104 pointsby armcatan hour ago12 comments
  • mrinterweb27 minutes ago
    As uncomfortable as this may be for the tech industry, I have been hoping for AI related stock prices to come back to reality. A market correction is a healthy thing so long as it doesn't turn into a collapse. IMO, some AI companies have ludicrous valuations considering their astronomical debt. A reality check may be healthy long term.
    • qphe955 minutes ago
      Yeah I'm not sure how Anthropic is going to IPO at this rate...
      • FLeXMurphy2 minutes ago
        With more visits to the Vatican.
    • rchaud11 minutes ago
      Debt to Equity ratio thresholds are a common metric for lenders to call in loans.
    • timacles12 minutes ago
      a reality check for a crazy person can result in a mental breakdown
    • 0c3ca83a minute ago
      A collapse would be nice too.
  • sailfast3 minutes ago
    [delayed]
  • Kevin_Flynnan hour ago
    Election euphoria and hangovers,

    Sobriety the following day,

    $8,000 for a video card,

    Empty boxes on Christmas day.

    Can't even rhyme without AI anymore.

    • ddellacostaan hour ago
      Texas: so much spent

      Wind blows over clear acres

      Buildouts are now dead?

      • Kevin_Flynnan hour ago
        Nvidia got my money,

        Micron a little as well,

        AI corps with their hands out ?

        they can go to hell. :}

        • karim79an hour ago
          Got me a 3090

          Cost me 3090

          Dunno why I did dis

          Guess let's try and see

          • ksimukka21 minutes ago
            GPUs are getting dearer,

            The models still hallucinate,

            I asked AI to write this poem,

            Now I have to validate.

          • jquery3 minutes ago
            My 3090s I bought at launch would sell for more than I paid.
          • gavmor17 minutes ago
            rakim?
          • 20 minutes ago
            undefined
    • Vvector14 minutes ago
      [flagged]
  • bearjawsan hour ago
    Cloudflare is a steal at $240 IMO.

    Regardless of what happens to the AI models, you will still need protection a decade from now.

    Not to mention the most comprehensive platform to use with AI, they will inevitably eat Lovable / Repl's lunch.

    • JumpCrisscrossan hour ago
      It looks like Cloudflare generates $633mm operating cash flow a year, up 5% for TTM from 2025 [1]. I’m surprised that’s supporting a $95bn market cap.

      [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NET/cash-flow/

      • hnav38 minutes ago
        now that they have most of the internet corralled I don't see why they won't start charging for bandwidth
        • tmpz2229 minutes ago
          IT Sovereignty is likely to be a growing trend after the past few years - including issues of Election interference not just by governments but by individual Tech CEOs. I think a lot of particularly Europeans have realized that putting all your eggs in American jurisprudence might -not- be the best way to go.

          Cloudflare has a moat but it already smells like sewage.

      • cj40 minutes ago
        How does that compare to other tech companies?

        As an example, Palantir has a similar cash flow / market cap ratio. I didn't check many others.

      • 26 minutes ago
        undefined
    • vlucasan hour ago
      Cloudflare is not competing with app builders like Lovable or Repl though. They are the underlying infrastructure for companies like that. This is why they will win in the AI era.

      Lovable is hosted on Cloudflare: https://x.com/CloudflareDev/status/2113651157721600492

      • estearuman hour ago
        They're saying that it's trivial for Cloudflare to go up the stack (build Replit) while it's non-trivial for Replit to go down the stack (build Cloudflare).
        • vlucas10 minutes ago
          It's not trivial to change your entire business.

          Cloudflare is B2B focusing on enterprise sales and underlying cloud infrastructure. These app builder companies are basically B2C and lower end B2B.

        • dingaling911an hour ago
          It's trivial for those providing internet links to go up the stack and cloud data centers but they typically don't.

          Staying in your lane is often a better choice.

          Maybe expanding through acquisition is the best of both worlds. So replit might be bought.

