Trading the stockmarket (NO Referrals)

[mattyfez]

What makes you think European equities are a hedge against the USA?

Maybe that's the wrong term to use, I bought them as diversification away from the USA if that makes sense.


Just saw this on reddit, dunno what it means exactly but it sounds plausible??

"This is a global liquidity fracture, not a local blip. Dollar funding costs are exploding across repo markets from London to Tokyo. Central banks have drained excess reserves, the Treasury’s bill issuance is vacuuming cash, and money-market funds are retreating to safety. Cross-currency basis swaps are widening, signalling stress in offshore dollar lending. Dealers are choking on collateral because balance sheets are maxed, and the Standing Repo Facility can’t patch what’s breaking overseas. This isn’t risk-off sentiment it’s a systemic dollar shortage tightening its grip on every asset class. But being the ever-diligent global investors you are, you obviously factored in the collapsing repo liquidity, cross-currency basis stress, and vanishing dollar collateral before you bought… right? The rumour is that’s why Rachel from Accounts had to make an out-of-band speech this morning to calm the markets. No one in the MSM saw it coming, but she did right as repo spreads blew out and desks started whispering about collateral stress"

 

[radderfire]

needs more substance and verification though.

I think the Meta results were fine, but the reason for the drop was Zuckerberg said they will build the AI capacity first, and hope they can find a use for it all. After his metaverse push, this did not go down well with investors.

 

[grudas]

If you sayit every day, statistically one day you will be correct

exactly

 

[200sols]

Maybe that's the wrong term to use, I bought them as diversification away from the USA if that makes sense.

Yes, and you have diversified. But Europe can still fall as well. Even more than the USA. VEUR is also near record highs.

 

[mid_gen]

If reform get an any UK centric renewables are going to be out of favour. Wouldn't go there myself.

They like to blow hot air (hoho) about renewables as culture war nonsense, but the reality is that the future of energy production in the UK is renewables, particularly wind. It is now, and it will be after Reform's predictably disastrous term in government is over.

More like a dividend trap - 10% is massive and totally unsustainable long term.

More of a trap than buying into this tech bubble? I'm happy collecting the dividends for now.

 

[Simon]

10% divi but drops 20% don’t make much sense though. Wouldn’t focus on just the divi return alone.

 

[lookitsjonno]

Holy crap the volatility in this premarket

 

[radderfire]

My view - I think we will keep recovering from downturns, because the earnings of the Mag 7 are strong, so there's no real reason for a major downturn.

 

[lookitsjonno]

I think this is just manufactured fear by the algos designed to cause panic. There's no wider news other than the government shutdown and general "it's a bubble" talk

 

[Simon]

Holy crap the volatility in this premarket

Low volumes so prices move fast

 

[D.P.]

I think the Meta results were fine, but the reason for the drop was Zuckerberg said they will build the AI capacity first, and hope they can find a use for it all. After his metaverse push, this did not go down well with investors.

This, all the tech results are actually good within continued growth. but investors are now wondering when they will see returns on the hundreds of billions moving around.

TBH, the sooner a correction happens the better

 

[radderfire]

I've been looking into the "Are we in an AI bubble" issue, and my view is we aren't.

The capex is being funded by cash flow. The Mag 7 companies are throwing off cash.

It's instead a supremacy race. All Big Tech wants in and it's essential that they are. I have been blown away by some of the AI stuff, e.g. image generation and video generation, and I never really thought it would be possible. This is just the start. The power that they build in these new datacentres will be immense, and will have powerful new applications that allow Big Tech to make even more money.

Big Tech is simply investing in it's future, and their future profitability. It will take over more and more business processes.

So my call is no bubble. We'll see.

 

[413x]

My view - I think we will keep recovering from downturns, because the earnings of the Mag 7 are strong, so there's no real reason for a major downturn.

I'd actually agree somewhat too.
Especially nvidia. Nvidia is the key to hardware.
But I know there are a lot of cyclical deals between nvidia and it's buyers at the moment

 

[Rob_B]

What is the income stream?

Consumers aren't really paying for it, certainly nowhere near billions in revenue.
Corporate are paying for it via Copilot etc but again it's millions not billions in spend. Reduced headcounts (as is the worry) for a business does not equal revenue for the model providers, maybe the infra side, maybe.

