方法论
研究框架、选股思路、思维方式 · 共 651 条 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
用 AMD/PLTR/RKLB 历史说明 thesis 未变时应给时间
同意，而且我已经反复见过这种情况。 2016 年的 $AMD，当时人们觉得它能挑战 Intel，后来在 5 美元附近投降。 2023 年的 $PLTR，当时人们相信 AI thesis，后来在做空者活动之后，在十几美元投降。 今年的 $RKLB，当时人们觉得它在 18 美元可能成为下一个 SpaceX，后来在低目标价之后投降。 当你看到很多散户最爱的名字，比如 $BTC、$NBIS、$IREN、$RKLB、$CIFR、$ASTS、$ALAB、$CRCL、$HOOD、$SOFI 等，从历史高位回落时，看看历史案例是有帮助的。 很多时候，当 FinX 因为大家讨论 $NBIS 可能成为下一个 AI 版 AWS，或 $ASTS 可能成为卫星蜂窝领域的下一个 Starlink，而形成所谓“泡沫”时，如果唯一变化的是股价，而不是 thesis，那就给它时间兑现。
英文原文
Agreed and I've seen it time and time again. $AMD in 2016 when people thought it could take on Intel, then capitulation at $5. $PLTR in 2023 when people believed in the AI thesis, then capitulation in the $10's after short seller activity. $RKLB this yeare when people thought it could become the next SpaceX at $18. Then capitulation after low PTs. When you see a lot of retail favorites like $BTC, $NBIS, $IREN, $RKLB, $CIFR, $ASTS, $ALAB, $CRCL, $HOOD, $SOFI, and others dropping from ATHs, it's good to see examples from history. And many of times, when finx forms a "bubble" from discussion that $NBIS is likely to become the next AWS for AI, or $ASTS has the potential to be the next starlink for satellite cellular. If the only thing that's changed is the stock price and not the thesis, give it time to play out.
-
用 RKLB 说明散户缺乏耐心，机构买入后才上涨
@RKLBMan WSB 上所有人都在 $RKLB 从 13 到 30 美元时参与过，后来它在 20-30 美元之间停住，机构又给出 13 美元目标价时，大家就放弃了。 现在机构买上去之后，它已经 50 美元以上了。人们真的没什么耐心，哈哈。
英文原文
@RKLBMan Everyone on WSB was in on $RKLB at $13-> $30 then gave up when it stalled between $20-$30 and institutions were giving it like $13 PTs. Now it’s $50+ after institutions bought it up, people just don’t have the patience lol.
-
认为 FinX 散户泡沫短期拥挤但长期方向常常正确
FinX 是泡沫。/r/wallstreetbets 上的交易员也是。 人们都持有同样的股票：$NBIS、$TE、$ASTS、$HOOD、$RKLB、$IREN、$KRKNF、$ONDS、$SOFI、$AMD、$TSLA 等。 但是：这是好事。 这些年我一遍又一遍看到这种情况。 短期看，当人们买 1-3 个月期权时，他们会在这些“泡沫化”和拥挤交易里亏钱。 但从一年后的长期看，散户对这些公司的方向判断往往是对的。 这才是最重要的部分。 例如，一两年前 $NVDA 刚起飞时，$TSM（140-150 美元）是 Reddit 上最热门的 ticker。 散户方向上看对了，因为 $TSM 是整个 AI 建设的中心。 短期里，所有人都亏钱了，因为他们买了两个月后的 call，而股票横盘，甚至跌到 127 美元。 一年后，它涨了 100%+，那些 call 本来会涨 10 倍。 $MU 也一样。Reddit 知道内存是 AI 热潮的重要组成部分，于是都挤进同一笔交易。 但 $MU 在 100 美元横盘了一整年，大家都亏钱了。 快进到现在，从 Micron 到 SK 海力士，内存成了最热门的东西，股价从 65 美元冲到 245 美元，涨了 200%+。 散户方向上是对的，但中途投降了。 我确信，像 $NBIS 这样的股票，现在正处于散户买了太多短期期权，然后像当年 $TSM 或 $MU 下跌时那样，连股票也一起投降的阶段。 但快进一年，这可能就是 $TSM、$MU 或 $HOOD（18 美元时）那种 3-4 倍回报，当初散户方向其实一直是对的。 我相信 FinX 散户股票“泡沫”在较短时间框架里未必正确，因为 OI、宏观波动和做市商会主导价格；但长期方向上往往是对的。
英文原文