          • estearum44 minutes ago
            I'm not expressing an opinion on whether they should or shouldn't.
        • sillysaurusxan hour ago
          Why would either of them do either of those? They seem to be different businesses.

          Network effects make it harder for Cloudflare to build Replit than it might seem, too.

          • estearum42 minutes ago
            What network effects?

            And the reason for Cloudflare to do it is because there are several (apparently) very juicy businesses to be built by slapping a chat UI and off the shelf coding agent on top of Cloudflare infra... Not saying they should do this, but the rationale is pretty self-evident.

            The reason for Replit to try going down the stack is platform risk and compressing margins from competitors who also have the brilliant idea of slapping a text box and off the shelf coding agents onto Cloudflare.

      • chpatrick23 minutes ago
        Lovable is one ChatGPT/Claude update away from extinction, IMO.
      • ndiddy15 minutes ago
        During the dot-com boom, Cisco was the underlying infrastructure of the Internet. A lot of investors that believed themselves to be savvy bought Cisco stock. Their reasoning was that individual dot-com startups may go under, but the Internet itself was here to stay. In practice, the Cisco stock price peaked in March 2000, and anyone who invested at the peak would not have broken even (in nominal dollars, not real dollars) until December 2025.

        The investors were right that the Internet would be important, and that Cisco would continue to be an important manufacturer of networking infrastructure. This just fundamentally did not matter because after the dot-com bubble popped, the market decided that Cisco simply wasn't worth the price it was selling at during the height of the bubble.

    • elAhmoan hour ago
      Given how much people have started actively looking for alternatives, and how much spray-and-pray Cloudflare's offerings now seem with so many launches every few weeks, steal is a bit too optimistic.
      • MisterPea28 minutes ago
        Yeah we are actively building our own alternatives due to excessive CF bills
    • s-kymonan hour ago
      In an April 2002 interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, reflected on investors paying 10x revenue for Sun stock at its dot-com peak ($64/share in 2000):

      At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don't need any transparency. You don't need any footnotes. What were you thinking?

      Now this analysis is imperfect... but it's good enough.

      For reference Cloudflare trades at 39x revenue

      • ahtihnan hour ago
        That analysis completely neglects growth.

        Obviously you wouldn't pay 10x revenue if you expect revenue to be flat for the next 10 years.

        No wonder that company no longer exists with a CEO that doesn't get that.

        • grey-area16 minutes ago
          Cloudflare is now a mature company, they don't have a huge amount of room for growth, and no, they will never sit in front of the entire internet.

          According to these figures, their growth is levelling off.

          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50382740

          And nowhere near enough to sustain that valuation, particularly in a market which is near the end of a bull run.

        • s-kymon40 minutes ago
          you're right on growth being excluded, which is why I said the analysis is imperfect.
        • bryanlarsen43 minutes ago
          Cloudflare's growth is capped to 100% of internet traffic. it's already at 20%.
          • tristanj30 minutes ago
            Internet traffic is projected to grow 25% YoY over the next decade.
            • bryanlarsen13 minutes ago
              Most of that is bot traffic.
              • nickv2 minutes ago
                Sounds like a new business expansion opportunity for Cloudflare.
          • ahtihn28 minutes ago
            What does that even mean? Revenue is measured in dollars not in % of internet traffic. They could "own" 100% of internet traffic and still have growing revenue.
      • brightballan hour ago
        "In the short term the market is a popularity contest; in the long term it is a weighing machine." - Warren Buffett

        Here's the valuation though. Percentage of total web traffic going through Cloudflare.

        - 2016 ~3.9%

        - 2017 ~5.3%

        - 2018 ~6.6%

        - 2019 ~7.6%

        - 2020 ~11.2%

        - 2021 ~15.4%

        - 2022 ~19.4%

        - 2023 ~18.0%

        - 2024 ~18.9%

        - 2025 ~19.2%

        - 2026 (early) ~20.9% (with later snapshots higher, up to the mid-to-high 20s)

        Combine that with consistently excellent execution and popularity, you get the valuation.

