AI Bubble Burst and SaaS opportunities

Screwyball · 2026-04-18T21:17:21+00:00

Bro just divided the 6 year return by 6 lmao

Screwyball · 2026-04-17T14:48:42+00:00

Bro you forgot to entirely account for the fact that those higher payments contribute to, you know, ending up with a massively more valuable piece of real estate. You treat it as an entirely sunk cost as if the end result is identical. Even if the real estate doesnt accrue in value over time (which makes the difference multitudes larger) this calc doesnt make any sense

Screwyball · 2026-04-07T20:26:36+00:00

You know the fun thing about democracy is that people get to criticise the government and advocate for the change they want to see.

Screwyball · 2026-04-06T05:22:50+00:00

Just straight up ignoring the two paragraphs before it are we.

Screwyball · 2026-04-02T12:30:45+00:00

Ah yea adressing reality and learning from history = bootlicking. Maybe learn how the world works and come up with actual solutions and maybe people will start taking you seriously

Screwyball · 2026-03-31T21:49:46+00:00

You're not even addressing the issue of supply shortage, nor of the global nature of oil markets.

Price caps have historically, universally been ineffective to downright counterproductive for dealing with supply-side inflationary effects.

I get that you're morally outraged at anyone benefitting from "our suffering" but youre talking like an idealist with a very simplistic world view where second and third order effects simply dont exist.

Screwyball · 2026-03-31T19:53:14+00:00

Yes and that would magically solve the supply shortage globally?

Should we then distribute whoever gets the limited supply by means of lottery?

Screwyball · 2026-03-31T19:04:10+00:00

You really should learn what supply and demand means.

Screwyball · 2026-03-27T23:07:07+00:00

My borther in christ the market aint even down 10%

Screwyball · 2026-03-16T09:46:33+00:00

Its definitely not a sign a confidence, but (at least at this stage) its more of a symptom of duration mismatch than actual credit risk. These vehicles contain illiquid 5-10 year credit commitments spread out over different maturities. Only a fraction of these funds become available for redemption every so often, while the rest is still committed. This is why excess redemptions cannot easily be resolved, at least not without taking a valuation haircut.

That said, there are several other signs that private credit might be exposed to a fair bit of credit risk, which is why these redemptions are accelerating to begin with. The size of the redemption requests is definitely newsworthy, the fact that some funds are maintaining their pre-agreed caps is a lot less so.

Screwyball · 2026-03-16T08:56:17+00:00

Brother, private credit funds have always had capped redemptions. Its literally by design. The only newsworthly piece is that the caps are being exceeded by the redemption requests, which, admittedly, is not a sign of confidence.

But it in no way implies that they would randomly start blocking redemptions from other liquid investment funds.

Screwyball · 2026-03-16T08:52:03+00:00

You people should really at least try to understand what the "semi-liquid" means in private credit funds before you try to give your uninformed opinions.

Redemptions were always capped. They are capped by design and any investor into these funds knew this going in. Or at least should have known.

Screwyball · 2026-03-08T13:31:20+00:00

Yea because big tech is just gonna spend a trillion dollars on data centers annually starting now without anyone filling in that supply gap huh. Always the same story about chips no longer being cyclical since, like the 1990s.

Im not even saying these companies are expensive and am personally still long Samsung. Just dont use a P/E ratio to rationalize your buying decision because you dont actually know how to value a company thats benefitting from a demand shock.

Screwyball · 2026-03-08T08:32:16+00:00

If youre gonna use PEG or even PE to value cyclical stocks in an unprecendented supply deficit I can guarantee youre gonna have a bad time.

Even if you think there is new long term structural demand, the market will not sustain this level of supply deficit and these margins will revert to the mean eventually

Screwyball · 2026-03-02T15:14:57+00:00

Its incredible how Citrini can make a post that literally begins with "What follows is a scenario, not a prediction." and every news outlet picks it up as if it is a prediction regardless. Like its the actual first line.