FinX is a bubble. Same with traders on /r/wallstreetbets. People own the same stocks $NBIS, $TE, $ASTS, $HOOD, $RKLB, $IREN, $KRKNF, $ONDS, $SOFI, $AMD, $TSLA and others. However: It’s a positive thing. I’ve seen this on repeat again and again throughout the years. Short term when people buy 1-3 months options, they lose money on these “bubbly” and crowded trades. Long term 1 year later, retail gets these companies directionally right. And this is the most important part. For example, $TSM ($140-$150) was the most popular ticker a year or two ago on Reddit when $NVDA was initially taking off back. Retail got this directionally right, because $TSM was the center of all AI buildout. Short term, everyone lost money because they bought calls for 2M out and the stock stalled and even dropped to $127. One year later it’s up over 100%+ and all those calls would have 10x’ed. Same with $MU. Reddit knew memory was a huge part of the AI boom and piled in on the same trade. Yet $MU stalled at $100 for an entire year and everyone lost money. Fast forward, memory from Micron to Sk Hynix is the hottest thing now and shot up 200%+ from $65 to $245 . Retail got this right directionally right but capitulated. I’m convinced on stocks like $NBIS that we’re in the period of time where retail bought too many short dated calls and are capitulating with shares like the drops on $TSM or $MU. However fast forward a year, this might be that 3x-4x return like $TSM or $MU or $HOOD (at $18) where retail was directionally right all along. I’m confident Finx Retail stock “bubbles” might not be right in shorter timeframes - where OI, macro volatility, and MMs dominate - but are right directionally long term.
-
澄清折旧应从资产可供使用时开始，而非实际使用时。
另外——“折旧仅在底层资产（GPU）投入使用时才开始计提”——这一说法存在细微差别且倾向于错误。我不确定 $IREN 是否有特殊规定，但一般而言，折旧从资产“可供使用”时开始，而非“实际使用”（暗示100%利用率阈值、客户工作负载或资产真正被使用）。例如，查看 $ORCL 的报告，其已考虑了利用率滞后因素。
英文原文
Also - "Depreciation only kicks in once the underlying assets (GPUs) are in use." - this is nuanced and leans false. I'm not sure if this is is different for $IREN in specific, but just in general depreciation starts when the asset is available for use, not in use implying your 100% utilization (thresholds), not for cusotmer worklods, or assets actually being in use. (eg. if we look at $ORCL's report it accounted for utilization lag).
-
博主更正$MSFT数据错误，澄清计算逻辑并建议忽略特定图表。
是的，$MSFT 的交易数据确实有误。这是最后时刻加进去的，但我本应该仔细校对一下。 不幸的是无法编辑 X 帖子，所以我就留在这里说明： - 计算时使用了混合估算值，例如芬兰设施（Mantsala）。你说得对，$MSFT 的交易应该仅按美国本土交易计算。市场费率可能在 200 万美元以上。 - 我根据 X 上的多个 GPU 场景做了拆解，但这只是其中之一。$NBIS 先提升 H200 产能，随后部署 GB300，但这并未展示全貌，所以请忽略该图表。 标准化表格仍然有效，可作为粗略的相对比较。
英文原文
Yep, the $MSFT deal in specific was off. Threw that in last minute but should have proof-read it. Unfortunately can't edit X posts but I'll just leave this here: - Used a blended estimate eg. Finland facility (Mantsala) for caluations. You're correct in saying $MSFT deal should be US-only deal calculations. Market rates would likely be around $2.0M+ - Did a breakdown of multiple GPU scenarios off X but this was just one of them. $NBIS was ramping up with h200 first then deploying gb300's down the road, but doesn't show the full picture so ignore the chart. Normalization table still stands as a rough relative comparison.