Anyone using models at scale are likely (read: SHOULD be) looking at open source for when the providers jack up the prices to the level they need to be to support these ridiculous numbers from investment.

OpenAI alone are 'spending' $1Tn, there's no way they are spending that and getting it back.

 

[D.P.]

What is the income stream?

Consumers aren't really paying for it, certainly nowhere near billions in revenue.
Corporate are paying for it via Copilot etc but again it's millions not billions in spend. Reduced headcounts (as is the worry) for a business does not equal revenue for the model providers, maybe the infra side, maybe.

Anyone using models at scale are likely (read: SHOULD be) looking at open source for when the providers jack up the prices to the level they need to be to support these ridiculous numbers from investment.

OpenAI alone are 'spending' $1Tn, there's no way they are spending that and getting it back.

Consumers will pay indirectly via advertising, the same model that already exists from Google to Meta. Others will je through hardware like smartphones.

Commerical is where the real money will be made. Software licencing is crazy expensive considering the scale. I have a lot of software that has £70-120 a month, and some of them i only use a few times a year.



The tech companies are paying astronomical amounts because of the landgrab. They cannot afford to be left behind . The costs in the future could be substantially less.

And no, companies are self hosting Open source models. They might fine tune SLMs and run them on AWS bedrock or Azure for example

 

[413x]

Consumers will pay indirectly via advertising, the same model that already exists from Google to Meta. Others will je through hardware like smartphones.

Commerical is where the real money will be made. Software licencing is crazy expensive considering the scale. I have a lot of software that has £70-120 a month, and some of them i only use a few times a year.



The tech companies are paying astronomical amounts because of the landgrab. They cannot afford to be left behind . The costs in the future could be substantially less.

And no, companies are self hosting Open source models. They might fine tune SLMs and run them on AWS bedrock or Azure for example

But not if they don't have any money to spend with.

I think mid term AI may succeed but I don't see it generating an ROI.
Its costing huge amounts of money. Will likely take many jobs. But if the net result is more people have less money. Who's going to buy all the stuff to make that ROI?

I don't think AI will fail. I think it's transformative. But I do think it will drive the rich poor divide further taking skilled desk jobs and those not being replaced with an equivalent. Not in the near term anyway.

At the end of the day, doesn't the average person need to spend to make an ROI after this enormous outlay?

 

[silversurfer]

People are and will easily be more useful then AI, the whole basis of business is to increase efficiency. AI will be useful on specific tasks, I reckon a lot of training will be required and assisted by people

I took some profits from ASML that I bought early in the year, figured it has topped out for now but pocketed 43% gain

I did similar which was good luck, good gain but they pivotal so it wasnt unjustified. I can sell unit trusts (more easily), dont need to chop the shares about because I want them in future fairly sure. Im undereducated and need to read more as always tbh

It’s now become more contrarian to say the market can go higher than it is to say we’re going to crash. There’s a bubble in people talking about how we’re in a bubble.

UKW is a dog. Whole renewables sector has performed terribly with no sign of recovery, especially with reform coming in.

I took a little bit of RR recently to add, hopefully also today etc. I think why buy was the rise from £11 but thats speculative. RR could be pickaxe and shovels to the AI boom presuming AI is valid, doesnt falter, does require energy.
Nuclear is the most renewable cheapest energy there is (UK can recycle few countries can) and the SMR from RR along with all their other avenues in demand, they continue to be justified in future revenue.

Possibly HMRC alter energy tax rates this budget and also renewables with it

The tech earnings etc. is not crash or burst bubble its basic buy the rumor sell the news and they had already risen. ie. its normal fallback NVDA can fallback to 180 where it has more volume, thats a proper move.
36 - 44 INTC range. I could sell some but need to read more

News by Dow Jones Newswires on TradingView, 2025-11-04

www.tradingview.com

 

[Rob_B]

Consumers will pay indirectly via advertising, the same model that already exists from Google to Meta. Others will je through hardware like smartphones.

Commerical is where the real money will be made. Software licencing is crazy expensive considering the scale. I have a lot of software that has £70-120 a month, and some of them i only use a few times a year.

The tech companies are paying astronomical amounts because of the landgrab. They cannot afford to be left behind . The costs in the future could be substantially less.

