Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

NASDAQ

Nvidia CORP

NVDA

251 stories

$4.6T Market cap · 2026-11-06

Get NVDA news in Claude, ChatGPT or your own code. See plans

@gnoble79

George Noble on X

From my friend Mr. X: As Anthropic apparently starts their road show, which I would call “We Work Part Deux.” Remember, as I said before, We Work cut their valuation 3x, still couldn’t get it done, and then eventually ended up bankrupt. And in my view, We Work and Adam Neumann had better governance and were a better deal, for a variety of reasons. And that was before everything started coming undone and prior to policy heading in the wrong direction and prior to the head of the central bank of NVDA, who is also financing them, was caught canoodling with a Chinese spy. This is why it does not work. This is not .COM or railroads. The $ are being spend on an incredibly dis-economic technology that will decay as opposed to sticking around. This is rapidly depreciating immature broken software and compute that is the equivalent of UNIX, SPARC, and VAX or a Mainframe. Then, the more they are spending, the less they are getting. It is sort of like the impact of every incremental dollar of debt on GDP, very diminishing marginal returns. There is no scaling. If the underlying technology does the opposite of scaling, the business cannot scale. Said simply, cost per unit is going way up (Anthropic’s S-1 tells you this too), revenue per unit is plummeting. See this tweet and subtweet: [] More on Jensen the China lobbyist: [] ICYMI re my last: $NVDA @JG_Nuke @DougKass @edzitron @MacrostrategyP @GaryMarcus
@ACapitalLP

A Capital on X

There’s really no difference between an industry-focused pod analyst betting on $NVDA earnings and a college kid betting on the Michigan State game on Kalshi… If anything, Kalshi is more intellectually honest. You know exactly what you’re betting on, what the odds are, and what you stand to win or lose. In the institutional investment world, you just have to dress up the same probabilistic wager with a 40-page deck, an elaborate earnings model, and a sufficiently sophisticated-sounding variant perception… One is called gambling. The other is called fundamental research.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

If someone asked me 10 years ago what I'd be doing in the future, Answering questions on Jensen + Spys banging each other and implications on the AI trade would not be in mind My response to that question is: how am i supposed to know? On AI trade implications: $NVDA probably wanted to sell more chips anyway (to China) for revenue and it's extremely unlikely this person had any effect on trade policies. The relationship might not even be true... anyway I'll wait until more news comes out.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

A $TSM Spokesperson has reportedly denied exploring 3D DRAM per Tom's Hardware. After a report yesterday from The Information stated TSMC's production plans were from $NVDA's request. The implications would have put TSMC in competition with $MU, SK Hynix, and Samsung and set off narratives about TSm disrupting the biggest memory makers. There's something frustrating with there's market moving headlines both ways. It just creates more confusion and volatility... Especially if something (like $NVDA CEO honeypot allegations) or the TSM report yesterday turns out untrue.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

A $TSM Spokesperson has reportedly denied exploring 3D DRAM per Tom's Hardware. After a report yesterday from The Information stated TSMC's production plans were from $NVDA's request. The implications would have put TSMC in competition with $MU, SK Hynix, and Samsung and set off narratives about TSm disrupting the biggest memory makers. There's something frustrating with there's market moving headlines both ways. It just creates more confusion and volatility... Especially if something (like $NVDA CEO honeypot allegations) or the TSM report yesterday turns out untrue.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