-
博主称能凭记忆精准回忆大量公司的财务数据。
@Perugius__ 不，全是背下来的！对于我研究过的低百位数家公司，我有一种奇怪的能力，能具体回忆起财务方面的各种数据，比如大量的营收数字、增长率、以往的估值、特定日期的随机涨跌、交易规模等。
英文原文
@Perugius__ Nope it’s all memorized! A lot of the revenue numbers, growth rates, valuations previously, random dips/spikes on certain days, deal sizes, etc. across low hundred figure of companies I’ve had a strange ability to just recall it all specifically for financial stuff.
-
借鉴FTX投资组合经验，探讨核心业务搭配高增长子公司的科技巨头成长路径。
这是一个合理的评论，因为很多人对FTX这个词有创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)，且存在大量负面联想。（我并非试图制造这种联想）。 然而，尽管他们存在会计欺诈，他们在现代任何初创企业中做对了一件事，即投资组合公司的增长/投资。当散户进行长期投资时，我们可以从中吸取一些教训。 在过去4年中，我们看到了这些回报（1000%+）的成果，这正是我发布的内容。 核心观点是，如果你拥有一家像Google Search（例如 $NBIS）这样合法的运营业务，并将其与像YouTube一样的超扩展子公司（例如Avride, Clickhouse）相结合，那就是成为下一个科技巨头的完美组合。
英文原文
That's a fair comment since a lot of people have PTSD with the word FTX and there's a lot of negative associations. (which im not trying to make). However, despite their accounting fraud, they did one thing right out any other startup in the modern era, which was portfolio company growth/investments. And there's some lessons we can take from that when retail does long term investors. We got to see the fruits of those returns (1000%+), in the past 4 years, which was what I posted about. The core point was that if you had a legitmate operational business like Google Search (eg. $NBIS) , and paired it along with Youtube-like hyper scaling subsidiaries (eg. Avride, Clickhouse), thats the perfect mix to becoming the next tech giant.
-
指出LLM初始错误时，集成方法无法纠正自信的错误答案。
@platochi 我关注到了！我上面漏掉的另一点是，没有任何大语言模型(LLM)能在一开始就给出正确答案（即使你个人有时能解释其中的细微差别）。 因此，如果它们都自信地给出了错误答案，采用顾问/集成(ensemble)式的方法也无济于事。
英文原文
@platochi I’m tuned in! Another point i missed above was that no LLM gets it right in the first place (even if you personally explain the nuances sometimes). So having a counsel/ensemble type approach wouldn’t do anything if they all get it confidently wrong
-
构建金融数据接入LLM成本高昂，散户难以获得机构级Alpha生成能力。
嗯，这种方法需要花费数百万美元来构建定制化的金融数据管道（Financial Data Pipelines）接入到大语言模型（LLM）中（我不想花这笔钱）。 这大概是对 @demishassabis、@sama、@elonmusk、@DarioAmodei、@ylecun、@arthurmensch、@aidangomez 或者拥有资源的初创公司来说的一个挑战。 这绝对是一个价值十亿美元的问题：如何让散户也能通过提示词（Prompt）获得与 Jane Street 算法同等的阿尔法（Alpha）生成能力。 我可以开源一个轻量级版本，就像上面的 LLM 委员会那样，仅基于我个人的领域特定判断，但肯定无法做到深入。有趣的事实是，$NVDA 过去曾试图招募我领导他们的人工智能团队之一，所以也许如果我现在没忙于其他事情的话……
英文原文
Uh this approach would cost millions into building custom financial data pipelines into the LLM (which I don't want to spend). Prob a challenge for @demishassabis, @sama, @elonmusk, @DarioAmodei, @ylecun, @arthurmensch, @aidangomez or a startup with the resources. Definitely a billion dollar question for alpha generation to make the same Jane Street algorithm capability available to retail to prompt. I could open source a lightweight version like the LLM council above just based on my own domain-specific judgment, but won't be anywhere close to being in-depth. Fun fact, $NVDA tried recruiting me to lead one of their AI teams in the past so mybe if i wasn't working on other things right now
-
高贝塔股常先于指数下跌，是市场风向标。
历史上确实如此，今年也不例外。在2月至4月期间，我们曾看到高贝塔值(高波动性)股票如 $HOOD 大幅回调，成长股及前沿指数也出现大幅下跌。 这并非总是如此，但指数通常最后才发生变动，而成长股/高贝塔值股票通常是煤矿中的金丝雀(市场风向标)。
英文原文
So it actually happened like that historically, and this year too. Before we saw high beta like $HOOD sell off back from Feb to April, and growth stocks frontran index on the massive drop. This isn’t always the case but indexes are usually last to move and growth/high beta stocks are usually a good canary in the coal mine.
