

The fact that he was even able to make that bet is incredible. How deluded do you have to be to think the AI bubble won’t burst?
Nobody believes the AI investment/growth trajectory we have right now will continue for infinity. What nobody knows is: when the correction will occur.
- Do you pull your investments out now and sit on the sidelines waiting for the fallout while your principal loses value daily from inflation?
- What does the correction look like when it happens? Does all the value evaporate on day 1, the first week, a month? This is important to figure out for this strategy to know when to go back in.
This is the info/decisions you’d need as an average investor. What Burry is doing is the riskiest type of investments with shorting the market. If growth continue to occur he and his fund will have to pay for the growth to those whose shares he borrowed to short.
In summary, its not enough to know that a bubble exists, but to profit from it you have to figure out when it will burst and when the full burst is done.










I’m not sure you understand what this article is or how our markets work.
He doesn’t have a billion dollars. He’s a hedge fund manager that manages (at least) a billion dollars collectively of other people’s investment money. Its that money he’s betting.
No, he’s not. He’s betting against only two companies: Nvidia and Palantir. He has a relatively small bet against Nvidia ($187.6 million), and HUGE bet against Palantir ($912 million). I’m not sure I’d bet against Nvidia yet, but Palantir is co-founded by Peter Theil, trump’s deputy chief of staff which job has a large influence on White House policy. If you ever watched the TV show The West Wing, this would be the Josh Lyman character’s job.
We already know trump’s favor swings widely and if politics are going against trump (as recent news show) then its not unbelievable that Theil might get the boot or at least trump would punish Theil by killing lucrative government contracts to buy Palantir services.
The point of shorting a stock exists so that the market can express a view that they believe a stock will fail. This is an important “canary in the coal mine” for the rest of the market. The other option is a policy that you can’t criticize a company with any meaning and investors continue to put money into failing/risky companies without this important indication of the risk.
Frankly I don’t like your idea of jailing someone that says “The emperor has no clothes”.