I'm not sure the bet is as big as it seems from the headline. When you buy options, you pay a fixed premium to get the right to buy/sell a very large value of shares, called the notional. But the notional is not what you are losing if it goes wrong, you lose the premium. The premium can be quite a small number compared to the notional.
Not the OP. I agree with what OP is mentioning. As part of the report you have to file the notional value of the underlying stock. Let's assume I buy one put option for palantir at a price of $1/contract ( say for an extremely OTM strike price of $10 ). I have paid a premium of $100. Assuming stock price of palantir is $200, the notional value I have to report is $200*100 = $20k. And not the $100 premium I paid.
On a single contract, maybe, but remember that the counterparty is usually a market maker who doesn't take directional risk, their game is to bet that the cost of delta hedging is less than the premium they collect, and that's more of an implied vs realized volatility thing than a directional thing. Even if we took it for granted that Michael Burry was smart money, to a first order approximation the dealers don't care and would be happy to earn fees for managing his leverage.
To make the math easy, let’s assume it’s a PLTR 200 strike put expiring in February 2026. Each put is $20,000 notional so 10,000 puts would be $200M notional.
Feb PLTR 200Ps are trading for $3k or so each, so it would be $30M in premium for $200M notional with an in-the-money put.
If a market maker sells one 200P (52 delta) they are functionally long 52 shares, so they hedge by selling short 52 shares (or selling a call with 52 delta). If he has 10k contracts then the MM that sold the puts would be functionally long 520,000 shares and would need to short that many deltas to hedge.
Avg recent trading volume for PLTR is ~50M shares a day; 10,000 (50 delta) puts is roughly equal to 500,000 shares and be about 1% of a day’s trading volume.
Tl;dr: He’s holding 10k to 50k put contracts, depending on the moneyness and expiration date.
Options theory typically starts with European non-dividend paying options for simplicity. PCP applies to American-style options on dividend-paying stocks, you just get a solution with pairs of inequalities defining bounds. That leads to similar arbitrage and conversion mechanics with similar implications for market participants.
They are only selling puts...that's a half-hearted short. They have the resources to borrow shares and bag the whole amount without a time constraint...why not do that?
It is commonly referred to as a ‘short position’, though it is not ‘shorting the stock’. Equally, purchasing calls* is referred to as a ‘long position’ (as is holding the equity).
edit: smallmancontrov below pointed out that I wrote 'purchasing puts' was long, when I meant to write 'purchasing calls'
It’s all a matter of perspective I suppose, and of course I understand why you say this, but no professional options trader I’ve ever met would speak in these terms.
Just because something is expensive doesn’t mean you should short it via puts as Burry had done. Both Palantir and Nvidia have high IVs. You’re paying for that. You’re much better off looking for cheaper puts on securities with enough correlation. Since Volmageddon and pandemic craze, deep OTM options have been scalped to death. Rarely good value. Nvidia also didn’t report earnings yet which means you’re paying for that risk event. Not saying bullish or bearish. It’s all speculation BOTH ways.
Glad to see someone say it. A lot of people have a hypothesis about the market, but fail to do the follow through to see if the market has already priced that in. The real aim should be to see when your model (mental or mathematical) prices things differently than the market.
In this case, it's actually quite reasonable to believe that the market has over priced the risk no matter how "sure" anyone is that these companies are over valued. It's entirely reasonable to pay for an option that you think reflects an unlikely scenario, but you also believe is mispriced notably by the market.
With options, the market has nearly always priced in the obvious risk. But not the non-obvious risk. Burry is not just saying, “I think these companies are overvalued.” Rather, he’s saying, “I think the bubble is about ready to pop.” While many people see the bubble, Burry is making a bet on the timing of the pop.
Yeah, my (limited) understanding is that the GP's argument would be valid for an options trader who looks for pricing inefficiencies to take advantage of (regardless of bullish/bearish outlook) but not _that_ important for someone betting on a black swan event?
If your bet pays off, the price of the stock will decrease. Delta predicts how your option will increase in value with that; gamma if that relationship will accelerate or buffer. Vega, meanwhile, informs that the price suddenly crashing is volatility, which increases the value of your options.
Succinctly, if you are betting on a crash, options offer advantages. (And if the market, but not your company, gets bailed out, vega could put you middlingly in the black.)
Former options market maker here. We have insufficient data to conclude that.
I also happen to have experience unwinding correlation books after their originators shat the bed. Predicting a crisis is hard. Predicting correlations in a crisis for esoteric assets is almost impossible.
Burry wanted to bet on specific overvalued stocks. Not a general market crash. For that, puts are probably the best tool if the expectation is a sharp correction followed by, in all likelihood, a Trump put.
Can someone explain why puts make sense over shorting? For example, I'm betting against 5 quantum computing companies with short positions. I considered adding puts to the position, but it didn't make sense based on 2 reasons: High bid ask spread, and if it's a fraudulent company/otherwise worth betting against, the volatility will be high, so you option costs too much compared to the upside; the amount it has to drop to break even is too big.
Yea; true. My thought when evaluating these was "I am confident the price will drop significantly within the next 6-18 months. But if I screw up the timing, or it drops to 1/3 the value instead of 1/2 etc, I lose money or break even. While I'm reasonably confident the normal short will pay off, since I don't have to nail the amount or timing.
With shorting, you run the additional risks that you could lose the borrow and be forced to buy back at any time. Or get margin called if the price moves against you. With puts, you have to get the timing right, but no external factors can force you out of your position.
Even if you're right, but the value goes up before going down, you can lose out with a short, if your counter-party makes a call for collateral you don't have.
Short and a call, yes. Short and a future, no. Either way, infinite losses isn’t an unavoidable downside when it comes to shorting. Stock-borrow and margin risks are.
Derivative markets are almost always there to provide leverage. Yeah, thinly traded options are a significant downside. If you can get in and out of the contracts, you can always combine options to remove some of those volatility costs by selling as well as buying, ie, spreads and ratios.
Options are just that - an option to transact at a certain price, if you choose not to you're just out the premium you pay. Short selling involves an obligation to return the shares, which has (theoretically) unlimited downside.
The market will correct before mid-terms next year. This is almost a certainty. By how much and when exactly - now, that's where the shorting profits are.
PS. Burry infamously made several more bets after the "big short", bets that misfired. That is, his record is far from being 100% right.
The economy is a meme and all the small fish praise the stock market meanwhile the big fish are fully prepared to run you all over and they will. They won't stop until it's all theirs.
It being a certainty is wrong, but there is a huge differential between the growth of total market value and the lackluster fundamentals, GDP growth, and jobs numbers.
To put another way, there's a lot of "potential energy" being built up in the markets right now. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll pop like a bubble - but there's really no precedent for them to continue rising.
It could be true that the market can continue to grow well past 15% above fundamentals for the indefinite future. But the more it goes up, the more improbable it becomes.
If you've flipped heads three times in a row, you're right that I would look foolish saying the next one can't be heads. But at the same time you cannot keep flipping heads forever.
true on all accounts but comment like OP made is ridiculous. to say “for sure XYZ will happen to the market by this date” is childish/funny/insane. to say “eventually” there will be a correction is similar cause of course there will be. so all this talk about bubble and other shit is just nonsense all around
Reminder that economist have predicted 9 of the past 7 recessions.
General handwavy statements like "there's a bubble" aren't worth paying attention to. Ones with specific timelines attached to it (like the one above, or the article we're commenting on), are worth listening to a bit more, but unless they have the funds to back it up (like Michael Burry has put down here), it's still hot air.
Palantir has a market cap of $400B+ and Nvidia is $5T. This short translates to 0.225% and 0.00374%. This mostly translates to a thesis that the stocks would “probably” go down a bit than a bet that predicts recession.
It seems like the economy is on a “K” shaped flywheel. How much worse can the economy get for the regular worker before the systems just pops? We’ve put so much speculation into an AI/tech salvation that seems premature, especially when you look at ROI vs depreciation timelines.
I’m not sure what timeline to place on that but there has to be a floor for how bad it can get for the regular man.
Shit is just expensive. Young people can’t buy houses, good jobs are drying up, and inflation isn’t stopping.
I'm sure the Fed chart is accurately measuring what it's measuring but when I was a kid in Southern California it was normal to buy a house and raise kids on a single teacher or construction worker salary. That has become nearly impossible over the past couple decades. Many others have seen similar changes in their own areas and I don't think they're being crazy when they say it has gotten much harder to finance a normal household on a normal salary.
I don't know what the disconnect is with that chart and people's observations. Is that chart controlling for number of incomes and hours worked? If a household income increases by 20% because the members are working a combined 80% more hours that's not great. Category differences in inflation might be another factor. Sure TVs and other niceties are a lot cheaper, but essentials like housing and medical care eat up a huge portion of most budgets.
Slightly overestimates. Alternatives like Truflation show it lower.
You may be thinking of Shadowstats, which is run by a crank who just takes the official numbers and adds a number he made up to them.
I don't know why cranks always think inflation is secretly higher. Deflation is a lot worse than inflation, so if you're a doomer, believing in deflation would be more effective.
The idea that CPI sucks is far from a conspiracy theory... not sure why you're trying to color it like that.
The problem is that the error integrates over time, which IMHO is why graphs like that seem to suggest our standard of living is higher than ever... when a conversation with anyone at a local bus stop will tell you the exact opposite.
It's almost impossible for the standard of living to not be higher than ever. That becomes true if you assign any value at all to new medical discoveries. Like, people have been cured of type 1 diabetes in the last year.
That chart for sure includes higher portion of double income households (because now more women are in the workforce than in the 80s). This reconciles your view with the Fed graph
Households can have more than two incomes - roommates, children who work, grandparents etc.
In practice, household sizes have gone down over time as more people live on their own, which means the income graph is lower than it otherwise would be.
As for dual income families, they're mostly a good thing that happens when women can afford to pay for childcare. That is, that book The Two-Income Trap was mostly false. This is part of the topic of Claudia Goldin's economics Nobel, the other part being that the gender wage gap is caused by motherhood interrupting women's careers.
>> Reminder that economist have predicted 9 of the past 7 recessions
Historically I think the reality has been the opposite of that, economists have been extremely reluctant to make predictions of an oncoming recession. This was certainly true during the great recession when economists were denying that a recession was coming even after one had actually started. That is to say, economists could not even predict the present.
There are a few economists who are predictably gloomy ("permabears", I suppose Nouriel Roubini would qualify) and I guess now there is political pressure to predict a recession anytime the other political party is in power, but from my perspective, if mainstream economists are predicting a recession, that likely means the recession is almost over.
Intervening as if there were a recession inminent when it is not also has harms (the exact same as the harms when recession interventions are maintained too long or employed too intensely, in terms of inflation, etc.), so I wouldn't agree that your central bank is bad if you happened to have guessed right once, but only if you have a demonstrably accurate objective method.
It actually appears that the alternative harms aren't as bad; that is, recessions aren't caused by prior expansions and we don't get one by "deserving" them.
Is there a way to predict when central banks aren't "good enough" then?
Point is, for a 100% positive case rate, I have to tolerate a 22% false positive rate. What exactly is the complaint here? Was this line of logic meant to make people who make these predictions look stupid or foolish somehow? To me, it mostly fails to.
He has no idea, I'm guessing it's wishful thinking, likely from a political partisan, or someone with a lot of dry powder trying to enter the stock market after a correction.
Political volatility and the dirty nasty hustle on the Trump/republicans' part that will precede the mid-terms. Combined with the general state of bizarre market bonanza of the past few months. It's a powder keg just waiting for a match.
A buddy of mine and I have been watching as investors he follows have been saying the market is going to have a major correction in the next 3-6 months for 3 years now. It definitely seems like the market is due for a major correction, but it sure hasn't happened despite repeated projections. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Will it be another "correction" where it pulls back ~10% before going up another 15%?
The powers that be have too much invested in the market continuing to move up, you are basically betting that Trump, a bunch of billionaires and the FED are going to let the market crash to curb inflation and income inequality. That feels like a bad bet to me.
I meant that the Fed, Treasury, etc. have powerful levels they can pull to head off initial effects.
What can overwhelm them is if those effects cascade and compound into second-order effects, typically multiplied in magnitude.
That's essentially what the fuck-up in 2008 was. The government let Bear Stearns fail because it could handle the effects. What it couldn't handle (or at least, was barely able to) were the second order effects of credit tightening, mortgage derivative repricing, counterparty trust loss, etc. etc.
The government could absolutely prop up the AI bubble, possibly indefinitely. What it can't do is cover second order fallout, if it turns out a lot of risky money was somehow tied into the bubble.
The stock market isn't that important (though Trump does care about it). It's the bond market that everyone pays attention to when it stops working.
In a sense, stock market crashes are good for young people because you can buy stocks cheaper. In practice this isn't true because too many people are in debt and you get a balance sheet recession.
Personally I find the reporting of underlying value more useful than the price paid in puts, since it reflects the asset itself rather than an arbitrary price for an option that could be any of many different strikes or expirations. The option price itself is not that meaningful.
Except it's literally what determines how much money is at risk in the trade. If you buy puts the actual underlying asset value doesn't matter as much as the value of the option itself (which is based on several factors such as time, strike price, etc)
The amount of money that is at risk with options is irrelevant because two different option positions with the same overall cost can have completely different risk profiles, which makes the actual value of those options not so interesting. In the absence of all the other details about the options trades, the actual amount paid for them is without much meaning.
It is the most meaningful thing. It's the exact amount of money you are risking. It's the exact amount you lose if it doesn't strike. If I buy a put for $2, the most I can lose is $2. It's meaningful even with no other information.
13F notional value, on the other hand, is meaningless without more info.
I disagree quite a bit, and in fact the notional value is exactly what you want to measure this, without more information about the trades. The amount of money that is at risk with options is irrelevant because two different option positions with the same overall cost can have completely different risk profiles, which makes the actual value of those options not so interesting. In the absence of all the other details about the options trades, the actual amount paid for them is without much meaning.
> Personally I find the reporting of underlying value more useful than the price paid in puts
How so?
If I buy TSLA puts at a $10 strike or a $500 strike they show up the exact same on the 13F as both have to be reported as if they are delta 1 when showing a share count.
One is a very meaningful bet and one is throwing money away.
More likely, it’s just a misunderstanding of what’s being communicated in this thread. Options are quite complicated and these comments here are rather brief so there’s probably a lot getting lost in the discussion.
What do you mean by "potentially means"? I am quiet new to this and the financial jargons don't make sense. I just have a very basic understanding of a few terms.
What do you mean essentially? That if everything goes south and nothing happens like Burry predicted then the maximum amount he loses is just $18,760 ?
And if that's all that he loses then what's with the big fuss around the news as if it's almost apocalypse incoming with his bets?
The problem with these kinds of bets is the Fed Put. That's the invisible force levitating stocks. I don't really see that changing unless/until the country genuinely enters a debt or currency crisis. The path is unsustainable, but they'll keep it going as long as they possibly can.
The fed can take nore active measures than just managing rates. I lost some money by unexpectedly finding myself on the opposite side of US government policy - and dollar-firehose - during COVID. Shorting travel-related stocks can be a losing bet if the government wants to "shore up" share prices by directly injecting hitherto unheard of amounts of liquidity into the market.
I had early "insider" info on COVID admissions from a Pulmonologist spouse, and an understanding of exponential growth (doubling every few days).
I took the initiative to be the first person to WFH in my org, which I did as a pre-emptive quarantine as I was at risk of being infected: several of my spouse's colleagues subsequently got infected. Unfortunately, I didn't link my WFH circumstances that with investing in Zoom.
Uhh... Powell's term as chairman ends in May 2026. His term as a board member ends Jan 2028. Senate confirmation is irrelevant because Trump will not nominate him again for anything.
It's even worse than that, as Palantir is a Party business. Betting against that is like betting whether specific people were going to be airbrushed out of photos in Stalin's Russia. And if you have that kind of insider insight, why short instead of making a positive bet on whomever the new Party darlings are going to be?
Maybe it makes sense based on the dynamic of the Party needing to run through scapegoats? One could possibly see that Palantir is about to be thrown under the bus, but only connected insiders will know who its exact replacement will be? Personally I don't see signs of Palantir being close to the chopping block though.
It goes a lot better if you don't think about it. But this is HN, I'll explain the logic.
I split Becky into two: IBM is Vanilla Becky. Palantir is Becky with the good hair. But don't get it twisted, they are both Becky. Don't fall for Becky.