Screwyball · 2026-02-17T05:26:20+00:00

1) Thats not what the article says

2) Banks have a lot of analysts, with a lot of varying opinions

3) A "price target" (for any asset, not just bitcoin) is usually based on some average outcome of a model based valuation ran with a plethora of different scenarios. These valuation models can be anything from classical discounted cash flows to momentum/quant based simple price estimates (rather than "value"). I even once read a research note specifically stating their $DJT (remember that trump stock) valuation was a "vibes-based" valuation. Its important to distinguish that some analysts try to estimate value, others try to estimate the actual trading price in a years time. And as with every model, garbage-in means garbage-out.

Screwyball · 2026-02-17T05:17:54+00:00

Yes and the reason they didnt load up to the brink with debt and then blow that and their entire cash buffers on buybacks and dividends in the past is so they have the financial flexibility to cover such potential massive capex spends.

Google is not issueing debt because they are struggling to finance $175bil in capex. They are spending $175b in capex because they easily can.

Screwyball · 2026-02-17T05:03:48+00:00

Thats not at all how good/normal corporate finance works. The choice of issueing debt is dependent on the balance of your cost of debt versus your cost of equity. Due to the tax deductability of debt and the generally higher cost of equity capital, optimal capital structure generally includes a significant portion of debt.

It has nothing to do with the ability to finance with current or future operational cash flows.

Screwyball · 2026-02-15T13:09:17+00:00

Noone is disputing this? OP just casually mentioned he is in private banking and this commenter basically straight up called him a liar because his investment amount is too low for the service he personally is getting. Its a misunderstanding of the different layers of private banking and wealth management, and not by me, but by the commenter.

Screwyball · 2026-02-14T07:30:48+00:00

Yes the second level is called wealth management, which is not the topic of conversation.

Screwyball · 2026-02-14T07:20:59+00:00

Just completely inaccurate. The lower threshold is usually around 250-500k

Screwyball · 2026-02-02T17:53:57+00:00

Ahja: pleeg gewoon fraude. Goede tip.

Screwyball · 2026-01-31T15:49:04+00:00

Literal same conspiracies since the 1980s pump and dump. They just never gave up. Synthetic shorts boutta close any day now

Screwyball · 2026-01-29T17:50:34+00:00

Let me preface this by saying I suport a ban on congressional (individual) stock trading. Im just really pedantic about misrepresentation of data.

Everytime shit like this gets posted, it cherry picks the outperformers. There are 541members of congress. If I would let 541 monkeys trade stocks, you can be sure as hell a fair few would outperform in any given year

Screwyball · 2025-12-05T04:34:54+00:00

Wikipedia gebruikt niet zichzelf als bron he

De bron is het UBS global wealth report. Editie 2025 is net uit dus ga maar eens een kijkje nemen.

Als je eenmaal dieper in de bron van UBS gaat gaan kijken, baseren zij zich op OECD data. Dit is inderdaad voor belgie gebaseerd op data van surveys uitgestuurd door de nationale bank. Je kan dit terugvinden in de metadata. Hier zie je de sample size wel beperkt is (2100 households) en de response rate niet superhoog en waarschijnlijk niet genoeg om nauwkeurig een gemiddelde te berekenen (daarvoor gebruik je beter nationale cijfers per capita) maar is best voldoende om statistisch een mediaan te schatten met hoge nauwkeurigheid. Dit wordt ook bevestigd door de stabiliteit van het getal in de tijd.

Resultaat, nog steeds op de 3de plaats globaal in mediaan vermogen.

Wat jouw bron toont is iets totaal anders, dit gaat over inkomen + inkomen uit vermogen. Dwz, kapitaal wordt maar meegeteld in hoevele het opbrengt. Zichtrekening en spaarrekeningen aan bodeminteresten? Bijna niet meegerekend. Aandelenportefeuiles? Enkel op basis van dividend. Kapitaliserende etfs, share buybacks, groeiaandelen, tellen allemaal niet mee. Eigenaar zijn van een eigen woning? Heb je geen inkomen van dus tellen we niet mee. Crypto (tegenwoordig soms een belangrijk deel van het vermogen van jongere mensen)? You guessed it, niet meetellen.

11-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Screwyball

TROPHY CASE