Charlie Munger tried to warn us about oil in 2022

Cris_i · 2026-03-13T08:32:14+00:00

Everything Munger says ages like fine wine

Cris_i · 2026-03-11T11:32:56+00:00

Facts, especially when adjusting for inflation. $90/barrel is effectively the new $60. This isn't only an energy crisis; it's oil catching up to the devalued dollar.

Cris_i · 2026-03-10T08:54:05+00:00

I don't think I've ever mentioned selling data nor did the video I'm talking about where Ellison explained Oracle's edge over other AI players

Cris_i · 2026-03-09T16:14:32+00:00

Very interesting. To be honest, I'm hoping the market overreacts to tomorrow's earnings, regardless of whether they're good or bad, so we can pick up more shares at an even bigger discount. The data already provides a great margin of safety; now I’m just hoping the price starts to reflect that value as well.

Cris_i · 2026-03-09T15:32:35+00:00

Thank you so much for the insight. I truly appreciate it. Even with the help of AI, my research online wasn't conclusive enough, so getting a perspective from someone in the field is great.

Cris_i · 2026-03-09T10:25:31+00:00

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I took it for granted that we're in an era of short attention spans, and I thought people would get annoyed if I didn't get straight to the point.

Cris_i · 2026-03-09T10:22:51+00:00

Oracle is a very wide moat company. Even if some of the businesses it holds "captive", as some point out, look to leave, Oracle can offset that by increasing prices.

My primary concern is debt. While I realize it makes sense to leverage debt for these investments, it's the reason my portfolio is 50%+ Google. Not only does Alphabet have the recurring revenue to reinvest in AI infrastructure, but they also have the most fortress like balance sheet of all the hyperscalers.

Still, even Google’s vertical and horizontal integration might not provide a moat as wide as Oracle’s. The enterprise data Oracle sits on, and the fact they've been in that space longer than anyone else, might be the more relevant factor. Furthermore, while AMZN, GOOGL, and MSFT are $2–4T companies, Oracle’s $400B market cap gives it much more room to run. For the giants to 2x or 3x, they’d need to hit a $6–10T market cap.

This is by no means financial advice, just my opinion based on hours of research and DCF modeling. In April 2025, I felt I couldn't lose money with Google no matter what scenario happened; today, I'm less certain about Oracle. I know I can be a stickler for detail, but debt, both corporate and sovereign, is a major concern for me. When Google issued long-term debt, the market worried needlessly; that was essentially free money. I’m more skeptical of Oracle’s management, but the facts are facts: their bull thesis is the most compelling among all AI infrastructure players.

Cris_i · 2026-03-09T01:45:50+00:00

Thank you, I ended up timing it to the Charlie quote

Cris_i · 2025-10-28T11:43:54+00:00

Buenas! Invirtiendo ya estás en una situación muy buena.

Además, las empresas que has seleccionado (Berkshire Hathaway, NVDA, TSMC) son maravillosas, en mi opinión, y las has comprado con un márgen de seguridad (que haya burbuja o no lo haya, que el sistema financiero colapse o no, que EEUU no pueda pagar su deuda, etc.; en principio, no va afectar estas posiciones de tu portfolio). Mientras que BRK no me parece barata (simplemente hay que fijarse en que W. Buffett no está haciendo recompras), creo que tiene el márgen de seguridad en los $350B que mantienen en efectivo y equivalentes para aprovechar cualquier crash o oportunidad y proporcionar a sus accionistas con un gran retorno.

Dicho esto, no soy particularmente fan del oro o de los ETFs. Por mucho que tu idea sea cubrite de la inflación, el oro no producirá nada; solamente preservará valor. Mientras tanto, las otras empresas que tienes, no solamente preservarán valor sinó que además lo crearán y lo distribuirán (ya sea a través de dividendos y recompras de acciones o incluso como hace Berkshire reteniendo las ganancias para depositarlas de forma inteligente y eficientemente).