You're betting against a middle-east Marshall Plan and AIPAC lobbyists vs. a company that just set up its AI industrial Hub in Europe and has some serious compute-engine hosting cost sticker-shock incoming.
As far as I can see, shorting Thiel is shorting Israel at the moment. Don't do it while Trump is in Cabinet and pressuring Tel Aviv to pardon Bibi.
That was actually my own gut reaction to Palantir's valuation. There is some massive entity that is propping that up, and I can easily see it being a state actor.
NVDA on the other hand ...
What are you going to really do about something that posts 40B+ in revenue every quarter? Okay, you can short it I suppose. You'd have to time it with the expected drop off in AI compute spend, which means if you have a history of being early (which Burry does), you will lose.
> never understand what it is about Israel that makes people lose their minds
Availability heuristic [1].
Flat earthers and folks deep in their small-country national politics do the same thing, overestimating the causal weight of the thing they’re obsessing about to any effect.
The useful takeaway is to recognize when you do it in smaller doses. What’s the first explanation you tend to have a hunch for explaining phenomena which are too diverse to be reasonably explained by a single factor.
Because one is actively sponsored by their own nation while the other is not. Their tax dollars are being spent for those atrocities. Or is that not something people should quibble about?
This isn't the kafka trap you think it is because any reasonable reader would see the glaring false equivalence. Supporting atrocities is upsetting and something we have agency over. How do you not see this?
It relates to people ignoring Hamas. We have nothing to do with Hamas. People support the human rights of Palestinians because they support the human rights of all humans.
I didn't address supporting Hamas because it wouldn't have been a generous interpretation of your argument. Where have you seen Hamas support? I have only seen it when Palestinian support is equated to Hamas support to justify atrocities.
"You're insane for opposing genocide!!" is an unbelievably patronizing, if not outright insane take.
You're literally losing huge swathes of the American Christian Right, as we speak. Those guys don't care about Hamas or Palestine or the occupied West Bank.
Did you assume I'm Israeli? I'm not. I'm an agnostic.
the people ranting about Israel committing genocide in Gaza all happily ignore Article 7 of the Hamas charter that quotes a hadith: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
This is explicitly about killing Jews, not just opposing Zionism or dismantling a state. Combined with the charter's call to eliminate Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine through armed struggle, this effectively calls for the violent removal or elimination of Jews from the territory
You say this while utterly ignoring the fact that the Hamas Charter's goal is to kill all Jews? Thanks for proving my point.
I honestly have no idea what the word Zionist means anymore since Israel has existed for 77 years and seems likely to continue to exist for at least another 77 years. Can you explain to me what it means?
What is it about Israel/Jews that make people say things this stupid and obviously false? Hamas's mass murder of innocent civilians on Oct 7 2023 shows what their real goals are.
Hamas charter that quotes a hadith: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." This is explicitly about killing Jews, not just opposing Zionism or dismantling a state. Combined with the charter's call to eliminate Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine through armed struggle, this effectively calls for the violent removal or elimination of Jews from the territory
And Gaza has been ethnically cleansed of nearly every non-muslim.
I'm a huge proponent of factually investigating what happened on Oct 7, 2023--who killed who--but sadly the Israeli regime is not. They would rather paper it over and leverage it as atrocity propaganda to commit a genocide, then investigate and bring criminals to justice.
A wild contrast between barbarism and civilization.
Hamas only has one charter. Some Westerners like to think of the separate 2017 document as an "updated charter", but Hamas themselves never used such language, and in fact explicitly stated that the 2017 document did not replace the charter.
One thing to remember with 13F filings is that funds are required to report the full value of their option positions as if they were delta 1.
Some outlets then took this and wrote the story that Burry has a short bet of billions on NVIDA and Palentir.
His put's are most likely well out of the money so their delta is no where near 1 so his bet is far smaller than places are reporting just due to how the SEC requries funds to report their holdings on 13F filings.
Thanks for sharing. Michael Bury also shorted S&P 500 in Sep 2023 and closed his position in Nov 2023 for a nice payoff… he seems to know what he is doing.
Is there anything more concrete than that? Large wins on their own aren't meaningful if they aren't good risk adjusted trades or repeatable. I've made big wins but I don't consider myself a good trader.
>Traders following the investments disclosed by Scion’s over the last 3 years (between May of 2020 and May 2023) would have made annualized returns of 56% according to an analysis by Sure Dividend
Seems like Scion Capital could have just disclosed winning trades, that they may or may not have made?
He's not clearly right on Nvidia. People have been saying "it's clearly overvalued" for years now. And it just keeps growing at an insane pace and quite frankly their position in the market isn't really being eroded by anyone. There are hopes and dreams, but little real competition.
Cisco's earnings weren't growing at the same rate as Nvidia's. There is actual underlying sales and profit growth at the same rate as the stock price growth in NVDA's case.
Especially if you take the view that AI is the new compute. There so many chips that need to get upgraded Thats maybe one of the largest TAMs of all time that hasn't even been touched at this point.
Given how fucked it’s competition is and how the delta between CUDA/NCCL and everything else like rocm/zulda has only grown yeah, Nvidia will own the whole thing for minimum 10 years.
Everyone who tried to compete failed hard because no one has the money, and raw talent or ability to get that talent needed to beat Nvidia at the software game.
Can you provide an alternative prediction that you believe is more accurate?
> This game is far from over
Do you think a company like AMD or Intel is going to make massive gains in taking market share away from Nvidia? Or do you think it will be another company? Or something else entirely?
They always say "no, it'll be GOOGLE!" and try to bring up TPUsv6 (you still can't even play with ironwood/TPUv7 yet) as though they're competitive with blackwell let alone Reuben, as though anyone except google internal engineers get real value from them, and as though GCP doesn't have well over 1 million+ haswell/blackwell GPUs.
These same people unironically believe that Gemini was trained with zero GPUs for any part of the process (including all experiments), and it was all done on TPUs. They cite this as evidence that CUDA/Nvidia is dead.
It's stupid, it's wrong, but it's what they claim.
I'm going to be a lot wealthier than the Nvidia bears.
And if you don't believe this, just take one look at TPU pricing (remember, Trillium is TPUv6) and tell me this is competitive with Nvidia/Oracle/any neocloud with a straight face.
I'd argue the Nvidia moat is the most difficult moat to understand unless one is really in the weeds using GPUs. "all you need to do is design a similar chip" seems to fit in peoples heads nicely when they are even a little ways removed from the details.
People have been talking about competing and trying to compete with the nvidia GPU/Cuda stack for almost 20 years (since the start). There have been various efforts. They have all fallen flat. Nvidia isn't standing still, the target keeps moving forward.
To suggest Nvidia will have the game to themselves for another 10 years might turn out to be wrong, but it isn't naive. You are the naive one here.
There hasn't really been any significant money in competing with cuda however. Nvidia had a bit of a gaming premium over amd, and crypto really boosted all GPUs...but until about 3 years ago, there wasn't literally trillions of dollars on the line to replace cuda. There is now. Companies ARE replicating it. The Mi300 is very competitive on token throughput as far as I'm aware.
No one is sitting around. I'd argue if there was more wafer supply you'd see amd/others undercutting nvidia...but it's hard to when supply is incredibly constrained.
They are trying. They are not succeeding yet. Maybe in 10 years the gap will be closed. Maybe it will not. I'll guess the latter. Nvidia's situation has changed too - the R&D $$ they have to spend to defend are dramatically higher. Nothing stands still, it's harder to catch up than it seems.
Not really. 10 years maybe. The stock price was flat-ish from 2000 to 2015 (4x or so?) and while they did have many golden years in there, they weren't universally ahead.
You are cherry picking data to tell a lie. The company has been crushing it the entire time. The fact they their share price got taken up in the bubble of 2000 doesn't change that fact.
That's sort of Taleb's whole thing: most successful investors just happened to be riding a wave and cannot claim any sort of genius. The Black Swan event is always explained away as some kind of environmental blip and investment success explained as the inevitable outcome of hard work- when in fact it is Black Swans that are inevitable and hard-working investors are just a background constant.
While what you are saying is almost certainly true, I'm actually talking about something else - people who did good work and then stop doing good work in fields where good work = good decisions. It's easy to stop doing the work and keep making the decisions and no one is the wiser for years.
This is a correct and at the same time rather misleading article. Sure, in principle it would be prudent to investigate literally everything every time. And he makes it sounds like not doing so makes a person literally 100% useless and dysfunctional. But he "forgets" to mention that investigation is non-free. And depending on the topic, the amount of such investigations and the length of each one can vary dramatically. Up to the point where whole life and all of the resources could be spent doing it.
Heuristics That Almost Always Work have a helpful hint right there in the name. They do work, and they do it almost every time. And depending on the topic that 99.99% may be even 100%, but we just can't reliably prove it. Stuff that works 99.99% of the time is very valuable and helps humans free resources and time for the less reliable or more severe problems. Or just for leisure. Personally, I invite author to go disprove every single idea on the internet and do it in careful and deep detail, let's see how long he would last without heuristics. :)
Before Burry's bets were disclosed, Palantir's trailing price-earnings ratio (P/E) peaked at 486x. What does that mean?
I like to think about it this way: Absent growth, had a private investor purchased the business at 486x earnings, it would have taken the investor 486 years to recoup the investment.
Only crazy-fast future growth could justify that multiple.
I estimate earnings/share would have to grow 30-fold within a foreseeable time frame, like 5-7 years, to justify the peak price per share.[a]
---
[a] Back-of-the-envelope math: 486x peak / 15x long-term average P/E = 32-fold increase to justify valuation. I rounded it to 30-fold.
If a company has 1 billion in revenue and 999 million in costs, they are doing 1 million in earnings. It's trivially easy for them to grow earnings 30x, they can just decide to do it in most cases.
You have to look at the cost structure now v what it should be in a "steady state" situation, perhaps 10 years out.
This math doesn't always hold up to common sense, as these ratios will explode when E hovers around zero, but it has a very small effect on the business itself.
He has. He’s notably been burned a few times, one of the worst of which was 2021
TSLA. Iirc he was early but not wrong, with the 2022 collapse of all things ARKK related crashing and burning.
He's been bearish for the last n years. His Twitter handle is Cassandra because he tries to warn people about impending doom, but nobody listens. He gave up at one point because he tweeted SELL and then everything was fine.
tl;dr he's a perma bear.
I actually don't think he's wrong, but one thing I've learned is that it's not enough to recognize a bubble. Almost everyone sees the markets are, as they say, frothy. But you need to see if there's a needle nearby. Without that you're just trying to get lucky.
Puts especially are really hard because they expire. They limit your loss compared to shorts, but you need to time it perfectly.
Well his 10 year performance is 255%. Which does not include his bet in 2005-08. Buffett has only done 154% in that time. So rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.
That doesn’t change the fact that he keeps making these doomsday predictions that don’t come true.
Also, his returns aren’t really impressive compared to VTI, which has had an annualized return of 14.04% over the past 10 years according to Vanguard. That works out to 372% total returns in that period.
It’s easy to make money when even the broadest US index fund is up by that much.
The implication here is that there's a prediction of a crash, but this could equally just be a hedge. Fund managers don't want their whole fund to become devalued if AI-driven valuations collapse. A put against Nvidia helps de-correlated the fund value from AI values.
What is the expiry of those options? And how much of his capital is he betting on them? If I'm not mistaken, what made the big short spectacular was him betting the farm on it. Otherwise, wouldn't it be just another day in the office for him?
I envision AI saturating every corner of life—yet its market is ultimately bounded by how much users will actually pay, weighed against the tangible value delivered. The rift arises from overoptimistic guesses about user spending, a chasm that only deepens as open-source models hit that critical "good enough" threshold, and AI data centers devolve into a cutthroat commodity arena, vying on price for off-the-shelf compute power accessible to all—particularly if agile rivals eclipse Nvidia through breakthroughs in efficient/smarter hardware.
Burry was right about a scam. AI is not a scam. His short positions could simply be a conviction on rate of growth. If he was truly shorting it into collapse, then I'd say he's misguided here.
There are also other factors that affect Nvidia. Any move on Taiwan can collapse Nvidia's price down to zero. Hyperscalers can also shift orders over to AMD, Intel, ARM and Broadcom. This is inevitable, but you can't be too early with this.
Lastly. I don't know how technical Burry is. If you showed him LLM tech in 2017, would he have recognized it? There are things about this tech that he may not even recognize even if you showed it to him. You can literally show some people full generated video and they still wouldn't get how much compute it takes to do that.
Finally, the world is not just a giant Tulip bubble. There's actually trillions of dollars moving around every day and people innovate and consume. It's not just a giant Ponzi scheme waiting to collapse.
--
As for Palantir, as many have mentioned, I would not consider shorting Palantir until year three of this administration. Palantir may lose favoritism with the next administration. Maybe. As we witnessed with the MAG7 CEOs, these people are prepared to change their entire value set to win the business of those in power.
> If he was truly shorting it into collapse, then I'd say he's misguided here.
He's not shorting this time. He has put options. This is a "short position" i.e. one that behaves inversely to the stock price, but his downside is limited (at the expense that he pays the full downside up front, and can lose money even if the stock goes down, if it doesn't go down by enough).
TFA says the options are on "roughly 1 million NVDA shares worth $187 million", implying NVDA was around $187 at the time of acquisition. That more or less tracks with the September 26 close, and this was apparently disclosed in a September 30 filing. NVDA is currently above $200. Similarly, he would have options on PLTR bought when that was also somewhere around $182 (roughly matching the September 30 close); even with today's crash, the stock is hovering around $190 as I write this.
So depending on the duration of the options there's a pretty decent chance he's going to lose money, and depending on the strike price it might well be the entire premium. As far as I can tell, neither of these is disclosed in the filing.
Burry nailing real estate - good for him! Burry nailing tech valuations? That one is a more finicky beast - super high risk almost infinite growth going forward - best of luck!
Total portfolio 1.4bn in Sep 13F. 0.6bn in June 13F. So yes, my guess is most if not all of that 0.8bn spike is notional in excess of premium on the 1.1bn puts. All the same, 80% of his entire hedge fund notional is still a BIG bet. And he will probably 10x that 1.1bn if he is right.
His track record since “the big short” has been horrific. That’s the problem with being a perma-bear, eventually the market dips but you missed out on extraordinary gains vastly out weighing your negative thesis. It’s a hellva lot easier to be bullish American companies then try and time draw downs. Doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, but I haven't seen anything from AI technology to suggest it's going to live up to the hype in the short term. I'm not saying Burry is completely accurate in this case, but the draw down could be quite big.
GPT-4 was released in early 2023. Back then AI maximalists were saying AGI is near. We're approaching early 2026 and we obviously aren't anywhere close to anything any reasonable person would consider AGI. But what do we have? "Agents" that are mostly useless. Image and video clip content generators that are pretty much only good for social media memes and spam. We do have better software development tools, but that's not a life changing advancement.
It seems like in order for all this speculation and all these massive build-outs to pay off we're going to need AI to redefine how we work and live within the next 3-5 years. Even if we AI development doubles or triples what it's been able to do in the last 3-5 years, I don't see this happening.
So, when this does not happen, when the AI hype does not live up to the promises, by a longshot, what will happen to the markets?
Have you tried claude code? I despise AI to my bones but even I can’t say claude code is not impressive.
If any anthropic reps read this, I think you guys, while probably better than open AI and meta, possibly Google, are delusional and are more likely to destroy the world than create infinite human life.
I have and it is. But I did acknowledge that in the previous post. I just don't think software development tools like Claude Code, while great, and I wouldn't want to back to life without them, are going to recoup all this investment. We need like 10 Claude Codes for different aspects of work and life. Then we're getting somewhere...
> His track record since “the big short” has been horrific.
You would expect that with low probability, highly leveraged bets, which shorts largely are. You are wrong most of the time and then make a giant pile of money when you are right. People definitely should understand that strategy though and not just follow him blindly into investments without the expectation that you will probably lose your money almost every time.
- In late 2020, Scion sold its entire stake in GameStop. Scion missed out of the GameStop short squeeze which occurred only a few months later. Its 5.3% stake would have been worth over $1.5 billion at its height.
- In May 2021, Scion disclosed it acquired put options on Tesla shares.
- In August 2023, it was reported Scion anticipated a stock market crash and acquired $1.6 billion worth of put options to bet against the ETFs that tracked the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq-100.
- Scion also was noted to have held a large put option against the iShares Semiconductor ETF.
However, nothing about any of those points indicate his performance has been horrific.