-
分析2024年表外去杠杆规模，认为当前正重新加杠杆而非触及结构性资金。
大多数事情发生在表外，所以我们无从知晓。 回到2024年，去杠杆(unwind)规模约为2000亿至3000亿美元以上。包括140亿美元期货（CFTC及BIS数据）、1600亿美元对冲基金外汇远期合约（来源：BIS公报第90期），以及约1000亿美元（假设投机性的非银行金融机构(NBFI)贷款部分）。 2万亿美元以上来自GPIF（1.6万亿美元）等结构性资金，1万亿美元以上来自银行贷款等。 2024年已经清理了大量去杠杆，但未触及结构性部分。 但我的看法是，我们很可能自2024年以来正在重新加杠杆(reload)，并看到那约2000亿美元的去杠杆规模再次被清理，而非触及结构性资金。
英文原文
Most things happen off the books so we won't know. So back in 2024 unwind was about $200B – $300B+. $14 Billion in futures (CFTC & BIS data), $160 Billion from Hedge Fund FX Forwards, Source: (BIS Bulletin #90), + ~$100B (Portion of NBFI loans assumed speculative). $2T+ is structural money from GPIF ($1.6T), $1T+ from Bank lending, etc. 2024 cleared a lot of the unwind already but didn't touch the structural part. But my take is that we've likely seeing a reload since 2024 and seeing that ~$200B-ish figure be cleared out again rather than touching structural money.
-
宏观分化加剧，但股票基本面优于宏观逆风。
这是一个价值百万美元的问题，也说明了在全球市场高度互联的背景下，宏观环境有多么复杂。通常，三次降息是极其看涨的，往往会导致次年 $SPY 和 $QQQ 指数获得两位数涨幅。然而……此时日本央行(BOJ)正在加息。但如果美联储降息而日本央行加息，就会出现分化：美元融资成本更低，日元融资成本更高 -> 巨大的利差变化，这可能会加速日元套息交易(Yen Carry Trades)的平仓。我不知道确切答案。但我推测，我们可能已经看到了这些恐慌情绪的最坏阶段，许多高贝塔(High-Beta)股票在日本央行加息前提前下跌了40%。而且抛售导致许多像 $NBIS 或 $META 这样的股票脱离了基本面。所以有一点是肯定的：股票基本面 > 宏观逆风。
英文原文
So that is a million dollar question and speaks how to incredibly complex macro is given how interconnected markets are globally. Normally triple rate cut is extraordinarily bullish and normally leads to double digit $SPY $QQQ index gains the following year. However... this comes at a time where BOJ is raising rates. But If the Fed cuts and BOJ raises, you get a divergence: cheaper USD funding, more expensive JPY funding -> big differential changes, which could accelerate unwinding of yen carry trades. I don't know the answer. But my speculation is we've likely seen the worst of these fears play around where many high-beta stocks dropped 40% preemptively in advance of BOJ rate hike. And the sell-off has led many stocks like $NBIS or $META to be detached from fundamentals. So one thing is for sure though: fundamentals of stocks > macro headwinds.
