ArminvanBuyout

NVDA being the latest example, TSLA being a pre-COVID example

Interesting read on US outperformance https://www.bridgewater.com/_document/us-exceptionalism-drivers-of-equity-outperformance-and-whats-needed-for-a-repeat?id=00000192-48f2-d1cc-ab9b-fbf6d9e30001

Buying some building products to add to my basket

Neg in a rate cut environment

Isn't a large part of ABNB earnings from interesting income?

Which in turns drivers higher ROIC, which coupled with declining rates, just means average SPY company probably on net is creating more value. Shift towards tech post-GFC (which have better incremental ROIC vs. banks/cyclicals, etc.) further cements multiple expansion

Almost feels like momentum traders piled into the stock mid-Aug anticipating earnings smash, and when it didn't, are just exiting now.

There's the whole topic of yen carry trade deleverage. People borrowed yen for US assets, and now that yen has strengthened from 162 to 149, there is degrossing happening

Imagine trying to raise when Debt to GDP is 250%...

Agreed - near-term is a bit iffy because volumes will probably miss (they've been talking down volumes to the Street on weather and poor housing data), but over the MT / LT is a solid winner. They've also focused more on pricing through this cycle, which means that incremental margins likely better than before

Saw somewhere that ~40% of S&P return YTD came from NVDA

I think BLDR looks cheap if you assume we're at near-trough earnings right now, and it's likely trading at high-single digit normalized/mid-cycle EPS. And if you believe that we still have structural underbuilt housing, then the cycle will last much longer than prior ones, and the entry is solid. Obviously not as cheap as it was in October - stock has ripped a lot, so makes sense for such a large drop, but nonetheless, it's still cheap if you have a multi-year view

Added to BLDR

I saw recently that US firms have been increasing market share internationally - one reason for why earnings growth has outpaced GDP growth. The other reason is that if you believe technology drives winner takes most/all dynamics, then the larger companies (who are generally winners) should disproportionate amount of market share from private companies, resulting in public companies representing larger % of the GDP pie

It seems like the largest increase in fiscal spending recently is interest expense, which then flows back into the economy. So in a way, isn't this a bit circular, where keeping rates high continues to drive fiscal spending, which continues to prop up economy (i.e. stimulative to the point of the comment a page or two ago). Would there be a scenario where the geniuses at the Fed see that, and will cut to "reduce" the fiscal impact?