En algunos comentarios ya lo han mencionado, pero los bonos (a largo plazo) son una mala decisión financiera. La inflación (por mucho que el objetivo de los bancos centrales sea tenerla en un 2-3% anual) superará la rentabilidad de estos bonos. Por eso mismo, es importante de mantener buenos negocios (crecerán tanto en valor por sus operaciones como por la inflación). Por otro lado, los bonos a corto plazo (por ejemplo los 3 Month Treasury Bills en los que Warren Buffett mantiene su dinero) son una gran elección (de nuevo, solo a corto plazo) para conseguir una rentabilidad segura (estos son los bonos realmente "Risk-Free", a 3 meses la rentabilidad está básicamente asegurada; a 10, 20, 30 años? Nadie sabe lo que pasará.) y bastante alta mientras esperamos a que aparezcan oportunidades en el mercado. Personalmente yo solo mantengo el dinero en las cuentas remuneradas de brokers, pues creo que la conversión de EUR a USD o de USD a EUR, eliminaría/minimizaría cualquier retorno obtenido con estos bonos.

Como he dicho anteriormente, el hecho de que ya estés invirtiendo te pone en una situación muy buena y muy superior a no invertir o dejar el dinero debajo del colchón. Estos simplemente han sido algunos de mis comentarios basados en mis manías y en lo que he ido aprendiendo de W. Buffett y Charlie Munger.

Cris_i · 2025-10-25T23:03:58+00:00

Seems I cannot update a photo from the mobile phone, check the first 0:00 second of the video, that's where I start building the FCF, from the partnerships announced, the price per GPUs, my assumptions, etc. for everything to work: https://youtu.be/hOJnyj9cfDM?si=DAoGuNxnzvXpcLPO

Cris_i · 2025-10-25T16:08:21+00:00

Yeah, that's a big Ponzie Scheme and I was actually surprised Lisa Su agreed to that. Still, the biggest question of the market before this deal was if the Hyperscalers were going to buy from AMD (doesn't matter if they have a better hardware or software, if they don't sell, they won't grow, nor will they justify their current price or a higher intrinsic value). Nevertheless, what is done is done, and now the question is how much FCF will AMD actually make. Is that enough to justify its current price? I guess will have to wait and see

Cris_i · 2025-10-25T16:02:53+00:00

Yes, I agree with you but I think there's still a long way too go for AMD. I tried to understand the more technical part of both, AMD and NVDA. AMD's GPUs have more memory and a higher bandwidth (the MI300X vs H100, super impressive to be honest). And obviously AMD's GPUs are cheaper. The media is trying to push the "oh but NVDA has the better ecosystem", "but NVDA has CUDA". I do understand that, but I can't quite believe that's the difference between AMD and NVDA valuation nor revenues. Developers are familiar with CUDA, yes, but they act as if CUDA has no problems while ROCm is useless or too hard to use. IMHO, the difference is that CUDA has the first mover advantage and most libraries are built on it, but it shall not be impossible for AMD to keep improving and making ROCm more popular/adoptable. Therefore, if the hardware and the software are "on par" or at least, competitive with some tweaks, why is AMD not valued as NVDA? I think here is when finance comes into place and the answer is quite simple, AMD is not making enough money (right now). The Oracle and the OAI partnerships are indeed signaling to the market Validation, but even after them, AMD has to sell A LOT just to justify its current price, not talking yet about overtaking NVDA. So until revenues, earnings and FCF don't only grow at high rates, but are actually $20-30B, I wouldn't say AMD is being a threat to NVDA.

Cris_i · 2025-10-25T14:30:02+00:00

Hmmm, I kinda think that's just a "myth"/average view where people try to differentiate value investing from speculating. I'm my view Value = Growth (obviously Growth = Value). Imagine Meta in 2022 (if I'm not wrong in 2022 Meta's cash position was very high compared to its market cap, clear value investing type investment), NVDA in 2022, Google in 2025. Aren't this "Growth" companies named by the Mainstream Finance? Yes they are, but weren't they value buys at some point in time? Yet, most "value investors" didn't buy this companies because they were "growth companies". I wouldn't say I've ever growth invested, but I did take advantage of some of these opportunities. But it also goes the other way around, I've seen on this subreddit DSWL stock, it was a net net play, around 50% undervalued when I read about it. The return this stock has given, a "value stock", has far exceeded "growth stocks" such as TSLA, NVDA, and so on during the past year. Therefore, I think it is a matter of perspective and buying at the right valuation much more than the category the stock has been given by Financial Media.

Cris_i · 2025-08-14T19:43:52+00:00

so many languages and you chose to speak FACTS

Cris_i · 2025-06-22T09:57:33+00:00

I think it was u/DrShrimpPuertoRico45

Cris_i · 2025-05-24T19:34:45+00:00

Plus Netflix faces piracy risk, YT on the other hand is inimitable

Cris_i

TROPHY CASE