All that matters are his returns against his reference index. That's the only relevant measure.
EDIT I did manage to find his returns via chatgpt and the OP is correct that they haven't been great in some periods, but his last 5 year average is +85% which isn't bad, not great, but not bad.
He is also up about 10% over the past year, so not great and not terrible, he's mid as the kids say.
A crisis is when money flow stops in the market. In The Big Short, he bet on the fact that cash flow would stop, and they won. The stock market works in a similar way to a company’s cash flow. When money is pumped into a stock, its value increases; when money is pulled out, the value drops.
The news is essentially about making a bet, as the title suggests, with no real evidence or information on who will pull the money out or how it will happen. Just because the price is high doesn’t necessarily mean there will be an outflow. It’s more like gambling, based on speculation rather than solid facts.
What does Palantir actually do? I feel like every earnings discussion is vague and goes on about things like “Ontology” without sharing trustworthy details. As far as I can tell they are more like a consulting firm. Why are they not viewed like another IBM?
In East Germany, the Stasi had 90,000 full-time staff deciphering reports from maybe 400,000 regular informants and around 1/6th of the population as occasional informants. They used this to run a totalitarian surveillance state which abducted 250,000 supposed dissidents.
This is a horrendously inefficient system. 90,000? 400,000? In a population of 16 million? The expense! The time! The sensitivity to data irregularities! The friction which the non-dissidents must feel! This is a worse imposition than an occupying army. How many of those 250,000 were actually conspiring against the state in a meaningfully threatening way? 1/10th? 1/100th? How many actual dissidents make it through the sieve, because the security service was unable to cross-reference suspicious entries on three pages in files occupying different filing cabinets in different buildings in the complex?
The US, despite its military might, rapidly hit a manpower limit in the occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, and was largely unable to effectively fight a collection of counterinsurgencies and "sympathizers".
In the 2020's we have much greater capability to surveil. We have electronics tracking everything, we have phones that listen all the time, we have cameras at every streetcorner, data brokers know more about us than our diary does. But manually checking these things in untargeted surveillance would be almost impossible. It would take our entire population spying on ourselves.
Enter Palantir. Proposition: "We would like to explore if we could make this possible & efficient, using modern database & machine learning techniques. We will collect, categorize, transcribe and cross-reference all the data, of every type, we will generate suspicious activity reports autonomously, we will make follow-up trivial".
This was literally George Orwell's nightmare in 1984 - that looking back at the long history of repression and rebellion, the cycle of violence and freedom, of authority and abuse of authority, that perhaps at some point, eventually, technology gives so much power to the authority that it's simply impossible to overthrow them.
As my friend likes to say, Michael Burry has predicted 20 of the last 1 crashes. I saw some apocryphal analysis that showed you'd be beating the S&P 500 (and by a decent margin) if you bought every time he predicted a market crash since the recession.
I know little about the details puts/shorts etc but just curious... does Burry doing media about his position (after he's got it), potentially help increase the odds of his bet working in a self-fulfilling way or is it neutral for his bet.
Parasite. Overly complex stock markets that produce nothing of value should be abolished.
Real people have no need for high level financial concepts like that. The stock market should be for real trade, not incestuous exchanges between egregious executives.
> Overly complex stock markets that produce nothing of value should be abolished. Real people have no need for high level financial concepts like that
This is a pretty huge assumption with no real reasoning. Some substance regarding _why_ “high level financial concepts” produce nothing of value would be useful
There is no way a crash happens when everybody thinks it's going to happen. The 2008 prediction was notable because, as shown in the movie, his bet was so contrarian people were refusing to write about it)
If the calls are not covered this is a very bearish position: if the market rises he will lose money on the puts and will have to buy the stock at the higher price (to cover the calls). It is easy to go bankrupt with this position. I would not do this unless I have some type of information that the stock will decline with certainty.
“When I hear short sellers attacking what I believe is clearly the most important software company in America, therefore in the world, in terms of our impact, … it just is super triggering,” Karp said.
Now, now. Palantir received social security from In-Q-Tel during its incubation. Alan Wade was the CIO of the CIA and had previously founded Chiliad with Christine Maxwell (sister of that Maxwell).
On the other hand, Karp knows Lutnick (who lived next to Epstein) from Haverford College. It's a small world. So with this administration bets against Palantir might be risky.
But "the most important software company in America"? Please, many here have said that it started out as a database search company (like Chiliad).
“I love the idea of getting a drone and having light fentanyl-laced urine spraying on analysts that tried to screw us,” he said during a talk in New York to promote his new book in February."
I could see the case for Palantir purely from the ridiculous P/E ratio. On the other hand hey, so does Tesla and it's stayed irrational longer than many shorters have stayed solvent.
But Nvidia seems highly risky to bet against. Also a very high P/E ratio, but not too crazy. And the demand is extremely real and keeps growing.
Until the latest earnings, all the hyperscalers were basically telling us quarter after quarter that they were capacity constrained and backlogged largely due to AI workloads. And capacity generally translated to GPUs. Only now has MSFT reported being constrained on power, which might signal a shift.
But that doesn't mean lower demand, it just means folks lower down the totem pole can finally get their hands on GPUs. Large sovereign nations, including US and China, are jockeying over these things.
Even if this bubble pops, I still don't see demand going down. If you look honestly for indicators, there is tons of data showing rocketing usage which is translating into real productivity wins. In a capitalistic world, that dependency is going to be impossible to wean off of.
I also don't see any real competition on the horizon yet. I kinda understand NVDA's moat is more than just their chips, it's also the ecosystem. I don't claim to deeply understand this (as another comment points out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45826309), but there are other signs I see:
1. Huawei was forced to train their models on non-Nvidia hardware, and they couldn't get a single training run completed, AIUI due to showstopping bugs and other issues in the stack.
2. Anecdotally I hear AWS has been unsuccessfully trying to get customers to use Trainium. They all prefer Nvidia.
3. Google announced OpenAI would use TPUs on GCP and now is leasing Nvidia capacity from Coreweave to support the deal.
With everyone locked in a Red Queen's race to train the most powerful models ASAP, they can't afford any delays inevitably introduced by new platforms.
The real threat right now is that behind all the smiling partnership announcements, everyone is trying desperately to diversify away from this monopsony. They will eventually succeed, but doesn't seem it will happen anytime soon.
"the market will stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"
He's a clever man, and maybe the bubble will burst, and when it does there will inevitably be some hugely profitable short positions held by a new generation of Michael Burrys who will lose capital and reputation taking a premature short position on the subsequent major bubble.
You don't just need to decide that Nvidia is overvalued by the market and will crash in price to make money on a short position.
You need to time the crash. If you're off, it could still crash and you could spend more money sustaining the position than you'd make. Or you could end up getting margin called, not just by semi-impotent private investors as Michael Burry was, but by the platform you're trading on itself. "You've lost too much money so far based on the current valuation, so we're going to seize this option and you'll owe us the balance". Trading at high leverages with Daddy's money, people on /r/wallstreetbets sometimes get margin called and end up owing much, much more money than they put in.
Before putting any money in, make damn sure you're able to write at least a 101-level summary of the different types of trades.
I did this in February 2020, and then bet a modest amount on the proposition "People keep saying that COVID isn't going to be a big deal, and I think they're very wrong". I still managed to lose out because I didn't foresee the Federal Reserve bombing the market with freshly printed cash. I lost it all. But what I didn't do, is end up owing millions of dollars I don't have to the brokerage, because I stuck to buying put options rather than selling call options or shorting stocks outright.
Timing aside? To what extent the Federal Reserve would intervene in an NVDA price collapse is an open question, because at this point a collapse in AI investment would threaten the solvency of entirely unrelated financial institutions.
These are puts, you buy them, they have a fixed expiration date at which point they will be worthless if the price is above the strike price.
Fixed down side, upside is $100 per contract per dollar the stock is below the strike at expiry. You can also sell them before then, and price depends on time to expiry, volatility, and distance to the strike price. See Black-Scholes model for more info.
> If you're off, it could still crash and you could spend more money sustaining the position than you'd make.
And in Black Scholes this is called Theta Decay. In any form of short, there are maintenance costs, and maintenance costs roughly scale with the risk-free interest rate (usually assumed to be roughly the Federal Reserve's overnight lending rate)
Theta Decay is above-and-beyond the risk-free rate because you're also losing time-value. So you must always factor in the amount of time before a predicted crash: the longer it takes the more money you lose.
> So you must always factor in the amount of time before a predicted crash: the longer it takes the more money you lose.
I think the idea is, as a put buyer (market taker), this has already been baked into the option premium. The only "maintenance cost" in the sense of a cost that adds to an open position is from interest on margin loans.
There would be a maintenance cost from rolling the position into a later expiry, but I think the impression is that this is a precise single bet.
EDIT: You're spot on about opening a position being a sort of cost too, due to missing out on risk-free returns. This is especially important for hedging. Less so for a directional bet.
If you want to minimize loss of time value, you buy 2 year LEAPs, and then as their 1-year approaches, you sell the LEAPs and roll them back into 2-year LEAPs. Theta rapidly changes as you grow closer to expiration.
No one should be buying and holding just one option. Anyone who understands Black Scholes will be selling/buying and exchanging options as time goes on.
-------
Buying puts is a bull-bet on Volatility and bear-trade on the underlying stock, while losing Theta (largely based on expectation date. Longer means less Theta decay).
Selling calls is a bear bet on volatility, bear bet on underlying while gaining Theta in value each day.
And then there are the many combination trades that are available.
In any case, I don't think any sophisticated trader does the strategy you are assuming here. The sophisticated strategies involve selling and renewing your options as time moves forward / and or the stock price changes (to keep Delta withing appropriate levels).
No, but everybody here is some random guy, being tempted to mirror trades by the superhero investor they saw in that movie. And that movie depicts Burry trying to outlast the market in this sort of situation, resorting to quasi-fraudulent ideas like taking the phone off the hook; Those ideas are not available to us at all, because the online broker would just seize the account.
You are right about timing being key when buying put options but...
> Or you could end up getting margin called
Completely false
Buying puts is a short position and does not require any further maintenance costs
Yes, theta decay is a thing but stating you can get margin called or there is any level of maintenance required is completely wrong and shows a total lack of understanding of the very basics of options
You can make a lot of money on options even if the price doesn't collapse completely. Options dramatically amplify movements of the underlying price. Even if the market swoons a little bit, he can cash out for a big profit, as long as it happens before his positions expire, even if it doesn't hit his strike price.
My two cents... He might think the bubble is about to burst; he might be hedging his downside risk after a serious rise in his overall portfolio, picking the two stocks he thinks are the most out of whack valuation-wise to execute that hedge (the premium for the puts would likely be a fraction of the paper gain he's sitting on so not the end of the world if they expire worthless); he might be hedging significant material gains in these exact two stocks; he might be doing it for some only-billionaires-get-it reason. I guess I'm just saying that the reason could be pretty detached from "I think the bubble is about to burst!"
Overall for the common person I'd agree, but I assume we're all more or less hackers here and for us, I'd say "If you have to ask, ask and learn, then do it".
If everyone followed your advice no one would ever do anything, as we all begin somewhere, something that should OK.
Of course, don't do million dollar trades when you begin, but we shouldn't push back on people wanting to learn, feels very backwards compared to hacker ethos.
we shouldn't push back on people wanting to learn but we should really point out very loudly that not fully understanding something like shorting can turn a small investment someone was fully ok with losing into a life altering bankruptcy due to a margin call.
To expand on the original reply to you - shorting companies, or engaging in almost any stock-based activity beyond “buy and hold,” typically entails much, much higher risk than just buying and selling stock. The most you can lose when buying a share is the purchase price, and that’s fairly unlikely, but when you start getting into even options/etc, you’re magnifying your risk - small swings in the market can lead to large and disproportionate losses, and when you get into shorting in particular you can lose far more than your initial investment. This is why you’re getting the reaction you’re getting - because the thing you’re asking about is sufficiently risky that if you're asking on Hacker News (and not, say, asking a professional), you don’t understand the risk profile well enough to do it “safely.”
That, and because snarky answers get more imaginary internet points than helpful ones.
> you don’t understand the risk profile well enough to do it “safely.”
Since when is this a problem? For gods sake, let people fuck up and harm themselves if they're stupid enough to take the risks, or not.
I think it's fine to say "Remember, this is risky because of A, B and C, but here's how to do it anyways..." but straight up "If you have to ask, you shouldn't" seems so backwards and almost mean, especially when we talk about money which is mostly "easy come, easy go". Let the fool be parted with their money if that's what they want :)
I mean, there’s risk and there’s risk. If someone comes in asking “how do I mod my phone/ebike/toaster”, sure, caveat commentor and all that. If someone comes in asking “how do I make dioxygen difluoride,” that’s a different category of risk. OP can do whatever they want, but I’m not in the habit of giving guns to people who don’t know what they are without making sure they know which risk category they’re in.
Dependant on strikes (assuming at the money, assuming naked short) you would still profit if it stayed the same, or went up a little in price. Selling options is also being short volatility, so the 'bet' is that less will happen than is expected and, in the case of selling calls, with a preference for happenings to be downward.
A downward move could also see volatility go up significantly and increase the value of the options you are short, especially longer dated options.
Technically, yes. But you have to own the stock first (‘cuz writing “naked calls” is not for the faint of heart). Easier and less complicated to just buy puts, especially if you’re looking up “money laundering” in the dictionary.
You buy an option that has a particular cost, which gives you the right to sell stock at a specific price in the future (the "strike price"), within a certain time frame. Typically, these are denominated so that you contract to buy or sell 100 shares. In a "naked" put, you don't actually have the stock that you propose to sell. In the future, you plan to "exercise" the option by buying the stock at the market price. and then immediately sell it at the contracted price.
A put option represents a belief that the price will fall, which makes "right to sell the stock" valuable. Similarly, a call option represents a belief that the price will rise. Both can be bought and sold; you do not "make" them but rather trade in them, just as you would in stock. But the relationship between the stock price and the result from an option is not linear; selling a put and buying a call are both nominally "long" the stock, but are not equivalent.[0]
When you buy an option, you are always immediately out for the cost of the option itself (the "premium"). This is separate from the strike price. It's the market's assessment of how much your "right to sell later" is worth, in itself. By doing this, you are speculating that you can recover that money later, based on how the stock performs. (Depending on your strategy, this can involve buying or short-selling the "underlying" stock, as well as other options.)
So if you buy a put, you pay money (the premium) up front, and you potentially just lose that money completely. Sane options strategies take your entire portfolio into account, and use options to hedge the risk profile of the rest of the profile (rather than trying to use the rest of the profile to justify taking on risk using options).
----
Some details, and further exploration.
Options represent essentially zero-sum speculation on top of the actual price movement. For example, holding everything else constant, a call option increases in value as the price of the underlying increases (the right to buy stock at a fixed price becomes worth more, when the stock is worth more). When a company does well, everyone who holds the actual stock shares in the company's good fortune; but the profit of call holders comes at the expense of those who sold (or "wrote") those calls.
The option is priced according to market expectations of risk (how likely is it that the stock's price will fall below the chosen mark?), and according to duration (the longer you reserve the right to exercise the option, the more likely it is that you'll get a profitable opportunity; therefore, the more valuable and thus expensive the option is). For long-term options (especially now that interest rates are non-trivial) there's a second meaningful duration factor: buying an option comes with the opportunity cost of not holding cash (or treasury bonds) for that period, and that also has to be priced in.
"American" options give you the right to exercise at any point before the deadline; "European" options only allow you to exercise at the deadline. This is also priced in; having more flexibility is worth more.
If you have chosen well, the market price for the stock goes down by a lot. This allows you to profit when you exercise the option.
If you have chosen poorly, you never get the opportunity to profit. Your options "expire worthless"; an option to sell at a point that has already passed has no value. You have been left holding the bag.
In between, you might exercise in a way that recovers only part of the premium you paid.
Much riskier is to sell options against securities you don't hold. (You will likely be legally barred from attempting this at all, and even wealthy experienced traders will be required to hold some percentage of the security value that their options represent.) You are hoping that the option expires worthless, so that you simply claim its value uninhibited. If it doesn't, you may be "assigned" i.e. legally on the hook for someone else's exercise of the option. If you sold a put, you may be forced to pay an inflated price for a stock that crashed. If you sold a call, you may be forced to acquire stock in order to sell it at a discount in order to fulfill your option. The potential loss for selling a put typically far exceeds the maximum potential profit; the potential loss for selling a naked call is unlimited (as we suppose the stock's value can go to infinity).