I'm going to give a contrarian take on Neoclouds like $NBIS and say the theme looks compelling after the valuation crash. Since there's a reason why Elon's $SPCX is heavily focused on this market full of "guppies" that would die: He sees how attractive the economics are after selling compute to $GOOGL and Anthropic. And this is reflected by his actions not words, from SpaceX's recent $40B financing for GPUs procurement. $AMZN, $MSFT, and even $META also see how profitable the economics are and are accelerating their AI DC buildouts. I'd argue if a Neocloud has: - Close relationships with $NVDA + others for allocations - Existing contracted capacity + permitting - Well funded counterparties, such as Hyperscalers. - Attractive economics, such as financing their procurement correctly (not the way $CRWV has with high debt interest unless they refinance). Then I think they'll do just fine... However, the bigger worry is more toward newer players starting financing or the permitting process, since barrier to entry has now become extremely high. For financing, read through on $IREN earnings has shown public Neoclouds can adapt extremely well to tight markets: As seen with their 90% prepayments for GPU capex on a 5Y deal. Their older H100 GPUs recontracted at double their previous pricing and 12% higher contracted pricing also point against depreciation fears. And in the case DC buildouts slow from permitting delays... it heavily favors some over others. Rosenblatt's recent note for example stated they see little risk with $NBIS primary buildout that was in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. And there's probably less risk with developers in places like Australia. Markets have also show this infinite compute arbitrage can't go on forever, hence the reluctance to further finance capex, via things like ATMs. But ironically, tighter financing and hypothetical restrictive permitting would increase the competitive advantage of established neoclouds. And create a larger moat against newer DC developers.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

I found the technical discussion helpful, but investor messaging to be way too conservative. If you look at how $NVDA CEO describes CPO, Jensen states scale up is increasing optical volumes by 15x. $LITE and $COHR are quantifying that by describing $5-$20B agreements spanning 3-5 years out. Having this question, and not talking about Ayar, O-Net, Poet, or ELS partnerships. Then redirecting the question to near term pluggables seems off. The vision also needs work, “communications and sensing” semi company is very unexciting. It’s technically true, but there’s no vision being communicated on being the next $40B optical giant or what Sivers is going to be in the next 5 years that would attract long term holders. The core valuation Sivers gets is from optical opportunities, I also personally disagree that it’s helpful to loop back to former cellular relationships when talking about future $GFS volumes I disagree when you portray the company as “small” when Sivers 100m CW DFB capacity is coming online, alongside large foundry partners. Which is a material % of the world’s annual laser capacity. Investors want to hear about future economic opportunities and how you fill the gap with more qualifications during a bottleneck. Sivers has a tremendous opportunity for CPO/NPO/Pluggables but I’m afraid it’s not being communicated properly. It’s understandable here since EETimes is more technical oriented, but I hope this messaging gets communicated better in the next earnings call.
@convequity

Convequity on X

Marvell buying Lumentum is easier to understand strategically than financially. Four days after $MRVL announced its all-stock acquisition of $LITE, I understand why both sides want it. I remain unconvinced by the shareholder economics at the announced $115bn enterprise value. Smart bulls long $LITE after mid-2026 for its UHP CW story, but we don't. Lumentum's ultra-high-power laser advantage depends on the optical architecture customers choose. Moving the light source closer to the optical engine can reduce losses and change the power required. Today's component bottleneck may become less valuable as the system design changes. External lasers still offer cooling and replacement advantages. Broadcom $AVGO uses them too; its strength is coordinating switch silicon, optical engines and packaging. Huawei's Hi-ONE takes a different route with a built-in light source. Both reinforce the importance of controlling the broader design. That helps explain Marvell's motivation. In AI clusters, weaker networking can leave expensive accelerators idle. A cheaper networking component may never compensate for the lost compute. Buying Lumentum gives Marvell more control over the optical technology it needs to compete. But shareholders have to fund that integration. Marvell holders exchange roughly one-third of the combined company for Lumentum. Lumentum holders receive a fixed number of Marvell shares, leaving them exposed to Marvell's share price and the combined company's execution. We have always being negative on $MRVL vs. $AVGO. Always a tier 2 mgt in both vision and execution. The expected first-half-2028 close is a nightmare for a catch-up strategy. Both companies can keep developing products, but the benefits of combined ownership remain deferred. Broadcom and Huawei have time to advance their designs and deepen customer deployments. By closing, the competitive gap could be wider. I would assign no value to an NVIDIA $NVDA rescue. NVIDIA already has investments and partnerships with both companies. It can access their technology without acquiring the business; a takeover would still depend on price and regulatory clearance. The strategic rationale is understandable. The shareholder case needs customer wins and earnings that justify the ownership exchanged, integration costs and time lost. I remain skeptical.

Investor Letters

Letters that discuss NVDA.

Every letter that discusses NVDA

Tickers on this page

Companies the stories above are also about, besides NVDA.