-
宏观因素致抛售，预计周一反转并抢跑12月降息。
所以我提到的四个宏观要点是此次抛售的更大原因。上周五有大量期权头寸到期，我猜测在 $NVDA 财报后，这纯粹是由算法驱动的（而且至今仍说不通）。然而，导致更长期抛售的主要原因包括：由币安(Binance)引发的连锁加密货币保证金清算、降息概率变化、AI信贷压力以及日元套利交易(Yen carry trade)。我猜测市场将在本周一反转，并在市场迫使美联储(Fed)降息后重新定价并抢跑12月降息（且在期权到期后）。不过，我不确定日元套利交易的抛售会在多大程度上抵消这一影响。
英文原文
So the four macro points I talked about was the larger reason for the selloff. There was a huge amount of option interest expiring last Friday, and my guess post $NVDA earnings was that it was purely algorithmic driven (and still doesn't make much sense). The larger overhang about the cascading crypto margin liqudations caused from Binance, Rate cut odds changing, AI credit stress, and yen carry trade are the main reasons behind the longer sell-off though. My guess is market reversal this Monday and repricing in + frontrunning December ratecut after markets bulled Fed into cutting (and after option expirations. However, I don't know how much possible Yen carry trade selloff offsets this.
-
强调投资应追求收益与权重的双重最大化。
@RJCcapital 正确的座右铭是： 最大化收益，最大化收益。 （市场，权重） https://t.co/e5oKDsYcz7
英文原文
@RJCcapital The correct motto is: Maximize Gains, Maximize Gains. (markets, weight) https://t.co/e5oKDsYcz7
-
承认短期回撤，强调选股能力与避免高位追涨的重要性。
@soulbiri1 是的，我也亏损不少。即使是最好的投资者，短期内也会出现这样的回撤（Drawdown），但如果他们懂得如何挑选个股，且不在此类价位做多 $RGTI $OKLO 这类股票，长期来看应该能跑赢市场。
英文原文
@soulbiri1 Yep I’m down a lot too, even the best investors have drawdowns like these short term but should outperform longer term if they know how to pick individual stocks + not long $RGTI $OKLO type stocks at these levels.
-
期权到期引发波动，短期看算法，中长期看基本面。
明天有很多期权到期（如果你看 $NBIS 到 $META 等）。未平仓合约链(open interest chains)将被清洗。我想说从周一开始到1-2月，或者12月初会有复苏，但由于这是由算法驱动的，基本面没有太多实质性内容，不确定伟大的算法之神(algo gods)短期内会怎么做。中长期基本面更重要。
英文原文
lot of option expiration tomorrow (if you look at $NBIS to $META, etc). and open interest chains will get flushed. I want to say starting Monday into Jan-Feb, or maybe recovery in early December but since it's algorithmic driven with nothing too material to fundamentals, not sure what the great algo gods will do short term. Medium-long term fundamentals matter more.
-
鲍威尔讲话料重申NBIS优于IREN，建议关注个股基本面而非宏观大盘。
杰罗姆（鲍威尔）大概会上台，宣称 $NBIS > $IREN，然后在他走向由悉尼·斯威尼（Sydney Sweeney）坐在副驾的新兰博基尼时潇洒离场（mic drop）。 市场会鼓掌欢呼，因为他说的不过是众所周知的事实。 但除此之外，我们可能会获得更多关于12月降息以及政府停摆后经济前景的见解。大盘随后的走势可谓五五开，因此除非你交易短期指数或更依赖宏观的资产，否则关注个股基本面更为重要。
英文原文
Jerome will probably go on stage, say $NBIS > $IREN, and micdrop after walking offstage to his new lambo that Sydney Sweeney is riding shotgun in. Markets will clap and cheer knowing he said something everyone knows as a fact. But that aside, we’ll probably get more insights into Dec rate cut and a view of the economy after gov blackout. It’s a coin flip direction the general markets go after, so more important to look at individual stock fundamentals unless you trade short term indexes or more macro dependent assets
-
解析高波动股因机械对冲导致的剧烈震荡及反转机制。
Nebius [$NBIS] 在一个月内经历了从 $140 -> $94 -> $130 -> $83 的剧烈波动。对于波动性股票，如果一周内能下跌 25%，那么一周内反弹 33% 也是可能的。机械对冲（Mechanical hedging）会导致股价剧烈下跌，但当风向转变时，反向情况同样会发生。