But if your sale of a call is "covered", or your sale of a put is "cash secured", this means you fully own the security (underlying stock, or liquid assets respectively) corresponding to the option. The cash secured put still incurs the risk of wiping out your entire cash supply, much as if you'd simply bought 100 shares directly, and it puts a hard limit on your upside. But it lets you profit from the stock without actually holding it.
Given sensibly chosen strike prices, covered calls actually end up with a similar risk/benefit profile. As the stock goes to zero, all you end up with is the option premium, because you were holding the stock. If the stock does well, your net profit is limited to the option premium, because the profit from holding the stock cancels out the liability of the option. (Equivalently: you are required to sell the stock at the strike price, but you already have that stock; no matter how high the underlying stock value gets, you can only claim the strike price.)
[0]: Doing both gives risk exposure roughly equivalent to holding the stock, without actually buying it. This is called a "synthetic long". As you can imagine, that is effectively unlimited leverage in itself, and if you attempt it you will be required to hold a significant amount of cash to limit your leverage, and jump through a lot of regulatory hoops to prove both your competence and solvency. I didn't mention this at the start, because you need the details to understand it.
I did exactly this last Friday as an experiment and Claude Sonnet 4.5 recommended that I go long in an inverse ETF lol. When I told it that was terrible advice, it apologized and suggested buying puts.
If you are having to ask an LLM how to do it, I strongly suggest NOT starting with shorting.
Ask about Put options, which is what Burry is doing here — not even Burry is shorting for this situation.
I'm no expert trader, but the potential losses for shorting are unlimited. You borrow X shares of a stock, and will have to repay your loan in that stock, whatever it costs. If the trade goes against you, you will get a margin call and will need to (re-)fill your account with whatever funds are necessary to pay that amount, or all your other holdings and that position will get sold automatically at whatever that loss amount is. Situations called a "Short Squeeze" arise not infrequently, and even though they are temporary, they can cause a stock price to skyrocket, specifically because so many people are shorting it, and everyone needs to buy to fill their short positions & margin calls. The fact that the price soon falls again helps you not one bit. Plus, the maximum profit is limited to the value of the short. E.g., you short the stock at $100/share, if the company goes bankrupt, you can repay the shares for $zero, making $100/share; but you could lose $1000/share if it goes up 10x.
In contrast, purchasing Put options, the right to sell the stock at a certain price, limits your loss to the cost of the Put options — if your idea turns out to be no good, it just fails and expires worthless.
Do you think they're overpriced? Or do you just not trust retail investors to understand the effective leverage, spread of outcomes etc.?
I'm told that covered-call ETFs generally underperform (in addition to being inefficient) and "generating income" is best accomplished by just selling shares as needed.
Options are always overpriced. They're fundamentally an insurance product. You should expect to lose money when buying insurance. If you're hedging, you should expect to lose on your options leg. Same as with any insurance product.
Options are governed by tight mathematical relationships between each other and with their underlyings. These can be atomically arbitraged, i.e. you don't need someone else to believe your thesis to make money. As a retail investor, you are on the other side of a system designed to efficiently price and reprice options to ensure the dealer doesn't lose money.
> I'm told that covered-call ETFs generally underperform (in addition to being inefficient)
I haven't looked into covered-call ETFs, but my prior is strategy ETFs are bullshit even when the underlying strategy may not be.
> "generating income" is best accomplished by just selling shares as needed
It works as long as you understand you're selling the options below their expected value (EV). It's closer to EV than an option buyer, on average. But the price you get will always represent less reward for risk than my option pricers running on microwave-linked FPGAs a few feet from servers in New Jersey and Chicago can bid and offer.
If that works for you--if the benefits of income or whatever outweigh that theoretical cost--you can do it sensibly. If you're selling puts to enhance your returns, you're probably going to, at the very least, lose your accumulated gains at some point.
TFA says "bought put options". One option (either PUT or CALL) is typically 100x the shares (but mini lots of 10x exists or at least did exist at some point).
So he bought (he's long on the PUTs) 10 000 PUTs on NVDA and 50 000 PUTs on PLTR. I don't know at which expiration dates nor at which strikes.
A PUT option can be either a bet (like in TFA) that an underlying shall go down below a certain price before a certain date of it can be an hedge when you own the stock, believe it could go up some more, but also want to be protected should it crash. Now of course hedging has a cost and it's not cheap: an option is an insurance. Even the terminology is the same: the buyer pays a premium and the seller (i.e. the one selling the insurance) collects that premium.
Now if you want to learn about full-on degenerate gambling, these last years there's been an explosion in "0DTE": options with zero day to expiration. Because they're 0DTE, there's very little "extrinsic" value in these. So it's a "cheap" way to get basically 100x leverage (either short or long).
Here's a small documentary of 5 minutes about 0DTEs:
I vouched for your post because the information is correct as far as I can discern. Perhaps others felt that you didn't warn strongly enough against engaging in such "full-on degenerate gambling"?
But the risk profile of options depends on more than date to expiration. Of course the strike prices matter, as well as the rest of your portfolio. The real "degenerate gamblers" are taking that leverage without compensating for it. But for example, holding something with 100x effective leverage can be balanced out by only putting 1% of your portfolio there and keeping the rest in cash. (This will generally be inefficient and there's a high chance you won't do as well as just holding the underlying.)
A bet against Nvidia is smart. A bet against Palantir is not. Palantir has become deeply integrated into the surveillance states of America, and won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
But it has an unreasonable P/E ratio. The price is simply wrong.
It doesn't matter if it's the best firm ever and will get its dividends forever. You still calculate reasonably.
People say this kind of thing about Tesla as well, and Tesla has been stuck as a slightly-smaller-than-Mercedes-Benz sized firm for years and will stay like that forever, or even shrink relative to MB.
NVIDIA has a much more reasonable P/E ratio, even though it is of course very high.
Given that the market has moved so strongly away from dividends in favour of stock buybacks and other reinvestment (i.e. the successful companies are now much more often "growth" companies rather than "value" companies), and given e.g. Buffett's wisdom about total return, I don't know that traditional rules of thumb about P/E make sense any more.
Palantir is trading at 80x revenue (NTM), whereas Nvidia is only trading at 19x revenue (NTM).
Both companies are growing revenue at a similar rate (~50% YoY), and Nvidia has a higher net margin, however Palantir's share price is up 717% over 18 months, whereas Nvidia is only up 124%.
It's hard to argue Palantir's valuation reflects its fundamentals, even if you believe Palantir will be benefit from lucrative government contracts for years to come.
Buying companies at 80x revenue has not historically been a great way to make money, unless they're growing revenue at several hundred percent per year.
Putting aside that he's using puts (which caps the downside), with a classical short sell you don't need the current value of the stock liquid, but typically some percentage. That represents how much the stock can go up before you get the margin call. A short position is fundamentally unlike a long one, in that the future price movement of the underlying is bounded below at $0 but not bounded above.
The sources I can readily find put Burry's current net worth in the neighbourhood of $300 million. Depending on the regulations, he probably actually could put his entire life savings into a short of this magnitude. Of course, that's sort of like having your entire 401(k) in a -4x levered ETF, even worse because it's on individual stocks.
The filing doesn't appear to disclose strike prices or expiration dates. But my guess is that he loaded up on very cheap puts (low strike price) to hedge against the apocalypse (low probability of winning big to cover losses from everything else; high probability of just paying some insurance money). The same form shows bullish positions in other sectors — health care, finance and energy, as well as some corporate bonds. Given what the portfolio in the filing looks like overall, it's hard for me to imagine him being willing to risk more than a few million on this.
I'm not sure the bet is as big as it seems from the headline. When you buy options, you pay a fixed premium to get the right to buy/sell a very large value of shares, called the notional. But the notional is not what you are losing if it goes wrong, you lose the premium. The premium can be quite a small number compared to the notional.
Yes, but premiums on NVDA and PLTR are not small as premiums go. He’s still going to be spending a huge chunk.
> premiums on NVDA and PLTR are not small as premiums go. He’s still going to be spending a huge chunk
He may be. We may also only be seeing parts of the trade.
@michaeljburry - 2:04 PM · Nov 4, 2025 https://x.com/michaeljburry/status/1985709760272908614
Fake news! I am not 5’6” (not that there is anything wrong with that).
And journalists reporting on 13Fs, none more fake.
You can check here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1649339/000164933925... Is this like what you say?
Not the OP. I agree with what OP is mentioning. As part of the report you have to file the notional value of the underlying stock. Let's assume I buy one put option for palantir at a price of $1/contract ( say for an extremely OTM strike price of $10 ). I have paid a premium of $100. Assuming stock price of palantir is $200, the notional value I have to report is $200*100 = $20k. And not the $100 premium I paid.
This seems to back that up: https://www.sec.gov/files/form13f.pdf
FWIG you can't actually see what premium was paid on an option unless the buyer chooses to disclose that themselves.
> you can't actually see what premium was paid on an option
Nor the strike or tenor. (Options are more thinly traded than stocks. This confidentiality is practical.)
Yeah I feel like 200m of PLTR put options would distort the market so much the contracts would struggle to overcome their own premium.
They must be referring the the value of the shares the contracts represent?
On a single contract, maybe, but remember that the counterparty is usually a market maker who doesn't take directional risk, their game is to bet that the cost of delta hedging is less than the premium they collect, and that's more of an implied vs realized volatility thing than a directional thing. Even if we took it for granted that Michael Burry was smart money, to a first order approximation the dealers don't care and would be happy to earn fees for managing his leverage.
Yeah what usually happens is they match it with call purchases and thus they are not actually your counterparty economically.
There is enough bullish momentum that a trade of this size can actually be placed (of course in chunks).
It’s $200M notional.
To make the math easy, let’s assume it’s a PLTR 200 strike put expiring in February 2026. Each put is $20,000 notional so 10,000 puts would be $200M notional.
Feb PLTR 200Ps are trading for $3k or so each, so it would be $30M in premium for $200M notional with an in-the-money put.
If a market maker sells one 200P (52 delta) they are functionally long 52 shares, so they hedge by selling short 52 shares (or selling a call with 52 delta). If he has 10k contracts then the MM that sold the puts would be functionally long 520,000 shares and would need to short that many deltas to hedge.
Avg recent trading volume for PLTR is ~50M shares a day; 10,000 (50 delta) puts is roughly equal to 500,000 shares and be about 1% of a day’s trading volume.
Tl;dr: He’s holding 10k to 50k put contracts, depending on the moneyness and expiration date.
> PLTR put options would distort the market
Puts are calls and calls are puts [1]. On a certain level, all options of a given expiry and underlying are shadows of the same object.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity
Only applies to European Options
> Only applies to European Options
Absolutely false.
Options theory typically starts with European non-dividend paying options for simplicity. PCP applies to American-style options on dividend-paying stocks, you just get a solution with pairs of inequalities defining bounds. That leads to similar arbitrage and conversion mechanics with similar implications for market participants.
Normally I'd agree, but it's a massive holding in their disclosure. So they put a bunch of money into this bet, likely to buy distant expiries.
It's almost as if journalists don't have an incentive to explain this correctly...
It's also likely edged in all sort of ways the article doesn't cover.
He would have to report the hedge for the PLTR trade in the same disclosure form, so no he isn’t.
You mean hedged
It can be both! :D
They are only selling puts...that's a half-hearted short. They have the resources to borrow shares and bag the whole amount without a time constraint...why not do that?
Selling puts is not a short at all
It is commonly referred to as a ‘short position’, though it is not ‘shorting the stock’. Equally, purchasing calls* is referred to as a ‘long position’ (as is holding the equity).
edit: smallmancontrov below pointed out that I wrote 'purchasing puts' was long, when I meant to write 'purchasing calls'
Selling puts is a long position. Purchasing puts is short.
It’s all a matter of perspective I suppose, and of course I understand why you say this, but no professional options trader I’ve ever met would speak in these terms.
Buying puts.
Once you fully risk manage a short position and account for the price of doing so, you might realize that you have reinvented a put contract.
They’re buying puts.
Just because something is expensive doesn’t mean you should short it via puts as Burry had done. Both Palantir and Nvidia have high IVs. You’re paying for that. You’re much better off looking for cheaper puts on securities with enough correlation. Since Volmageddon and pandemic craze, deep OTM options have been scalped to death. Rarely good value. Nvidia also didn’t report earnings yet which means you’re paying for that risk event. Not saying bullish or bearish. It’s all speculation BOTH ways.
> high IVs. You’re paying for that.
Glad to see someone say it. A lot of people have a hypothesis about the market, but fail to do the follow through to see if the market has already priced that in. The real aim should be to see when your model (mental or mathematical) prices things differently than the market.
In this case, it's actually quite reasonable to believe that the market has over priced the risk no matter how "sure" anyone is that these companies are over valued. It's entirely reasonable to pay for an option that you think reflects an unlikely scenario, but you also believe is mispriced notably by the market.
With options, the market has nearly always priced in the obvious risk. But not the non-obvious risk. Burry is not just saying, “I think these companies are overvalued.” Rather, he’s saying, “I think the bubble is about ready to pop.” While many people see the bubble, Burry is making a bet on the timing of the pop.
Yeah, my (limited) understanding is that the GP's argument would be valid for an options trader who looks for pricing inefficiencies to take advantage of (regardless of bullish/bearish outlook) but not _that_ important for someone betting on a black swan event?
Yup, and the further out the expiry date for puts, the higher the price you pay.
I looked into it and it's not that cheap - and feels like the market is already pricing in risk of a large correction.
But you can still make a lot of money if you time it right.
> Both Palantir and Nvidia have high IVs
The relevant Greeks are delta, gamma and vega.
If your bet pays off, the price of the stock will decrease. Delta predicts how your option will increase in value with that; gamma if that relationship will accelerate or buffer. Vega, meanwhile, informs that the price suddenly crashing is volatility, which increases the value of your options.
Succinctly, if you are betting on a crash, options offer advantages. (And if the market, but not your company, gets bailed out, vega could put you middlingly in the black.)
I am not saying he won’t make money. But it won’t be commensurate with the risk he took on.
> won’t be commensurate with the risk he took on
Former options market maker here. We have insufficient data to conclude that.
I also happen to have experience unwinding correlation books after their originators shat the bed. Predicting a crisis is hard. Predicting correlations in a crisis for esoteric assets is almost impossible.
Burry wanted to bet on specific overvalued stocks. Not a general market crash. For that, puts are probably the best tool if the expectation is a sharp correction followed by, in all likelihood, a Trump put.
> But it won’t be commensurate with the risk he took on.
On what basis do you say this?
Can someone explain why puts make sense over shorting? For example, I'm betting against 5 quantum computing companies with short positions. I considered adding puts to the position, but it didn't make sense based on 2 reasons: High bid ask spread, and if it's a fraudulent company/otherwise worth betting against, the volatility will be high, so you option costs too much compared to the upside; the amount it has to drop to break even is too big.
With a put, you can only lose what the put is worth. With shorting, you can in theory have infinite loses.
Yea; true. My thought when evaluating these was "I am confident the price will drop significantly within the next 6-18 months. But if I screw up the timing, or it drops to 1/3 the value instead of 1/2 etc, I lose money or break even. While I'm reasonably confident the normal short will pay off, since I don't have to nail the amount or timing.
With shorting, you run the additional risks that you could lose the borrow and be forced to buy back at any time. Or get margin called if the price moves against you. With puts, you have to get the timing right, but no external factors can force you out of your position.
Even if you're right, but the value goes up before going down, you can lose out with a short, if your counter-party makes a call for collateral you don't have.
> With shorting, you can in theory have infinite loses
This risk can be hedged with futures and options.
Congratulations, you just invented the synthetic put.
> you just invented the synthetic put
Short and a call, yes. Short and a future, no. Either way, infinite losses isn’t an unavoidable downside when it comes to shorting. Stock-borrow and margin risks are.
Agreed. But it adds complexity.
Sometimes you just want simple leverage, which the puts can provide.
> Can someone explain why puts make sense over shorting?
Leverage, margin risk and stock-borrow risk. (The last refers to the folks who lent you the shares recalling them inconveniently.)
Derivative markets are almost always there to provide leverage. Yeah, thinly traded options are a significant downside. If you can get in and out of the contracts, you can always combine options to remove some of those volatility costs by selling as well as buying, ie, spreads and ratios.
Options are just that - an option to transact at a certain price, if you choose not to you're just out the premium you pay. Short selling involves an obligation to return the shares, which has (theoretically) unlimited downside.