And no, companies are self hosting Open source models. They might fine tune SLMs and run them on AWS bedrock or Azure for example

Indirect revenue though, it's not trillions of dollars. Looking at the number Ed Zitron had for what MS is making by selling Copilot etc it just doesn't add up, double it, it still is nowhere near the cost. Add in dprecation of hardware and in a few years what's left? Nvidia will make a killing at least short-medium term.

Companies will/are looking at open source models (I'm not really talking hosting), the likely future costs and the speed/faff of deprecation from the likes of OpenAI mean it's inevitable unless you want to be at their mercy when they decide their models are embedded enough in your systems that you can't afford NOT to pay them whatever they decide to charge.
Using AWS or Azure etc is fine, it'll still be cheaper and give them more control, performance & new features? There's the main downside but I would wager 90%+ of what people actually want 'AI' (LLMs in this instance) to do can be done using existing models and hardware with no need to chase the newest shiny stuff.

 

[D.P.]

But not if they don't have any money to spend with.

I think mid term AI may succeed but I don't see it generating an ROI.
Its costing huge amounts of money. Will likely take many jobs. But if the net result is more people have less money. Who's going to buy all the stuff to make that ROI?

I don't think AI will fail. I think it's transformative. But I do think it will drive the rich poor divide further taking skilled desk jobs and those not being replaced with an equivalent. Not in the near term anyway.

At the end of the day, doesn't the average person need to spend to make an ROI after this enormous outlay?

You seem to come form the perspective that very quickly AI will replace all jobs and there will be massive unemployment with essentially every skilled working becoming obsolete and unskilled manual labour soon there after. I don't think that is very realistic, and if it is, the stock price of tech companies would be the last of the concerns. In fact, in this scanrio the top few tech companies will be the only profitable mega-corps around. If people are long term unemployed and have not even the moeny to go on social media and be subjected to advertising, then anything from consumer products, travel, health will be massively impacted. If you think mass unemployment is likely due to AI, then you probably want to double down on the AI companies.

More realistic to me is improvements to efficiency. E.g., the average senior software engineer TC in the USA is about $200K per year. Even taking a modest goal of a 2x improvement will lead to massive cost savings, but alternatively could open the door for more complex products or faster rollouts. I have never worked in a company where we could even imagine tackling more than 10% of the backlog and entire projects were just shelved due to resource constraints. If AI is a productivity booster then it can serve to increase employment in areas that already add value. The total labour requirements are not fixed, they are usually constrained by labour supply or labour costs, something which AI can both help with.

 

[413x]

You seem to come form the perspective that very quickly AI will replace all jobs and there will be massive unemployment with essentially every skilled working becoming obsolete and unskilled manual labour soon there after. I don't think that is very realistic, and if it is, the stock price of tech companies would be the last of the concerns. In fact, in this scanrio the top few tech companies will be the only profitable mega-corps around. If people are long term unemployed and have not even the moeny to go on social media and be subjected to advertising, then anything from consumer products, travel, health will be massively impacted. If you think mass unemployment is likely due to AI, then you probably want to double down on the AI companies.

More realistic to me is improvements to efficiency. E.g., the average senior software engineer TC in the USA is about $200K per year. Even taking a modest goal of a 2x improvement will lead to massive cost savings, but alternatively could open the door for more complex products or faster rollouts. I have never worked in a company where we could even imagine tackling more than 10% of the backlog and entire projects were just shelved due to resource constraints. If AI is a productivity booster then it can serve to increase employment in areas that already add value. The total labour requirements are not fixed, they are usually constrained by labour supply or labour costs, something which AI can both help with.

For me it will either eat up a lot of jobs. Or it will be a tool that never earns it's keep.

Maybe what's most likely is it will run on cheaper hardware over time and costs will come down.

No way I can see the amount of cash being spend and return as balancing out. I don't think it's as good as the outlay yet.

Either jobs will be lost in drives because it meets the hype.
Or costs will spiral and never return ROI and these sky High market caps will come crashing down.
Or AI will be a tool that helps, that doesn't earn its keep on a bazillion Gpus and but efficiency makes allows it to run on more reasonable hardware.

I'd bet on the latter right now. But I'm not at the cutting edge. I certainly hope it isn't option a, that would be my job gone for sure. But I'm looking to retrain one my contract comes to an end. Because of AI and because I've fallen out of love with technology as well.