英文原文
Nebius [ $NBIS ] went from $140 -> $94 -> $130 -> $83 in the span of 1 month. With volatile stocks, if something can drop 25% in a week, it can also back up 33% in a week. Mechanical hedging brings a stock down violently, but when the switch flips, the same happens in reverse. https://t.co/YmzL7OqeWw
-
建议无视短期噪音持有AI股，等待剧烈反弹。
🎯. 我们以前见过类似的情况，比如 $NBIS 从 $140 跌至 $94，然后在两周内暴力反弹至 $130。这次似乎更广泛且回撤时间更长，大多数高贝塔股票从 $SMCI 到 $RDDT 都在下跌，其中 AI 板块集中度最高。正如你所说，任何反弹可能都会很剧烈，因此最好在这些波动时期持有，以免错过 1-2 个最大的反弹日。显然，当前的市场下跌是多方面的，包括散户投降、保证金清算、宏观因素，以及对 GPU 过时/AI 交易信贷收紧的一些合理担忧。然而，最重要的是关注基本面而非短期噪音（目前恐惧与贪婪指数处于 9/100 的极度恐惧状态）。
英文原文
🎯. We've seen this before with stocks like $NBIS on the drop from $140 -> $94 and then the violent recovery to $130 all in the span of 2 weeks. This time it seems broader + longer drawdown with most high-beta stocks dropping from $SMCI to $RDDT with highest concentration of AI sector. As you mentioned, any recovery will likely be violent, which is why it's better to hold through these volatile times, than missing out 1-2 of the biggest recovery days. Obviously the current market drop multi-facted with retail capitulation, margin liquidation, macro, and some valid concerns over GPU deprecation/credit tightening of the AI trade added on top. However, the most important thing is to look at fundamentals over short term noise (with fear and greed being extreme fear right now at 9/100).
-
高贝塔资产遭抛售属市场重置，基本面改善应耐心持有。
从 $RKLB、$HOOD、$BTC（现89k）、$HIMS 等所有高贝塔/“风险”/成长型资产都在被无情抛售。尽管基本面全面改善，但这源于连环保证金清算和投降式抛售（基于部分合理的担忧）后的良好重置。以 $IREN 为例，散户仅因 Robinhood 数据就在股价创新低时抛售。但散户通常是在 $MSFT 交易后 $80 高点买入，而在崩盘后 $45 低位最后卖出。此时只需关注新周期、降息、期权到期，并耐心等待，因为基本面正在全面改善。如果盈利和远期收入放缓，我会大幅减仓（但事实并非如此，我们看到的是创纪录的增长）。
英文原文
Every high beta/“risk”/growth asset from $RKLB, $HOOD, $BTC (89k now), $HIMS is being obliterated. It’s a great reset from cascading margin liquidations and capitulation (based on semi-valid concerns) despite seeing improving fundamentals across the board. $IREN retail is selling off for example just based on Robinhood data even while stock is at new lows. But retail is typically the one to buy at the highest point $80 post $MSFT deal and and last to sell eg. $45 post crash. At this point it’s just new cycles, rate cut, option expirations, and waiting since fundamentals are improving across the board. If earnings were slowing and forward revenue was slowing, I would be selling well (but it’s not, we’re seeing record growth)
-
澄清研究框架，强调信贷与债务风险对板块的影响。
两件事： - 阅读时最好越过第一句继续往下看 - 隔一个交易日再看帖子，百分比数据会发生变化。 我尊重你的专注，但你正在聚焦于一个无人进行的直接对比。这确实是一篇长文，大多数人可能会跳过正文直接看评论，但文中所做的唯一直接对比是： - NeoClouds（新云厂商）与Mag7（科技七巨头）的合同 - NeoClouds与资产负债表健康的公司 - 未与OpenAI直接签约的NeoClouds 所以再次帮你梳理一下，整篇文章的核心是关于信贷市场、债务结构、OpenAI资本支出悬顶，以及影响整个板块的生态系统风险。 使用1周到1个月的时间框架是为了展示NeoClouds从何处下跌（例如$IREN在微软交易后），以反映板块在盘前的整体下跌。使用隔一个交易日NeoClouds从盘前跌幅中恢复后的不同价格，并不会改变或有利于该论点。 阅读时最好越过第一句（我也持有$IREN）
英文原文