Much simpler: I sat on an option desk for years, and whenever someone had a directional thought, the quip was "why don't you just buy/sell it then?"
I would ask the options desk to price it up, decide it was too expensive, and just go short.
Of course they did have a cheaper double no touch broken wing structure that would pay for their next mclaren.
The market will correct before mid-terms next year. This is almost a certainty. By how much and when exactly - now, that's where the shorting profits are.
PS. Burry infamously made several more bets after the "big short", bets that misfired. That is, his record is far from being 100% right.
Well, maybe a whale making waves? Already happening today to Palantir—Nvidia to a lesser degree (whole market to a lesser degree).
By close though the market they may well all end higher. We seem to live in a meme economy.
The economy is a meme and all the small fish praise the stock market meanwhile the big fish are fully prepared to run you all over and they will. They won't stop until it's all theirs.
What makes it an (almost) certainty?
It being a certainty is wrong, but there is a huge differential between the growth of total market value and the lackluster fundamentals, GDP growth, and jobs numbers.
To put another way, there's a lot of "potential energy" being built up in the markets right now. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll pop like a bubble - but there's really no precedent for them to continue rising.
6 months ago you could accurately say there's "no precedent for them to continue rising". You may be saying the same thing 6 months from now.
It could be true that the market can continue to grow well past 15% above fundamentals for the indefinite future. But the more it goes up, the more improbable it becomes.
If you've flipped heads three times in a row, you're right that I would look foolish saying the next one can't be heads. But at the same time you cannot keep flipping heads forever.
true on all accounts but comment like OP made is ridiculous. to say “for sure XYZ will happen to the market by this date” is childish/funny/insane. to say “eventually” there will be a correction is similar cause of course there will be. so all this talk about bubble and other shit is just nonsense all around
That pre-tariff stockpiles have been depleted is going to make some hidden pain more visible.
Long overdue? Fairly constant stream of bad news in other sectors of the economy?
Reminder that economist have predicted 9 of the past 7 recessions.
General handwavy statements like "there's a bubble" aren't worth paying attention to. Ones with specific timelines attached to it (like the one above, or the article we're commenting on), are worth listening to a bit more, but unless they have the funds to back it up (like Michael Burry has put down here), it's still hot air.
Palantir has a market cap of $400B+ and Nvidia is $5T. This short translates to 0.225% and 0.00374%. This mostly translates to a thesis that the stocks would “probably” go down a bit than a bet that predicts recession.
What do the percentages 0.225% and 0.00374% mean here? Is that the size of his position relative to the company's market caps?
Economist have predicted 179 of the past 7 recessions.
It seems like the economy is on a “K” shaped flywheel. How much worse can the economy get for the regular worker before the systems just pops? We’ve put so much speculation into an AI/tech salvation that seems premature, especially when you look at ROI vs depreciation timelines.
I’m not sure what timeline to place on that but there has to be a floor for how bad it can get for the regular man.
Shit is just expensive. Young people can’t buy houses, good jobs are drying up, and inflation isn’t stopping.
Graph looks like it's going up to me.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
I'm sure the Fed chart is accurately measuring what it's measuring but when I was a kid in Southern California it was normal to buy a house and raise kids on a single teacher or construction worker salary. That has become nearly impossible over the past couple decades. Many others have seen similar changes in their own areas and I don't think they're being crazy when they say it has gotten much harder to finance a normal household on a normal salary.
I don't know what the disconnect is with that chart and people's observations. Is that chart controlling for number of incomes and hours worked? If a household income increases by 20% because the members are working a combined 80% more hours that's not great. Category differences in inflation might be another factor. Sure TVs and other niceties are a lot cheaper, but essentials like housing and medical care eat up a huge portion of most budgets.
The housing crisis is limited to California and other blue states; most places have the opposite problem.
Also, most US households are homeowners, which means housing prices going up increases their (imputed) income.
> Is that chart controlling for number of incomes and hours worked?
Why should it? It's bad practice to control for random things - that gets you collider bias.
But see:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cWvT
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
> I don't know what the disconnect is with that chart and people's observations.
The disconnect is that CPI consistently significantly underestimates inflation as experienced by real people.
Slightly overestimates. Alternatives like Truflation show it lower.
You may be thinking of Shadowstats, which is run by a crank who just takes the official numbers and adds a number he made up to them.
I don't know why cranks always think inflation is secretly higher. Deflation is a lot worse than inflation, so if you're a doomer, believing in deflation would be more effective.
The idea that CPI sucks is far from a conspiracy theory... not sure why you're trying to color it like that.
The problem is that the error integrates over time, which IMHO is why graphs like that seem to suggest our standard of living is higher than ever... when a conversation with anyone at a local bus stop will tell you the exact opposite.
It's almost impossible for the standard of living to not be higher than ever. That becomes true if you assign any value at all to new medical discoveries. Like, people have been cured of type 1 diabetes in the last year.
I don't think a guy at a bus stop represents the median household well. I'd rather have https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html.
That chart for sure includes higher portion of double income households (because now more women are in the workforce than in the 80s). This reconciles your view with the Fed graph
(Edit-misspelled Fed)
Households can have more than two incomes - roommates, children who work, grandparents etc.
In practice, household sizes have gone down over time as more people live on their own, which means the income graph is lower than it otherwise would be.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cWvT
As for dual income families, they're mostly a good thing that happens when women can afford to pay for childcare. That is, that book The Two-Income Trap was mostly false. This is part of the topic of Claudia Goldin's economics Nobel, the other part being that the gender wage gap is caused by motherhood interrupting women's careers.
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/12/goldin-lecture-sl...
Inflation measures aren’t fit for purpose. The biggest expense is housing and housing as a proportion of income is what is killing people financially.
Housing is the largest component of both inflation measures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu...
I take it back.
>> Reminder that economist have predicted 9 of the past 7 recessions
Historically I think the reality has been the opposite of that, economists have been extremely reluctant to make predictions of an oncoming recession. This was certainly true during the great recession when economists were denying that a recession was coming even after one had actually started. That is to say, economists could not even predict the present.
There are a few economists who are predictably gloomy ("permabears", I suppose Nouriel Roubini would qualify) and I guess now there is political pressure to predict a recession anytime the other political party is in power, but from my perspective, if mainstream economists are predicting a recession, that likely means the recession is almost over.
> Reminder that economist have predicted 9 of the past 7 recessions.
Is there someone with a better record then?
Recessions can be avoided if you know about them ahead of time, so if you ever successfully predicted one your central bank isn't good enough.
Intervening as if there were a recession inminent when it is not also has harms (the exact same as the harms when recession interventions are maintained too long or employed too intensely, in terms of inflation, etc.), so I wouldn't agree that your central bank is bad if you happened to have guessed right once, but only if you have a demonstrably accurate objective method.
> the exact same as the harms
It actually appears that the alternative harms aren't as bad; that is, recessions aren't caused by prior expansions and we don't get one by "deserving" them.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~enakamura/papers/plucking.pdf
Hyperinflation is of course still not good, and it's hard to avoid a recession caused by a natural disaster or something.
Is there a way to predict when central banks aren't "good enough" then?
Point is, for a 100% positive case rate, I have to tolerate a 22% false positive rate. What exactly is the complaint here? Was this line of logic meant to make people who make these predictions look stupid or foolish somehow? To me, it mostly fails to.
> Is there a way to predict when central banks aren't "good enough" then?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME
He has no idea, I'm guessing it's wishful thinking, likely from a political partisan, or someone with a lot of dry powder trying to enter the stock market after a correction.
Political volatility and the dirty nasty hustle on the Trump/republicans' part that will precede the mid-terms. Combined with the general state of bizarre market bonanza of the past few months. It's a powder keg just waiting for a match.
is this post from 2018? or 2022? I keep reading exactly the same “predictions” here year after year after year… maybe 2026 is the year :)
I agree. I'm bullish long term on PLTR but with a 600+ EPS, a bit of a pull back may be healthy for it.
With that said, Burry is often credited for "Calling 18 of the past 2 recessions". Even a broken clock....
A buddy of mine and I have been watching as investors he follows have been saying the market is going to have a major correction in the next 3-6 months for 3 years now. It definitely seems like the market is due for a major correction, but it sure hasn't happened despite repeated projections. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
There are no certainties in markets. I'm surprised you'd say this with so much confidence.
Will it be another "correction" where it pulls back ~10% before going up another 15%?
The powers that be have too much invested in the market continuing to move up, you are basically betting that Trump, a bunch of billionaires and the FED are going to let the market crash to curb inflation and income inequality. That feels like a bad bet to me.
> going to let the market crash
By their very nature the markets can overwhelm any desire to "[not] let the market crash]"
Yes and no. Compounding market effects can. First order effects? There's a lot of firepower to blunt those.
Especially when the person in the White House is scared about losing the midterms.
"First order effects" I do not know what that means, I can sort of guess.
By now is not the AI market beyond any sensible definition of "first order"?
I meant that the Fed, Treasury, etc. have powerful levels they can pull to head off initial effects.
What can overwhelm them is if those effects cascade and compound into second-order effects, typically multiplied in magnitude.
That's essentially what the fuck-up in 2008 was. The government let Bear Stearns fail because it could handle the effects. What it couldn't handle (or at least, was barely able to) were the second order effects of credit tightening, mortgage derivative repricing, counterparty trust loss, etc. etc.
The government could absolutely prop up the AI bubble, possibly indefinitely. What it can't do is cover second order fallout, if it turns out a lot of risky money was somehow tied into the bubble.
There isn't a "the market".
The stock market isn't that important (though Trump does care about it). It's the bond market that everyone pays attention to when it stops working.
In a sense, stock market crashes are good for young people because you can buy stocks cheaper. In practice this isn't true because too many people are in debt and you get a balance sheet recession.
Article is misleading/wrong on the sizing:
> Scion bought roughly $187.6 million in puts on Nvidia and $912 million in puts on Palantir, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
But 13F reports the market value of the underlying shares for options, not the premium paid for the options
All we know is at time of filing he has 10k NVDA puts and 50k PLTR puts. We don't know the strike price or the duration or how much he paid
Personally I find the reporting of underlying value more useful than the price paid in puts, since it reflects the asset itself rather than an arbitrary price for an option that could be any of many different strikes or expirations. The option price itself is not that meaningful.
> The option price itself is not that meaningful.
Except it's literally what determines how much money is at risk in the trade. If you buy puts the actual underlying asset value doesn't matter as much as the value of the option itself (which is based on several factors such as time, strike price, etc)
The amount of money that is at risk with options is irrelevant because two different option positions with the same overall cost can have completely different risk profiles, which makes the actual value of those options not so interesting. In the absence of all the other details about the options trades, the actual amount paid for them is without much meaning.
>The option price itself is not that meaningful.
It is the most meaningful thing. It's the exact amount of money you are risking. It's the exact amount you lose if it doesn't strike. If I buy a put for $2, the most I can lose is $2. It's meaningful even with no other information.
13F notional value, on the other hand, is meaningless without more info.
I disagree quite a bit, and in fact the notional value is exactly what you want to measure this, without more information about the trades. The amount of money that is at risk with options is irrelevant because two different option positions with the same overall cost can have completely different risk profiles, which makes the actual value of those options not so interesting. In the absence of all the other details about the options trades, the actual amount paid for them is without much meaning.
> Personally I find the reporting of underlying value more useful than the price paid in puts
How so?
If I buy TSLA puts at a $10 strike or a $500 strike they show up the exact same on the 13F as both have to be reported as if they are delta 1 when showing a share count.
One is a very meaningful bet and one is throwing money away.
That’s exactly correct, which is why I find the actual option price not so relevant. Presumably that’s why it’s also reported in the way that it is.
I find this comment non-sequitur. We may have a mismatched understanding of how options work.
More likely, it’s just a misunderstanding of what’s being communicated in this thread. Options are quite complicated and these comments here are rather brief so there’s probably a lot getting lost in the discussion.
I can find extreme Nvidia puts on robinhood for 2 cents right now. So risking ~$2 of actual money gets you ~$20,000 notional 13F value.
So the claim "$187.6 million in puts on Nvidia" potentially means "Burry risked a total of $18,760 betting against Nvidia" in reality.
What do you mean by "potentially means"? I am quiet new to this and the financial jargons don't make sense. I just have a very basic understanding of a few terms.
What do you mean essentially? That if everything goes south and nothing happens like Burry predicted then the maximum amount he loses is just $18,760 ?
And if that's all that he loses then what's with the big fuss around the news as if it's almost apocalypse incoming with his bets?
The problem with these kinds of bets is the Fed Put. That's the invisible force levitating stocks. I don't really see that changing unless/until the country genuinely enters a debt or currency crisis. The path is unsustainable, but they'll keep it going as long as they possibly can.
> problem with these kinds of bets is the Fed Put
This is an argument against a market wide short bet. The Fed could raise the market while Nvidia still loses its premium.
The larger risk is political proximity, particularly with Palantir.
The fed signaled they are not cutting much further - almost a green light for these kinds of bets.
The fed can take nore active measures than just managing rates. I lost some money by unexpectedly finding myself on the opposite side of US government policy - and dollar-firehose - during COVID. Shorting travel-related stocks can be a losing bet if the government wants to "shore up" share prices by directly injecting hitherto unheard of amounts of liquidity into the market.
At least you got to feel clever when you made that bet against the travel companies :-)
I had early "insider" info on COVID admissions from a Pulmonologist spouse, and an understanding of exponential growth (doubling every few days).
I took the initiative to be the first person to WFH in my org, which I did as a pre-emptive quarantine as I was at risk of being infected: several of my spouse's colleagues subsequently got infected. Unfortunately, I didn't link my WFH circumstances that with investing in Zoom.
Does anyone else remember the conspiracy theories around the "plunge protection team"?
It is not a theory.
Is it a conspiracy if they do it?
When Trump replaces Powell next year, the odds of the Fed doing something other than bathing a crisis in liquidity goes way up.
To add some context -
Powell's 4-year term ends January 31, 2026. Whether he is reconfirmed by the Senate for another term is an open question.
Uhh... Powell's term as chairman ends in May 2026. His term as a board member ends Jan 2028. Senate confirmation is irrelevant because Trump will not nominate him again for anything.
Bah, you are correct [1]. I got my date from the Wikipedia page and apparently it's wrong.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48233
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Powell#Federal_Reserve_...
Only measured in USD though.
It's even worse than that, as Palantir is a Party business. Betting against that is like betting whether specific people were going to be airbrushed out of photos in Stalin's Russia. And if you have that kind of insider insight, why short instead of making a positive bet on whomever the new Party darlings are going to be?
Maybe it makes sense based on the dynamic of the Party needing to run through scapegoats? One could possibly see that Palantir is about to be thrown under the bus, but only connected insiders will know who its exact replacement will be? Personally I don't see signs of Palantir being close to the chopping block though.
[flagged]
Do you have any specific criticisms?
Palantir's valuation is far more egregious than Nvidia's. Palantir is Becky (IBM) with the good hair.
> 5 million Palantir shares worth $912 million, and 1 million Nvidia shares worth $187 million
The Nvidia trade is a rounding error compared to Palantir (which looks a bit oversized given it is 1/400th of the entire market cap)
20% is not a rounding error...
> Palantir is Becky (IBM) with the good hair
I've googled "becky with the good hair" [1] and I still have no idea what that sentence means.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorry_(Beyonc%C3%A9_song)
It goes a lot better if you don't think about it. But this is HN, I'll explain the logic.
I split Becky into two: IBM is Vanilla Becky. Palantir is Becky with the good hair. But don't get it twisted, they are both Becky. Don't fall for Becky.
They’re betting the Govt will print a trillion dollars for their buddy.
You're betting against a middle-east Marshall Plan and AIPAC lobbyists vs. a company that just set up its AI industrial Hub in Europe and has some serious compute-engine hosting cost sticker-shock incoming.
As far as I can see, shorting Thiel is shorting Israel at the moment. Don't do it while Trump is in Cabinet and pressuring Tel Aviv to pardon Bibi.
That was actually my own gut reaction to Palantir's valuation. There is some massive entity that is propping that up, and I can easily see it being a state actor.
NVDA on the other hand ...
What are you going to really do about something that posts 40B+ in revenue every quarter? Okay, you can short it I suppose. You'd have to time it with the expected drop off in AI compute spend, which means if you have a history of being early (which Burry does), you will lose.
I will never understand what it is about Israel that makes people lose their minds.
> never understand what it is about Israel that makes people lose their minds
Availability heuristic [1].
