when I invested, one of the things Palantir was involved with was that companies like Google and Metacritic use a huge amount of papers.
Palantir did not write a single paper. So it was very difficult to figure out what this company's technology really was . I was skeptical because they didn't write a single document and just guaranteed that they wouldn't do it because it was a government project and preparations were in place, but now they are raising the exact same questions there.
that's right. that's right. I mean, if only everyone would take a look, I would try to value it in various ways, but no matter how big I set my dreams, the sales growth speed is so slow that it takes too long . That's right. Then, they need to demonstrate a so-called quantum jump at least once in the middle, and companies that do demonstrate quantum jumps have certain characteristics.
It grows by having quarters where sales suddenly explode, but this one doesn't even have that . So, thinking that this is just a typical, common SI company and the price might be ridiculously high, I was just saying this company was expensive. But anyway, they decided to secure their own share and tighten it up.
In their zone of justice, who will get a harsh lesson? Okay. And while I previously mentioned that I was hesitant to go long on US stocks, I do have a long position myself. So, if I were to recommend buying stocks right now, I suggested paying attention to overlooked stocks like those in the healthcare sector .
Now, in Burry's case, he continues to carry Lululemon . Lululemon is half of us, you know. So, he said that he is paying attention to these neglected stocks . And now, regarding how I think about Buffett buying Google despite recommending value stocks, he said that Google is relatively better. Google is arguably the most preferred stock among value investors .
Does n't Ryojeo say that it's not the same and that the cost is expensive? Conversely, Googling is somewhat competitive compared to ultra-low cost. I said that I view Google as being in good shape because it offers ultra-low-cost services, is gradually moving into AI in-bed, and has a valuation that is lower than other technologies.
Besides that, I commented on various other issues . Regarding the major macroeconomic issue of U.S. debt recently raised, this amounts to waiting for Castro to die . I thought to myself, "When was I ever foolish?" Of course, I 100% agreed that it is now a problem. As for the Federal Reserve, I think it can be abolished because it is an institution that has only affected the economy.
Also, since Trump will likely be the next successor to Powell, the American people will come to dislike the Federal Reserve. Um... well, they said something like, "We are already struggling so much with inflation, and since interest rates keep going down because of Trump, if we can't control it..." Regarding Bitcoin, oh well, at that time, there was also a problem with US debt.
We are currently in an AI bubble. Well, people say there are problems with the Fed too, but those very distrustful people seem to be investing a lot in Bitcoin. Regarding Bitcoin exchange rates, since I like gold just like you, I have that kind of perspective instead of Bitcoin being the worst of the two.
I guess you think we need to go to some alternative asset instead of Bitcoin, and that is gold. Ah, regarding Chulip, at least it wasn't used for crimes, but since Bitcoin is being used for crimes as well, they harshly criticized it again, saying that Bitcoin is the worst . As you mentioned, since I have been holding gold steadily since 2005, I have shown a positive outlook on gold.
yes . Ah, that's interesting. Yes, that was Burry's story so far. To add a little more of our thoughts, you know that popular Netflix series called Sci-Fi 3 last year? Isn't that the three-body problem? Now, when two planets influence each other, we can calculate and predict their orbits, but in the case of a two-body problem, if one more planet is added to make it three bodies, we cannot calculate the general value using that .
So, it becomes an equation that isn't solved using a formula, but rather by brute-force substitution. Yes. But I think the core point that the stock market is talking about is precisely that the stock market is the Three-Body Problem. Usually, when we talk about AI or stocks, we discuss them based on fundamentals.
People often buy naturally, saying things like, "This industry is good, so the future is rosy," or " This stock will do well because its future looks bright." However, is n't the fact that price is involved in stocks what makes investing difficult? Who didn't know that AI is good, the internet used to be good, and mobile is good ?