So two things: - It helps to read past the first sentence - percentages change when you look at a post a trading day later. I respect your dedication, but you’re zeroing in on a direct comparison nobody is making. It’s a long post for sure and most would just skip it and go to comments but the only direct comparisons made were - neoclouds with mag7 contracts - neoclouds with healthy balance sheets - neoclouds that don’t directly have contracts with OpenAI. So just to help you again, the whole post was about credit markets, debt structure, OpenAI capex overhang, and ecosystem risk affecting the whole sector. Using 1W to 1M timeframe is to show levels neoclouds dropped from (eg. $IREN after MSFT deal) for a sector wide drop from premarket. Using different prices a trading fay later when neoclouds recovered from premarket doesn’t change or favor the thesis. It helps to read past the first sentence (I own $IREN too)
-
指出AI处理海量13F文件存在局限，曾尝试但结果出错。
@number1invest_ @grok 让 Grok 处理通过审查每一份 13F 文件(13F Filing)来进行的大量数据计算(13F filing)可能太多了。我记得在另一个帖子中要求它只输出一个结果，但它搞错了。 https://t.co/rP8XZNQMpX
英文原文
@number1invest_ @grok there's probably too much number crunching by reviewing every single 13F filing for Grok to handle. I remember asking it one single output in another thread but they go it wrong. https://t.co/rP8XZNQMpX
-
推荐Fintel和纳斯达克机构持仓数据源
@beauty_oe @babyfolio Fintel 和纳斯达克机构持仓板块(Nasdaq institutional holdings section)
英文原文
@beauty_oe @babyfolio Fintel and Nasdaq institutional holdings section
-
13F多为噪音，短期下跌属宏观无差别抛售。
不，13F 文件（13F filings）很多时候只是噪音，除非是伯克希尔（Berkshire）在买入。而这些评分只是判断某只股票是否适合长期持有（例如：是否有大量长期被动基金投资者做多该股票）这一多维方法中的一个小信号。 短期内，像 $CIFR 或 $CORZ 这样的下跌是宏观因素导致的，因此这是全市场的无差别抛售。
英文原文
No, 13F filings a lot of time is just noise unless you have Berkshire buying in. And these scores are just one small signal of a multifaceted way to determine if something is a good long (eg. Do you have lots of long-passive fund investors going long on a stock) Short term on stuff like $CIFR or $CORZ drops were macro, so it’s an indiscriminate selloff across the board.
-
建议现金党通过卖出CSP期权以低价获取权利金。
@rioferdy838 @Mattyice112233 @Docofgothm 对于 $NBIS 和矿企，如果你是现金党，是的，请卖出接近当前行权价（如 $105）的云服务提供商(CSP)期权，因为你的目标是以最低价格被指派并获取权利金。
英文原文
@rioferdy838 @Mattyice112233 @Docofgothm With $NBIS and miners if you’re cash gang, yeah write CSPs closer to current strike like $105 since your goal is to get assigned + premium at the lowest prices
-
投资无绝对优劣，需基于当前市值权衡风险与回报。
@Antonzeehow 其实并没有绝对的从优到劣排名。更多是基于当前信息，在风险与回报之间的权衡取舍。 别太当真，这只是我基于当前市值(Market Cap)的个人直觉。 https://t.co/RiCqPEOANm
英文原文
@Antonzeehow There's not really a best to worst. It's more of trade-offs from risk vs. reward given current information. Don't take this too seriously, but this is just my personal feeling right now given current MC's. https://t.co/RiCqPEOANm
-
AI工具在分析Neoclouds时存在缺陷，作者更倾向手动整合信息并采用估值建模。