Flat earthers and folks deep in their small-country national politics do the same thing, overestimating the causal weight of the thing they’re obsessing about to any effect.
The useful takeaway is to recognize when you do it in smaller doses. What’s the first explanation you tend to have a hunch for explaining phenomena which are too diverse to be reasonably explained by a single factor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
Not minds; lives.
Thank you for proving my point
People are opposed to Israel due to its ongoing mass murder (and rape) campaign.
Normal people are opposed to those violent acts and may even get angry about them.
"People are opposed to Israel due to its ongoing mass murder (and rape) campaign."
But the same people tend to completely ignore or outright support Hamas doing the exact same thing.
Because one is actively sponsored by their own nation while the other is not. Their tax dollars are being spent for those atrocities. Or is that not something people should quibble about?
Again, thanks for proving my point.
This isn't the kafka trap you think it is because any reasonable reader would see the glaring false equivalence. Supporting atrocities is upsetting and something we have agency over. How do you not see this?
I honestly don't understand how this relates to people actively supporting Hamas attacking Israel and killing civilians.
It relates to people ignoring Hamas. We have nothing to do with Hamas. People support the human rights of Palestinians because they support the human rights of all humans.
I didn't address supporting Hamas because it wouldn't have been a generous interpretation of your argument. Where have you seen Hamas support? I have only seen it when Palestinian support is equated to Hamas support to justify atrocities.
Where have you seen Hamas support? See the posts by pphysch later in this thread.
"You're insane for opposing genocide!!" is an unbelievably patronizing, if not outright insane take.
You're literally losing huge swathes of the American Christian Right, as we speak. Those guys don't care about Hamas or Palestine or the occupied West Bank.
You need to wake up! I'm trying to help you.
Did you assume I'm Israeli? I'm not. I'm an agnostic.
the people ranting about Israel committing genocide in Gaza all happily ignore Article 7 of the Hamas charter that quotes a hadith: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." This is explicitly about killing Jews, not just opposing Zionism or dismantling a state. Combined with the charter's call to eliminate Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine through armed struggle, this effectively calls for the violent removal or elimination of Jews from the territory
You don't have to be Israeli or Jewish to be a (widely-despised) Zionist or regurgitate their murderous propaganda.
" or regurgitate their murderous propaganda."
You say this while utterly ignoring the fact that the Hamas Charter's goal is to kill all Jews? Thanks for proving my point.
I honestly have no idea what the word Zionist means anymore since Israel has existed for 77 years and seems likely to continue to exist for at least another 77 years. Can you explain to me what it means?
> the Hamas Charter's goal is to kill all Jews
This is blood libel, murderous propaganda. There is nothing of this sort in the current Hamas charter.
What is it about Israel/Jews that make people say things this stupid and obviously false? Hamas's mass murder of innocent civilians on Oct 7 2023 shows what their real goals are.
Hamas charter that quotes a hadith: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." This is explicitly about killing Jews, not just opposing Zionism or dismantling a state. Combined with the charter's call to eliminate Israel and "liberate" all of Palestine through armed struggle, this effectively calls for the violent removal or elimination of Jews from the territory
And Gaza has been ethnically cleansed of nearly every non-muslim.
I'm a huge proponent of factually investigating what happened on Oct 7, 2023--who killed who--but sadly the Israeli regime is not. They would rather paper it over and leverage it as atrocity propaganda to commit a genocide, then investigate and bring criminals to justice.
A wild contrast between barbarism and civilization.
Hamas only has one charter. Some Westerners like to think of the separate 2017 document as an "updated charter", but Hamas themselves never used such language, and in fact explicitly stated that the 2017 document did not replace the charter.
[dead]
SHORT SHORT SHORT. Someone has to pay the price for the G side.
But how would those guys keep the stock price up?
One thing to remember with 13F filings is that funds are required to report the full value of their option positions as if they were delta 1.
Some outlets then took this and wrote the story that Burry has a short bet of billions on NVIDA and Palentir.
His put's are most likely well out of the money so their delta is no where near 1 so his bet is far smaller than places are reporting just due to how the SEC requries funds to report their holdings on 13F filings.
In any case for a normal investor, just remember - "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent".
This is also good advice for prominent investors. Burry himself has lost a ton of money in the recent past by shorting Tesla.
Thanks for sharing. Michael Bury also shorted S&P 500 in Sep 2023 and closed his position in Nov 2023 for a nice payoff… he seems to know what he is doing.
I'm legitimately curious what his overall performance is. Are those just cherry picked trades?
As far as I can tell, he been doing lots of puts and "winning" maybe 1/8 of the ones I've known about, so pretty hit and miss history so far.
His wins were quite big so I’d imagine he’s doing really well overall
Is there anything more concrete than that? Large wins on their own aren't meaningful if they aren't good risk adjusted trades or repeatable. I've made big wins but I don't consider myself a good trader.
From may 2020 to may 2023 they did 56% annualised. Performance apart from that is unreported, so likely lower or negative.
If this is the source, it does not seem like an objective, audited figure:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/15/investing/michael-burry-s...
>Traders following the investments disclosed by Scion’s over the last 3 years (between May of 2020 and May 2023) would have made annualized returns of 56% according to an analysis by Sure Dividend
Seems like Scion Capital could have just disclosed winning trades, that they may or may not have made?
He’s clearly right, but shares could take a really long time before they actually come back to reality.
He's not clearly right on Nvidia. People have been saying "it's clearly overvalued" for years now. And it just keeps growing at an insane pace and quite frankly their position in the market isn't really being eroded by anyone. There are hopes and dreams, but little real competition.
A good time to remember that Cisco was briefly the most valued company in the world: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/24/technology/cisco-briefly-...
I met a traveller from an antique land, // Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone // Stand in the desert…
Cisco's earnings weren't growing at the same rate as Nvidia's. There is actual underlying sales and profit growth at the same rate as the stock price growth in NVDA's case.
Especially if you take the view that AI is the new compute. There so many chips that need to get upgraded Thats maybe one of the largest TAMs of all time that hasn't even been touched at this point.
And Nvidia is going to own the whole thing, forever?
Given how fucked it’s competition is and how the delta between CUDA/NCCL and everything else like rocm/zulda has only grown yeah, Nvidia will own the whole thing for minimum 10 years.
Everyone who tried to compete failed hard because no one has the money, and raw talent or ability to get that talent needed to beat Nvidia at the software game.
This game is far from over and I find your prediction almost naive.
Can you provide an alternative prediction that you believe is more accurate?
> This game is far from over
Do you think a company like AMD or Intel is going to make massive gains in taking market share away from Nvidia? Or do you think it will be another company? Or something else entirely?
They always say "no, it'll be GOOGLE!" and try to bring up TPUsv6 (you still can't even play with ironwood/TPUv7 yet) as though they're competitive with blackwell let alone Reuben, as though anyone except google internal engineers get real value from them, and as though GCP doesn't have well over 1 million+ haswell/blackwell GPUs.
These same people unironically believe that Gemini was trained with zero GPUs for any part of the process (including all experiments), and it was all done on TPUs. They cite this as evidence that CUDA/Nvidia is dead.
It's stupid, it's wrong, but it's what they claim.
I'm going to be a lot wealthier than the Nvidia bears.
And if you don't believe this, just take one look at TPU pricing (remember, Trillium is TPUv6) and tell me this is competitive with Nvidia/Oracle/any neocloud with a straight face.
https://cloud.google.com/tpu/pricing?hl=en
I'd argue the Nvidia moat is the most difficult moat to understand unless one is really in the weeds using GPUs. "all you need to do is design a similar chip" seems to fit in peoples heads nicely when they are even a little ways removed from the details.
People have been talking about competing and trying to compete with the nvidia GPU/Cuda stack for almost 20 years (since the start). There have been various efforts. They have all fallen flat. Nvidia isn't standing still, the target keeps moving forward.
To suggest Nvidia will have the game to themselves for another 10 years might turn out to be wrong, but it isn't naive. You are the naive one here.
There hasn't really been any significant money in competing with cuda however. Nvidia had a bit of a gaming premium over amd, and crypto really boosted all GPUs...but until about 3 years ago, there wasn't literally trillions of dollars on the line to replace cuda. There is now. Companies ARE replicating it. The Mi300 is very competitive on token throughput as far as I'm aware.
No one is sitting around. I'd argue if there was more wafer supply you'd see amd/others undercutting nvidia...but it's hard to when supply is incredibly constrained.
>> Companies ARE replicating it.
They are trying. They are not succeeding yet. Maybe in 10 years the gap will be closed. Maybe it will not. I'll guess the latter. Nvidia's situation has changed too - the R&D $$ they have to spend to defend are dramatically higher. Nothing stands still, it's harder to catch up than it seems.
> And it just keeps growing at an insane pace
Nobody is accusing the market of behaving rationally
How short-term of a thinker do you have to be to consider Nvidia's run a long time? I blame TikTok.
Nvidia has been crushing it for 30 years.
Not really. 10 years maybe. The stock price was flat-ish from 2000 to 2015 (4x or so?) and while they did have many golden years in there, they weren't universally ahead.
You are cherry picking data to tell a lie. The company has been crushing it the entire time. The fact they their share price got taken up in the bubble of 2000 doesn't change that fact.
You are the one who needs to zoom out on the stock price graph lol
I periodically read this ACT post to degauss my brain so I can think about these matters from a fresh perspective: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/heuristics-that-almost-alwa...
This kind of thing happens with investors... they work their butt off for years, do well, then think it's them rather than the work.
That's sort of Taleb's whole thing: most successful investors just happened to be riding a wave and cannot claim any sort of genius. The Black Swan event is always explained away as some kind of environmental blip and investment success explained as the inevitable outcome of hard work- when in fact it is Black Swans that are inevitable and hard-working investors are just a background constant.
While what you are saying is almost certainly true, I'm actually talking about something else - people who did good work and then stop doing good work in fields where good work = good decisions. It's easy to stop doing the work and keep making the decisions and no one is the wiser for years.
This is a correct and at the same time rather misleading article. Sure, in principle it would be prudent to investigate literally everything every time. And he makes it sounds like not doing so makes a person literally 100% useless and dysfunctional. But he "forgets" to mention that investigation is non-free. And depending on the topic, the amount of such investigations and the length of each one can vary dramatically. Up to the point where whole life and all of the resources could be spent doing it.
Heuristics That Almost Always Work have a helpful hint right there in the name. They do work, and they do it almost every time. And depending on the topic that 99.99% may be even 100%, but we just can't reliably prove it. Stuff that works 99.99% of the time is very valuable and helps humans free resources and time for the less reliable or more severe problems. Or just for leisure. Personally, I invite author to go disprove every single idea on the internet and do it in careful and deep detail, let's see how long he would last without heuristics. :)
Before Burry's bets were disclosed, Palantir's trailing price-earnings ratio (P/E) peaked at 486x. What does that mean?
I like to think about it this way: Absent growth, had a private investor purchased the business at 486x earnings, it would have taken the investor 486 years to recoup the investment.
Only crazy-fast future growth could justify that multiple.
I estimate earnings/share would have to grow 30-fold within a foreseeable time frame, like 5-7 years, to justify the peak price per share.[a]
---
[a] Back-of-the-envelope math: 486x peak / 15x long-term average P/E = 32-fold increase to justify valuation. I rounded it to 30-fold.
If a company has 1 billion in revenue and 999 million in costs, they are doing 1 million in earnings. It's trivially easy for them to grow earnings 30x, they can just decide to do it in most cases.
You have to look at the cost structure now v what it should be in a "steady state" situation, perhaps 10 years out.
This math doesn't always hold up to common sense, as these ratios will explode when E hovers around zero, but it has a very small effect on the business itself.
Expenses can be reduced too. It's not solely about earnings growth.
Hasn’t he been incorrectly predicting massive crashes every few years ever since he was right that one time?
How many bad predictions does he need to make before people stop caring what he has to say?
He's predicted 20 of the last 2 recessions, so there's that.
Has he or are you just repeating a funny joke?
He has. He’s notably been burned a few times, one of the worst of which was 2021 TSLA. Iirc he was early but not wrong, with the 2022 collapse of all things ARKK related crashing and burning.
He was in early for the 2008 recession as well, but that is generally better than being in late (as most of us were).
He's been bearish for the last n years. His Twitter handle is Cassandra because he tries to warn people about impending doom, but nobody listens. He gave up at one point because he tweeted SELL and then everything was fine.
tl;dr he's a perma bear.
I actually don't think he's wrong, but one thing I've learned is that it's not enough to recognize a bubble. Almost everyone sees the markets are, as they say, frothy. But you need to see if there's a needle nearby. Without that you're just trying to get lucky.
Puts especially are really hard because they expire. They limit your loss compared to shorts, but you need to time it perfectly.
Both.
Well his 10 year performance is 255%. Which does not include his bet in 2005-08. Buffett has only done 154% in that time. So rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.
That doesn’t change the fact that he keeps making these doomsday predictions that don’t come true.
Also, his returns aren’t really impressive compared to VTI, which has had an annualized return of 14.04% over the past 10 years according to Vanguard. That works out to 372% total returns in that period.
It’s easy to make money when even the broadest US index fund is up by that much.
That could be part of his strategy no?
"He was born on third base, and is proud he's made it to second."
A joke said of Trump, of whom it is much more fair, but still...
Yep. A lot of these guys who have made a profit during 2008 are still chasing that dragon.
Ask Nostradamus. Big Short has a nice ring to it in future history books.
Michael Burry is a stopped clock. He's predicted 20 of the last 1 crashes.
Palantir is down 8% as of this comment post. Nice call Burry.
The implication here is that there's a prediction of a crash, but this could equally just be a hedge. Fund managers don't want their whole fund to become devalued if AI-driven valuations collapse. A put against Nvidia helps de-correlated the fund value from AI values.
This is Michael Burry we're talking about.
What is the expiry of those options? And how much of his capital is he betting on them? If I'm not mistaken, what made the big short spectacular was him betting the farm on it. Otherwise, wouldn't it be just another day in the office for him?
I envision AI saturating every corner of life—yet its market is ultimately bounded by how much users will actually pay, weighed against the tangible value delivered. The rift arises from overoptimistic guesses about user spending, a chasm that only deepens as open-source models hit that critical "good enough" threshold, and AI data centers devolve into a cutthroat commodity arena, vying on price for off-the-shelf compute power accessible to all—particularly if agile rivals eclipse Nvidia through breakthroughs in efficient/smarter hardware.
Burry was right about a scam. AI is not a scam. His short positions could simply be a conviction on rate of growth. If he was truly shorting it into collapse, then I'd say he's misguided here.
There are also other factors that affect Nvidia. Any move on Taiwan can collapse Nvidia's price down to zero. Hyperscalers can also shift orders over to AMD, Intel, ARM and Broadcom. This is inevitable, but you can't be too early with this.
Lastly. I don't know how technical Burry is. If you showed him LLM tech in 2017, would he have recognized it? There are things about this tech that he may not even recognize even if you showed it to him. You can literally show some people full generated video and they still wouldn't get how much compute it takes to do that.
Finally, the world is not just a giant Tulip bubble. There's actually trillions of dollars moving around every day and people innovate and consume. It's not just a giant Ponzi scheme waiting to collapse.
--
As for Palantir, as many have mentioned, I would not consider shorting Palantir until year three of this administration. Palantir may lose favoritism with the next administration. Maybe. As we witnessed with the MAG7 CEOs, these people are prepared to change their entire value set to win the business of those in power.
> If he was truly shorting it into collapse, then I'd say he's misguided here.
He's not shorting this time. He has put options. This is a "short position" i.e. one that behaves inversely to the stock price, but his downside is limited (at the expense that he pays the full downside up front, and can lose money even if the stock goes down, if it doesn't go down by enough).
TFA says the options are on "roughly 1 million NVDA shares worth $187 million", implying NVDA was around $187 at the time of acquisition. That more or less tracks with the September 26 close, and this was apparently disclosed in a September 30 filing. NVDA is currently above $200. Similarly, he would have options on PLTR bought when that was also somewhere around $182 (roughly matching the September 30 close); even with today's crash, the stock is hovering around $190 as I write this.
So depending on the duration of the options there's a pretty decent chance he's going to lose money, and depending on the strike price it might well be the entire premium. As far as I can tell, neither of these is disclosed in the filing.
AI is a scam, from eye of an computer engineer. Its not a scam, from eye of others.
AI is not the only way to address challenge that it aims to solve.