Now that price is involved, the issue is whether it has been reflected here or not, and whether it is a high valuation or a low one. So, one of Burry's key points today is that many people forget about the price when buying stocks, but it is important to always keep the price issue in mind when buying and to recognize that this is a difficult Three-Body Problem.
And yes, is n't he targeting Palantir? I tried doing the calculations using the tool Burry suggested. In this graph, the blue line represents Palantir 's surplus cash flow. What I mentioned here is that if you subtract the share buyback from the free cash flow, there is no cash flow left, but the orange line was calculated according to Burry's explanation.
Ah, but the thing is, it's a bit unrealistic because they do n't buy back 100% of their own shares for stock compensation, you know. There will likely be a positional aspect to this, but you can view the graph as an extreme assumption that everything is 100% done. Judging by the standards, Palantir failed to generate any cash flow .
yes . It has not been able to generate cash from 2018 until now, and of course, if we look at the cash presented by Palantir, the situation has completely improved since 2021, so it is a company that is generating cash flow well . yes . But if you look at that, since the current unit is $1,000, the cash flow generated in 2024 and 2025 is going from $1 billion to over $1.0 billion this year, right?
However, the value of this company is not just around $1.5 billion. I mean, $ 1.5 billion is 1.5 times larger, but this company is 100 times bigger than that. So, while it earns this much in a year, it is a company that is more than 100 times larger. Also, although the speed of its growth looks significant in terms of percentage, the absolute value is small.
The absolute value is too low, so it went up from the bottom. Stocks move faster. yes. Since the stock price has already risen because it reflects everything, I do n't think it's a really good idea to just blindly buy Palantir at this price. So, in a way, this is a comparison of the best-case scenario and the worst-case scenario regarding cash flow .
The valuation doesn't make sense no matter which of the two you look at . that's right. For example, looking at both using the Bury method, it’s roughly $800 million, and we expect about $ 1 billion this year. Even looking at the standard accounting criteria, it comes out to about $1.6 billion, but the stock price is n't 100 times that; that’s not the case.
I do n't understand people who live in Volunteer. Honestly, I don't know. Leave a comment on my channel, Mr. Oh, this isn't Eric's channel, it's my channel. Go to Eric's channel and leave a comment. Did I say I wasn't good ? I said that Buri is bad. They say throwing it away is bad. Michael Burry. yes.
Go to Substack, hit Michael Burry, and on that Substack, ah, I see that subscriptions are also possible on ThumbStack . yes . You can subscribe to Burry for $40 . Ah, that's amazing. That substack is a service with a concept similar to Ready. Nefcon, like Naver Premium content. yes. So, Korea is the American version of Nefcon.
I see. ah. ah. Since that came up. Eric wo n't be doing business starting next year either. Ah, yes. Because we are cooperating with Earth, yes. I will tell you. There is a site called Earth Plus, and I will give you the link to the Earth Plus site. If you go there, there are a few influencers currently being handled by an organization called Earth .
There are people here who you all know, including Dr. Hong Chu-wook, Dr. Kim Young-ik, and Dong-kkang, as well as various stock and crypto experts like Professor Oh Tae-min. Eric also joined the platform on Earth, and the services he provides are related to these masters. So, I won't explain the membership details here, but I will leave a link, so I think it would be good for you to take a look.
If we do that, we might be able to receive it much faster and more promptly than the current cycle at the Master Research Institute we are working with . Of course, we release some content on YouTube, but if you become a member, we provide much more content. For instance, right now I am working on Moneyverse with Fanding and producing content there that deals with active ETFs .
I would appreciate it if you could view it from that perspective . Are you satisfied? thank you okay. yes. great. Today, during the Masters Lab time with Eric, we heard some biting remarks from Michael Lewis, the author of the book "Big Show"—the only person who believed in him—who appeared on the channel with Michael Burry, the ultimate villain of negativity.
However, rather than just reading, it seems he threw out a thought-provoking argument. We will see you again next time with another great master . thank you
Comments 0