我发现像 @AskPerplexity、Grok 等 AI 工具在研究 Neoclouds（新型云服务商）和每日新闻频发的板块时，结果往往极不准确。它们会遗漏大量细节，例如 $NBIS 的白皮书中有关于与 $CRWV 等对比的利用率信息，这些数据对 AI 不可见（暗示了 GPU 利用率带来的毛利率增长）。当 Meta 与 $CRWV 达成 140 亿美元交易，且上周 $AMZN、$MSFT 等发布财报显示 AI 资本支出增加时，AI 可能会忽略那些未直接提及 $NBIS 但暗示超大规模云厂商交易增加的顺风因素。或者几天前的额外降息提振了涉及债务的 Neoclouds 的前瞻性盈利。亦或是关于 Clickhouse 等子公司或投资组合公司的新信息，AI 可能无法将其串联起来。FinX 散户在将这些信息拼凑成前瞻性增长方面做得更好，鉴于 AI/Neocloud 的总可寻址市场(TAM)具有高度投机性和快速增长，很难建模。这也是我采用估值方法的原因（在我之前关于 $NBIS 如何达到 1000 亿美元市值的帖子中），但如果看 $UPWK 等更标准的业务，我的估值建模方式则不同。
英文原文
I've actually found AI tools like @AskPerplexity, Grok and others to be extremely off when looking at Neoclouds and sectors with new news every day. They miss a lot of details, eg. with $NBIS you have utilization information from Whitepapers comparing Nebius to $CRWV and others that aren't publicly viewable to AI (which insinuated growing gross margins from GPU utilization). When Meta struck a $14B deal with $CRWV and you have earnings report last week from $AMZN, $MSFT, and others you have increased capex spend into AI, and they might miss tailwinds that don't mention $NBIS directly with increased changes of more hyperscaler deals. Or when there's an additional rate cut a few days ago that boosts forward earnings especially with Neoclouds that involve debt. Or when there's new information about subsidiaries or portfolio companies like Clickhouse that AI might put 1+1 together with. FinX retail does a lot better job with piecing all this information together into forward growth and AI/Neocloud TAM is really hard to model given how speculative and rapidly growing it is. That's kinda why I go with valuation approaches (in my previous post on how you get to $100B MC for $NBIS), but if you look at $UPWK and more standard businesses. I do valuation modelling differently
-
批评盲目跟风，强调投资需基于实质性估值分析。
谢谢，我快速浏览了一下（未做事实核查），这是一篇关于 $NVO 的很棒的文章。 我不指望原帖作者（OP）能达到你这样的尽职调查(DD)水平，但当 OP 不断发帖称其“便宜”时，至少应给出一些实质性的解释。 4%的股息率和双位数的销售额增长，对于任何进行估值的人来说都毫无意义。 但粉丝可能只是盲目跟随，而不是基于有信息量的信息做出自己的选择。
英文原文
Thanks did a quick skim (didn’t fact check tho), that’s a great write up for $NVO. I don’t expect your level of DD from OP but at least when OP keeps posting“cheap”, at least give some substance in an explanation. 4% dividend and double digit sales growth just means absolutely jack to anyone doing valuations. But followers might just blindly follow rather than making their own choices based on informative info.
-
批评仅凭“便宜”而无实质分析的帖子误导粉丝。
@dividenddude 恕我直言，这类帖子基本上没有任何实质内容或分析。你昨天对 $FI 说“便宜”，现在又对 $NVO 这么说。用毫无用处的解释声称某物“便宜”，只会让粉丝盲目亏钱。
英文原文
@dividenddude With all due respect, there’s basically zero substance or analysis from these types of posts. You’ve done this with $FI yesterday saying “CHEAP” then this again with $NVO. Saying something is cheap with useless explanations is how followers end up blindly losing money.
-
持有ETF和LEAPS是安全的上行策略，需匹配个人风险偏好。
@WZRDtheWise @blu400_ 持有像 $META 这样的 ETF 和长期期权(LEAPS) 并没有错。这大概是最安全的上行策略，而且每个人的风险偏好都不同。
英文原文
@WZRDtheWise @blu400_ There’s nothing wrong with holding ETFs and Leaps on stuff like $META. That is probably the safest upside thing to do, and everyone has different risk profiles.