Burry nailing real estate - good for him! Burry nailing tech valuations? That one is a more finicky beast - super high risk almost infinite growth going forward - best of luck!
1.1BN notional probably. not premium.
people need basic options education..
Total portfolio 1.4bn in Sep 13F. 0.6bn in June 13F. So yes, my guess is most if not all of that 0.8bn spike is notional in excess of premium on the 1.1bn puts. All the same, 80% of his entire hedge fund notional is still a BIG bet. And he will probably 10x that 1.1bn if he is right.
Betting against Palantir is interesting. I guess he saw the margins on that Mamdani victory and decided it means that the table is turning.
The positions: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1649339/000164933925...
Right. He also went long on Lulu Lemon. Where’s the undervaluation thesis on yoga pants?
Lululemon benefits humanity just as much as AI. For different reasons, of course.
His track record since “the big short” has been horrific. That’s the problem with being a perma-bear, eventually the market dips but you missed out on extraordinary gains vastly out weighing your negative thesis. It’s a hellva lot easier to be bullish American companies then try and time draw downs. Doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, but I haven't seen anything from AI technology to suggest it's going to live up to the hype in the short term. I'm not saying Burry is completely accurate in this case, but the draw down could be quite big.
GPT-4 was released in early 2023. Back then AI maximalists were saying AGI is near. We're approaching early 2026 and we obviously aren't anywhere close to anything any reasonable person would consider AGI. But what do we have? "Agents" that are mostly useless. Image and video clip content generators that are pretty much only good for social media memes and spam. We do have better software development tools, but that's not a life changing advancement.
It seems like in order for all this speculation and all these massive build-outs to pay off we're going to need AI to redefine how we work and live within the next 3-5 years. Even if we AI development doubles or triples what it's been able to do in the last 3-5 years, I don't see this happening.
So, when this does not happen, when the AI hype does not live up to the promises, by a longshot, what will happen to the markets?
Have you tried claude code? I despise AI to my bones but even I can’t say claude code is not impressive.
If any anthropic reps read this, I think you guys, while probably better than open AI and meta, possibly Google, are delusional and are more likely to destroy the world than create infinite human life.
I have and it is. But I did acknowledge that in the previous post. I just don't think software development tools like Claude Code, while great, and I wouldn't want to back to life without them, are going to recoup all this investment. We need like 10 Claude Codes for different aspects of work and life. Then we're getting somewhere...
So you’re not buying the idea that with increased productivity those tools will quickly follow?
Nothing happens as quick as greed demands.
> His track record since “the big short” has been horrific.
You would expect that with low probability, highly leveraged bets, which shorts largely are. You are wrong most of the time and then make a giant pile of money when you are right. People definitely should understand that strategy though and not just follow him blindly into investments without the expectation that you will probably lose your money almost every time.
Yeah I believe this is basically Taleb's investment strategy (or at least, what he seemed to claim in his books)
> His track record since “the big short” has been horrific.
Has it? I couldn't find the returns for his fund. Since you have them can you post them and highlight what about them are horrific?
- In late 2020, Scion sold its entire stake in GameStop. Scion missed out of the GameStop short squeeze which occurred only a few months later. Its 5.3% stake would have been worth over $1.5 billion at its height.
- In May 2021, Scion disclosed it acquired put options on Tesla shares.
- In August 2023, it was reported Scion anticipated a stock market crash and acquired $1.6 billion worth of put options to bet against the ETFs that tracked the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq-100.
- Scion also was noted to have held a large put option against the iShares Semiconductor ETF.
First, I appreciate the response.
However, nothing about any of those points indicate his performance has been horrific.
All that matters are his returns against his reference index. That's the only relevant measure.
EDIT I did manage to find his returns via chatgpt and the OP is correct that they haven't been great in some periods, but his last 5 year average is +85% which isn't bad, not great, but not bad.
He is also up about 10% over the past year, so not great and not terrible, he's mid as the kids say.
A crisis is when money flow stops in the market. In The Big Short, he bet on the fact that cash flow would stop, and they won. The stock market works in a similar way to a company’s cash flow. When money is pumped into a stock, its value increases; when money is pulled out, the value drops.
The news is essentially about making a bet, as the title suggests, with no real evidence or information on who will pull the money out or how it will happen. Just because the price is high doesn’t necessarily mean there will be an outflow. It’s more like gambling, based on speculation rather than solid facts.
I am interested in quantitative / probabilistic analysis on your thesis. Where should I go look?
nice prompt
troll
What does Palantir actually do? I feel like every earnings discussion is vague and goes on about things like “Ontology” without sharing trustworthy details. As far as I can tell they are more like a consulting firm. Why are they not viewed like another IBM?
In East Germany, the Stasi had 90,000 full-time staff deciphering reports from maybe 400,000 regular informants and around 1/6th of the population as occasional informants. They used this to run a totalitarian surveillance state which abducted 250,000 supposed dissidents.
This is a horrendously inefficient system. 90,000? 400,000? In a population of 16 million? The expense! The time! The sensitivity to data irregularities! The friction which the non-dissidents must feel! This is a worse imposition than an occupying army. How many of those 250,000 were actually conspiring against the state in a meaningfully threatening way? 1/10th? 1/100th? How many actual dissidents make it through the sieve, because the security service was unable to cross-reference suspicious entries on three pages in files occupying different filing cabinets in different buildings in the complex?
The US, despite its military might, rapidly hit a manpower limit in the occupation of Afghanistan & Iraq, and was largely unable to effectively fight a collection of counterinsurgencies and "sympathizers".
In the 2020's we have much greater capability to surveil. We have electronics tracking everything, we have phones that listen all the time, we have cameras at every streetcorner, data brokers know more about us than our diary does. But manually checking these things in untargeted surveillance would be almost impossible. It would take our entire population spying on ourselves.
Enter Palantir. Proposition: "We would like to explore if we could make this possible & efficient, using modern database & machine learning techniques. We will collect, categorize, transcribe and cross-reference all the data, of every type, we will generate suspicious activity reports autonomously, we will make follow-up trivial".
This was literally George Orwell's nightmare in 1984 - that looking back at the long history of repression and rebellion, the cycle of violence and freedom, of authority and abuse of authority, that perhaps at some point, eventually, technology gives so much power to the authority that it's simply impossible to overthrow them.
They are of the industry formerly known as “Big Data” or “data science.”
They think hard about how to collect and make use of, what most would describe as, grains of sand.
A common use case for their data is figuring out for a government who they should kill that week.
They're basically IBM + Oracle but sexy because tech is different this time around for some reason?
As my friend likes to say, Michael Burry has predicted 20 of the last 1 crashes. I saw some apocryphal analysis that showed you'd be beating the S&P 500 (and by a decent margin) if you bought every time he predicted a market crash since the recession.
Yes but market goes up and market is unhealthy aren’t necessarily correlated.
He’s making calls that things should crash but somehow, here we are.
I know little about the details puts/shorts etc but just curious... does Burry doing media about his position (after he's got it), potentially help increase the odds of his bet working in a self-fulfilling way or is it neutral for his bet.
Parasite. Overly complex stock markets that produce nothing of value should be abolished.
Real people have no need for high level financial concepts like that. The stock market should be for real trade, not incestuous exchanges between egregious executives.
> Overly complex stock markets that produce nothing of value should be abolished. Real people have no need for high level financial concepts like that
This is a pretty huge assumption with no real reasoning. Some substance regarding _why_ “high level financial concepts” produce nothing of value would be useful
You sound like people who condemn drug companies for avoiding this one simple herbal remedy "because they can't make big profits off of it."
It's far more complicated than you make it sound.
There is no way a crash happens when everybody thinks it's going to happen. The 2008 prediction was notable because, as shown in the movie, his bet was so contrarian people were refusing to write about it)
Makes me wonder how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy this can be.
It might become the modern Tulip Mania of our time.
Tulips didn't largely replace the most popular search engine. They didn't replace employees. Tulips were a meme stock, AI is a breakthrough.
Could be overvalued, but it is not vaporware.
Tulips almost can replace employees, just like AI
Pretty sure they are reporting on the option deltas as if he spent $900m in premium.
Which is wrong.
Could this just be a collar (sell calls to buy puts)?
If the calls are not covered this is a very bearish position: if the market rises he will lose money on the puts and will have to buy the stock at the higher price (to cover the calls). It is easy to go bankrupt with this position. I would not do this unless I have some type of information that the stock will decline with certainty.
“When I hear short sellers attacking what I believe is clearly the most important software company in America, therefore in the world, in terms of our impact, … it just is super triggering,” Karp said.
Now, now. Palantir received social security from In-Q-Tel during its incubation. Alan Wade was the CIO of the CIA and had previously founded Chiliad with Christine Maxwell (sister of that Maxwell).
On the other hand, Karp knows Lutnick (who lived next to Epstein) from Haverford College. It's a small world. So with this administration bets against Palantir might be risky.
But "the most important software company in America"? Please, many here have said that it started out as a database search company (like Chiliad).
Come on, Karp is such a nice guy:
“I love the idea of getting a drone and having light fentanyl-laced urine spraying on analysts that tried to screw us,” he said during a talk in New York to promote his new book in February."
https://www.ft.com/content/64a2345e-3961-4d5d-ae04-82d933fa5...
I could see the case for Palantir purely from the ridiculous P/E ratio. On the other hand hey, so does Tesla and it's stayed irrational longer than many shorters have stayed solvent.
But Nvidia seems highly risky to bet against. Also a very high P/E ratio, but not too crazy. And the demand is extremely real and keeps growing.
Until the latest earnings, all the hyperscalers were basically telling us quarter after quarter that they were capacity constrained and backlogged largely due to AI workloads. And capacity generally translated to GPUs. Only now has MSFT reported being constrained on power, which might signal a shift.
But that doesn't mean lower demand, it just means folks lower down the totem pole can finally get their hands on GPUs. Large sovereign nations, including US and China, are jockeying over these things.
Even if this bubble pops, I still don't see demand going down. If you look honestly for indicators, there is tons of data showing rocketing usage which is translating into real productivity wins. In a capitalistic world, that dependency is going to be impossible to wean off of.
I also don't see any real competition on the horizon yet. I kinda understand NVDA's moat is more than just their chips, it's also the ecosystem. I don't claim to deeply understand this (as another comment points out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45826309), but there are other signs I see:
1. Huawei was forced to train their models on non-Nvidia hardware, and they couldn't get a single training run completed, AIUI due to showstopping bugs and other issues in the stack.
2. Anecdotally I hear AWS has been unsuccessfully trying to get customers to use Trainium. They all prefer Nvidia.
3. Google announced OpenAI would use TPUs on GCP and now is leasing Nvidia capacity from Coreweave to support the deal.
With everyone locked in a Red Queen's race to train the most powerful models ASAP, they can't afford any delays inevitably introduced by new platforms.
The real threat right now is that behind all the smiling partnership announcements, everyone is trying desperately to diversify away from this monopsony. They will eventually succeed, but doesn't seem it will happen anytime soon.
"the market will stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" He's a clever man, and maybe the bubble will burst, and when it does there will inevitably be some hugely profitable short positions held by a new generation of Michael Burrys who will lose capital and reputation taking a premature short position on the subsequent major bubble.
You don't just need to decide that Nvidia is overvalued by the market and will crash in price to make money on a short position.
You need to time the crash. If you're off, it could still crash and you could spend more money sustaining the position than you'd make. Or you could end up getting margin called, not just by semi-impotent private investors as Michael Burry was, but by the platform you're trading on itself. "You've lost too much money so far based on the current valuation, so we're going to seize this option and you'll owe us the balance". Trading at high leverages with Daddy's money, people on /r/wallstreetbets sometimes get margin called and end up owing much, much more money than they put in.
Before putting any money in, make damn sure you're able to write at least a 101-level summary of the different types of trades.
I did this in February 2020, and then bet a modest amount on the proposition "People keep saying that COVID isn't going to be a big deal, and I think they're very wrong". I still managed to lose out because I didn't foresee the Federal Reserve bombing the market with freshly printed cash. I lost it all. But what I didn't do, is end up owing millions of dollars I don't have to the brokerage, because I stuck to buying put options rather than selling call options or shorting stocks outright.
Timing aside? To what extent the Federal Reserve would intervene in an NVDA price collapse is an open question, because at this point a collapse in AI investment would threaten the solvency of entirely unrelated financial institutions.
These are puts, you buy them, they have a fixed expiration date at which point they will be worthless if the price is above the strike price.
Fixed down side, upside is $100 per contract per dollar the stock is below the strike at expiry. You can also sell them before then, and price depends on time to expiry, volatility, and distance to the strike price. See Black-Scholes model for more info.
Are you actually disagreeing with this?
> If you're off, it could still crash and you could spend more money sustaining the position than you'd make.
And in Black Scholes this is called Theta Decay. In any form of short, there are maintenance costs, and maintenance costs roughly scale with the risk-free interest rate (usually assumed to be roughly the Federal Reserve's overnight lending rate)
Theta Decay is above-and-beyond the risk-free rate because you're also losing time-value. So you must always factor in the amount of time before a predicted crash: the longer it takes the more money you lose.
> So you must always factor in the amount of time before a predicted crash: the longer it takes the more money you lose.
I think the idea is, as a put buyer (market taker), this has already been baked into the option premium. The only "maintenance cost" in the sense of a cost that adds to an open position is from interest on margin loans.
There would be a maintenance cost from rolling the position into a later expiry, but I think the impression is that this is a precise single bet.
EDIT: You're spot on about opening a position being a sort of cost too, due to missing out on risk-free returns. This is especially important for hedging. Less so for a directional bet.
Theta changes with time.
If you want to minimize loss of time value, you buy 2 year LEAPs, and then as their 1-year approaches, you sell the LEAPs and roll them back into 2-year LEAPs. Theta rapidly changes as you grow closer to expiration.
No one should be buying and holding just one option. Anyone who understands Black Scholes will be selling/buying and exchanging options as time goes on.
-------
Buying puts is a bull-bet on Volatility and bear-trade on the underlying stock, while losing Theta (largely based on expectation date. Longer means less Theta decay).
Selling calls is a bear bet on volatility, bear bet on underlying while gaining Theta in value each day.
And then there are the many combination trades that are available.
In any case, I don't think any sophisticated trader does the strategy you are assuming here. The sophisticated strategies involve selling and renewing your options as time moves forward / and or the stock price changes (to keep Delta withing appropriate levels).
Disagreeing with this:
> Or you could end up getting margin called
That's not how puts work. The premium you shelled out when you bought them is your maximum loss. You won't get margin called if you paid cash.
Unlike shorts the losses are limited, but you also have to time it correctly. Theta decay hurts.
Thanks for the clarification. Your post now sounds agreeable in that context.
Why do you have to come with facts to ruin his fan fiction porn about Burry getting margin called?
There's no way he gets margin called, these surely are puts, not pure stock shorting. This isn't some random guy.
No, but everybody here is some random guy, being tempted to mirror trades by the superhero investor they saw in that movie. And that movie depicts Burry trying to outlast the market in this sort of situation, resorting to quasi-fraudulent ideas like taking the phone off the hook; Those ideas are not available to us at all, because the online broker would just seize the account.
Investors can & do make mistakes.
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” ― John Maynard Keynes
Speaking of mistakes, that quote is from A. Gary Schilling rather than Keynes.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/09/remain-solvent/
yeah the article is clear they are puts
You are right about timing being key when buying put options but...
> Or you could end up getting margin called
Completely false
Buying puts is a short position and does not require any further maintenance costs
Yes, theta decay is a thing but stating you can get margin called or there is any level of maintenance required is completely wrong and shows a total lack of understanding of the very basics of options
Hence the famous warning: “the market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent ”
You can make a lot of money on options even if the price doesn't collapse completely. Options dramatically amplify movements of the underlying price. Even if the market swoons a little bit, he can cash out for a big profit, as long as it happens before his positions expire, even if it doesn't hit his strike price.
My two cents... He might think the bubble is about to burst; he might be hedging his downside risk after a serious rise in his overall portfolio, picking the two stocks he thinks are the most out of whack valuation-wise to execute that hedge (the premium for the puts would likely be a fraction of the paper gain he's sitting on so not the end of the world if they expire worthless); he might be hedging significant material gains in these exact two stocks; he might be doing it for some only-billionaires-get-it reason. I guess I'm just saying that the reason could be pretty detached from "I think the bubble is about to burst!"
how to do such betting ?
The equivalent of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" here is "If you have to ask, you shouldn't do it".
Overall for the common person I'd agree, but I assume we're all more or less hackers here and for us, I'd say "If you have to ask, ask and learn, then do it".
If everyone followed your advice no one would ever do anything, as we all begin somewhere, something that should OK.
Of course, don't do million dollar trades when you begin, but we shouldn't push back on people wanting to learn, feels very backwards compared to hacker ethos.
we shouldn't push back on people wanting to learn but we should really point out very loudly that not fully understanding something like shorting can turn a small investment someone was fully ok with losing into a life altering bankruptcy due to a margin call.
Leverage can be a fearful thing.
Yup, I agree, be clear what the consequences are if you fuckup, allow people to fuckup if they wish.
> "If you have to ask, ask and learn..."
Totally! But also keep in mind this :)
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1570:_Engineer_Sy...
How about, "If you think an explanation from HN will explain it all to you, you're being naive about the complexities and risks"?
thank you for being nice
To expand on the original reply to you - shorting companies, or engaging in almost any stock-based activity beyond “buy and hold,” typically entails much, much higher risk than just buying and selling stock. The most you can lose when buying a share is the purchase price, and that’s fairly unlikely, but when you start getting into even options/etc, you’re magnifying your risk - small swings in the market can lead to large and disproportionate losses, and when you get into shorting in particular you can lose far more than your initial investment. This is why you’re getting the reaction you’re getting - because the thing you’re asking about is sufficiently risky that if you're asking on Hacker News (and not, say, asking a professional), you don’t understand the risk profile well enough to do it “safely.”
That, and because snarky answers get more imaginary internet points than helpful ones.
> you don’t understand the risk profile well enough to do it “safely.”
Since when is this a problem? For gods sake, let people fuck up and harm themselves if they're stupid enough to take the risks, or not.
I think it's fine to say "Remember, this is risky because of A, B and C, but here's how to do it anyways..." but straight up "If you have to ask, you shouldn't" seems so backwards and almost mean, especially when we talk about money which is mostly "easy come, easy go". Let the fool be parted with their money if that's what they want :)
I mean, there’s risk and there’s risk. If someone comes in asking “how do I mod my phone/ebike/toaster”, sure, caveat commentor and all that. If someone comes in asking “how do I make dioxygen difluoride,” that’s a different category of risk. OP can do whatever they want, but I’m not in the habit of giving guns to people who don’t know what they are without making sure they know which risk category they’re in.
Get a brokerage account that allows CFD. Know what is a margin call. Greenhorns usually get wiped out.
Note: you pay overnight swap fees or similar for holding a position. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Not usually a good idea if you're not a skilled investor, but here's a place to start:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/sellingoptions.a...
Selling (writing) options is NOT how you bet against a company.
You either sell the stock short or buy puts.
I would simply correctly price the equities in the first place.
How is selling call options not betting against a company?
Dependant on strikes (assuming at the money, assuming naked short) you would still profit if it stayed the same, or went up a little in price. Selling options is also being short volatility, so the 'bet' is that less will happen than is expected and, in the case of selling calls, with a preference for happenings to be downward.
A downward move could also see volatility go up significantly and increase the value of the options you are short, especially longer dated options.
Technically writing calls is also taking the downside.
Technically, yes. But you have to own the stock first (‘cuz writing “naked calls” is not for the faint of heart). Easier and less complicated to just buy puts, especially if you’re looking up “money laundering” in the dictionary.
thanks!
is my understanding right?
I make a PUT option on a stock for a price. This price is usually lower than the current market price of the stock.
1.When I do that, the premium amount is to be paid by me when i make the PUT option or I get paid while making the PUT option.
2. Do I have to pay upfront money before hand, while making the PUT option?
3. Is there a deadline for my PUT option. For example, if it doesn't happen, what form of loss do I experience?
If you buy a PUT, you pay the premium. You'll lose that if your option expires out of the money.
If you sell a PUT, your exposure is much greater; you're the one who has to pay up if the option ends up in the money.
The deadline is the date of the option.
If you do lose money, it's a capital loss (tax benefit) and vice versa for capital gains.
You buy an option that has a particular cost, which gives you the right to sell stock at a specific price in the future (the "strike price"), within a certain time frame. Typically, these are denominated so that you contract to buy or sell 100 shares. In a "naked" put, you don't actually have the stock that you propose to sell. In the future, you plan to "exercise" the option by buying the stock at the market price. and then immediately sell it at the contracted price.
A put option represents a belief that the price will fall, which makes "right to sell the stock" valuable. Similarly, a call option represents a belief that the price will rise. Both can be bought and sold; you do not "make" them but rather trade in them, just as you would in stock. But the relationship between the stock price and the result from an option is not linear; selling a put and buying a call are both nominally "long" the stock, but are not equivalent.[0]
When you buy an option, you are always immediately out for the cost of the option itself (the "premium"). This is separate from the strike price. It's the market's assessment of how much your "right to sell later" is worth, in itself. By doing this, you are speculating that you can recover that money later, based on how the stock performs. (Depending on your strategy, this can involve buying or short-selling the "underlying" stock, as well as other options.)
So if you buy a put, you pay money (the premium) up front, and you potentially just lose that money completely. Sane options strategies take your entire portfolio into account, and use options to hedge the risk profile of the rest of the profile (rather than trying to use the rest of the profile to justify taking on risk using options).
----
Some details, and further exploration.
Options represent essentially zero-sum speculation on top of the actual price movement. For example, holding everything else constant, a call option increases in value as the price of the underlying increases (the right to buy stock at a fixed price becomes worth more, when the stock is worth more). When a company does well, everyone who holds the actual stock shares in the company's good fortune; but the profit of call holders comes at the expense of those who sold (or "wrote") those calls.
The option is priced according to market expectations of risk (how likely is it that the stock's price will fall below the chosen mark?), and according to duration (the longer you reserve the right to exercise the option, the more likely it is that you'll get a profitable opportunity; therefore, the more valuable and thus expensive the option is). For long-term options (especially now that interest rates are non-trivial) there's a second meaningful duration factor: buying an option comes with the opportunity cost of not holding cash (or treasury bonds) for that period, and that also has to be priced in.
"American" options give you the right to exercise at any point before the deadline; "European" options only allow you to exercise at the deadline. This is also priced in; having more flexibility is worth more.
If you have chosen well, the market price for the stock goes down by a lot. This allows you to profit when you exercise the option.
If you have chosen poorly, you never get the opportunity to profit. Your options "expire worthless"; an option to sell at a point that has already passed has no value. You have been left holding the bag.
In between, you might exercise in a way that recovers only part of the premium you paid.
Much riskier is to sell options against securities you don't hold. (You will likely be legally barred from attempting this at all, and even wealthy experienced traders will be required to hold some percentage of the security value that their options represent.) You are hoping that the option expires worthless, so that you simply claim its value uninhibited. If it doesn't, you may be "assigned" i.e. legally on the hook for someone else's exercise of the option. If you sold a put, you may be forced to pay an inflated price for a stock that crashed. If you sold a call, you may be forced to acquire stock in order to sell it at a discount in order to fulfill your option. The potential loss for selling a put typically far exceeds the maximum potential profit; the potential loss for selling a naked call is unlimited (as we suppose the stock's value can go to infinity).
But if your sale of a call is "covered", or your sale of a put is "cash secured", this means you fully own the security (underlying stock, or liquid assets respectively) corresponding to the option. The cash secured put still incurs the risk of wiping out your entire cash supply, much as if you'd simply bought 100 shares directly, and it puts a hard limit on your upside. But it lets you profit from the stock without actually holding it.
Given sensibly chosen strike prices, covered calls actually end up with a similar risk/benefit profile. As the stock goes to zero, all you end up with is the option premium, because you were holding the stock. If the stock does well, your net profit is limited to the option premium, because the profit from holding the stock cancels out the liability of the option. (Equivalently: you are required to sell the stock at the strike price, but you already have that stock; no matter how high the underlying stock value gets, you can only claim the strike price.)
[0]: Doing both gives risk exposure roughly equivalent to holding the stock, without actually buying it. This is called a "synthetic long". As you can imagine, that is effectively unlimited leverage in itself, and if you attempt it you will be required to hold a significant amount of cash to limit your leverage, and jump through a lot of regulatory hoops to prove both your competence and solvency. I didn't mention this at the start, because you need the details to understand it.
https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/stocks/how-to-s...
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/shorting-stocks-your-inve...
https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/active-investor/selling-...
Ask an LLM how to short specific stocks.
I did exactly this last Friday as an experiment and Claude Sonnet 4.5 recommended that I go long in an inverse ETF lol. When I told it that was terrible advice, it apologized and suggested buying puts.
Um, please do not suggest people ask that.
If you are having to ask an LLM how to do it, I strongly suggest NOT starting with shorting.
Ask about Put options, which is what Burry is doing here — not even Burry is shorting for this situation.
I'm no expert trader, but the potential losses for shorting are unlimited. You borrow X shares of a stock, and will have to repay your loan in that stock, whatever it costs. If the trade goes against you, you will get a margin call and will need to (re-)fill your account with whatever funds are necessary to pay that amount, or all your other holdings and that position will get sold automatically at whatever that loss amount is. Situations called a "Short Squeeze" arise not infrequently, and even though they are temporary, they can cause a stock price to skyrocket, specifically because so many people are shorting it, and everyone needs to buy to fill their short positions & margin calls. The fact that the price soon falls again helps you not one bit. Plus, the maximum profit is limited to the value of the short. E.g., you short the stock at $100/share, if the company goes bankrupt, you can repay the shares for $zero, making $100/share; but you could lose $1000/share if it goes up 10x.
In contrast, purchasing Put options, the right to sell the stock at a certain price, limits your loss to the cost of the Put options — if your idea turns out to be no good, it just fails and expires worthless.
Here's some MUCH better information:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/long_put.asp
Thanks. Too late to either edit or delete my own comment.
These are put options not shorts
if you're remotely serious about 'trying' this stuff out, do it in paper trades first. The options world is full of the corpses of dead portfolios.
> options world is full of the corpses of dead portfolios
Former options market maker here. Please don’t buy options as a retail investor. (Maybe write to generate income.)
Do you think they're overpriced? Or do you just not trust retail investors to understand the effective leverage, spread of outcomes etc.?
I'm told that covered-call ETFs generally underperform (in addition to being inefficient) and "generating income" is best accomplished by just selling shares as needed.
> Do you think they're overpriced?
Options are always overpriced. They're fundamentally an insurance product. You should expect to lose money when buying insurance. If you're hedging, you should expect to lose on your options leg. Same as with any insurance product.
Options are governed by tight mathematical relationships between each other and with their underlyings. These can be atomically arbitraged, i.e. you don't need someone else to believe your thesis to make money. As a retail investor, you are on the other side of a system designed to efficiently price and reprice options to ensure the dealer doesn't lose money.
> I'm told that covered-call ETFs generally underperform (in addition to being inefficient)
I haven't looked into covered-call ETFs, but my prior is strategy ETFs are bullshit even when the underlying strategy may not be.
> "generating income" is best accomplished by just selling shares as needed
Yes. (Or borrowing against them.)
... And how do you feel about selling CSPs, then?
> how do you feel about selling CSPs
It works as long as you understand you're selling the options below their expected value (EV). It's closer to EV than an option buyer, on average. But the price you get will always represent less reward for risk than my option pricers running on microwave-linked FPGAs a few feet from servers in New Jersey and Chicago can bid and offer.
If that works for you--if the benefits of income or whatever outweigh that theoretical cost--you can do it sensibly. If you're selling puts to enhance your returns, you're probably going to, at the very least, lose your accumulated gains at some point.
have enough money to pay the premiums
does this technique, in alternative words, mean, buying a company at a price in advance?
I mean, lets say I evaluate a company, and I know what its worth is. Then I put a bid.
TFA says "bought put options". One option (either PUT or CALL) is typically 100x the shares (but mini lots of 10x exists or at least did exist at some point).
So he bought (he's long on the PUTs) 10 000 PUTs on NVDA and 50 000 PUTs on PLTR. I don't know at which expiration dates nor at which strikes.
A PUT option can be either a bet (like in TFA) that an underlying shall go down below a certain price before a certain date of it can be an hedge when you own the stock, believe it could go up some more, but also want to be protected should it crash. Now of course hedging has a cost and it's not cheap: an option is an insurance. Even the terminology is the same: the buyer pays a premium and the seller (i.e. the one selling the insurance) collects that premium.
Now if you want to learn about full-on degenerate gambling, these last years there's been an explosion in "0DTE": options with zero day to expiration. Because they're 0DTE, there's very little "extrinsic" value in these. So it's a "cheap" way to get basically 100x leverage (either short or long).
Here's a small documentary of 5 minutes about 0DTEs:
https://youtu.be/5atTocDOTpY
I vouched for your post because the information is correct as far as I can discern. Perhaps others felt that you didn't warn strongly enough against engaging in such "full-on degenerate gambling"?
But the risk profile of options depends on more than date to expiration. Of course the strike prices matter, as well as the rest of your portfolio. The real "degenerate gamblers" are taking that leverage without compensating for it. But for example, holding something with 100x effective leverage can be balanced out by only putting 1% of your portfolio there and keeping the rest in cash. (This will generally be inefficient and there's a high chance you won't do as well as just holding the underlying.)
[dead]
Is now the right time for a short position with them? Yes they're overvalued, but the market still seems kinda frothy.
[flagged]
"Last year's lottery winner picks new numbers for this year. Copy them and you are sure to win as well."
Can you explain what this means?
A bet against Nvidia is smart. A bet against Palantir is not. Palantir has become deeply integrated into the surveillance states of America, and won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
But it has an unreasonable P/E ratio. The price is simply wrong.
It doesn't matter if it's the best firm ever and will get its dividends forever. You still calculate reasonably.
People say this kind of thing about Tesla as well, and Tesla has been stuck as a slightly-smaller-than-Mercedes-Benz sized firm for years and will stay like that forever, or even shrink relative to MB.
NVIDIA has a much more reasonable P/E ratio, even though it is of course very high.
Given that the market has moved so strongly away from dividends in favour of stock buybacks and other reinvestment (i.e. the successful companies are now much more often "growth" companies rather than "value" companies), and given e.g. Buffett's wisdom about total return, I don't know that traditional rules of thumb about P/E make sense any more.
In the end the value is just discounted dividends or there's an arbitrage opportunity under the risk neutral measure.
This isn't a matter of rules of thumb. This is what's required to have prices that do not create an arbitrage opportunity.
Welll....
I'm old enough to remember it being impossible to imagine a world without the USSR in it.
Putin still can't imagine it.
Palantir is trading at 80x revenue (NTM), whereas Nvidia is only trading at 19x revenue (NTM).
Both companies are growing revenue at a similar rate (~50% YoY), and Nvidia has a higher net margin, however Palantir's share price is up 717% over 18 months, whereas Nvidia is only up 124%.
It's hard to argue Palantir's valuation reflects its fundamentals, even if you believe Palantir will be benefit from lucrative government contracts for years to come.
Buying companies at 80x revenue has not historically been a great way to make money, unless they're growing revenue at several hundred percent per year.
Does that mean it should trade at a 600 P/E?
Does Michael Burry actually have $1.1B liquid?
That margin call could obliterate him.
Also, this is not an argument in favor of Nvidia or Palantir.
Putting aside that he's using puts (which caps the downside), with a classical short sell you don't need the current value of the stock liquid, but typically some percentage. That represents how much the stock can go up before you get the margin call. A short position is fundamentally unlike a long one, in that the future price movement of the underlying is bounded below at $0 but not bounded above.
The sources I can readily find put Burry's current net worth in the neighbourhood of $300 million. Depending on the regulations, he probably actually could put his entire life savings into a short of this magnitude. Of course, that's sort of like having your entire 401(k) in a -4x levered ETF, even worse because it's on individual stocks.
The filing doesn't appear to disclose strike prices or expiration dates. But my guess is that he loaded up on very cheap puts (low strike price) to hedge against the apocalypse (low probability of winning big to cover losses from everything else; high probability of just paying some insurance money). The same form shows bullish positions in other sectors — health care, finance and energy, as well as some corporate bonds. Given what the portfolio in the filing looks like overall, it's hard for me to imagine him being willing to risk more than a few million on this.
Thanks, man.
It was nice to read a thoughtful reply for a change, lol.
Read the article. He used options, which can't be margin called because they're already paid in full.
That’s why he did options instead of directly shorting the stock. You’re betting against them but with a capped downside effectively.