        • s-kymon40 minutes ago
          The quote comes from Ben Graham and it goes "In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine"

          You're confusing market share with valuation. Also, look into business cycle theory from marathon asset management.

          The four most dangerous words in finance "this time is different"

          • bell-cot26 minutes ago
            Not "I'm smarter than that"?
      • ink_13an hour ago
        A tech stock paying dividends? It'll never happen.
        • dingaling911an hour ago
          Uh.. The big guys do.
          • mikestew43 minutes ago
            Ever looked at MSFT or AAPL’s dividends? It’s a token “here’s your fucking dividend, now go away” percentage. (I’m sure it’s actually to placate funds that require a dividend, but I repeat myself.)

            As a retired ‘softie, my spouse still holds a fair bit of MSFT, so I just looked: $0.98…on a $540.00 stock. Yeah, we won’t be living off that in our old age.

            • dingaling91117 minutes ago
              Yeah big dividends are for companies that can't do anything better than the money.
            • lotsofpulp19 minutes ago
              Why would you want a dividend? It’s mathematically better for a business to do share buybacks and allow investors to choose when to sell shares so they can minimize tax liability.
            • WarmWash27 minutes ago
              [dead]
          • impulser_an hour ago
            Yeah, but they just do that for inclusion into some investment products that require a dividend.

            Share buybacks are always better for the company and investors.

      • 43 minutes ago
        undefined
    • Havoc15 minutes ago
      Im still crying about having sold it at 20
      • yojoa few seconds ago
        I’m still crying about taking a Dropbox offer over Cloudflare’s pre-IPO in 2016.
    • postepowanieadman hour ago
      You selling?
    • 11 minutes ago
      undefined
  • WarmWash16 minutes ago
    Stopping DC rollout effectively works as calling the bluff of AI.

    AI is a hyped up nothing burger? AI demand retreats, lots of vacant compute, revenues sink (and the DC hold ends up being a (small) blessing in disguise for the labs).

    AI lives up to it's hype? AI demand surges, capacity is severely constrained, margins explode as inference costs soar (and the DC block ends up being counter productive knee-jerk behavior)

    The only way this plays out in anti-AI favor is if people stop using AI and demand goes down. Even if it flatlines, labs can rebalance towards inference and start harvesting those huge margins.

    • hnav8 minutes ago
      A lot of AI use is subsidized to get DAU. The only truly productive applications so far are are R&D and SWE.
      • boplicitya minute ago
        I'm starting to use it quite heavily and extremely productively for non R&D and non SWE work. It has transformed one aspect of my business, and that won't change -- this type of usage is highly productive, and only likely to grow.
  • seizethecheese37 minutes ago
    Whenever I see daily stock results I try to reframe it in a longer term. Interestingly, Nasdaq is only up ~4% YoY.

    This is surprising to me, given how much acceleration there has been in AI capabilities since the same time last year. I guess costs and risks are accelerating just as fast.

    • everdrive20 minutes ago
      Stocks have been somewhat flat this year. Some big gains, but a lot of stagnation around the time the Iran war began. I got my hopes up yesterday, but the crash today puts us back to ~May depending on which index you're looking at.
    • rf1531 minutes ago
      The problem is that the economy is kinda flatlining and only the AI bubble (that is also hoovering up other, seemingly unrelated parts of the tech sector) is what makes this number as big as it is.
  • asdev39 minutes ago
    Are we finally realizing "agents" are overrated and jagged in performance?
    • shermantanktop22 minutes ago
      This is clearly voter sentiment about AI in general and big tech in general.

      Most voters don’t know what agents are. Many of my coworkers in tech can’t even define “agent” correctly.

      So no, the world is likely not suddenly agreeing with you about “jagged performance.”

    • smallerize3 minutes ago
      It's not only about the people who were elected, but 44/45 ballot initiatives specifically aimed at restricting or banning data center construction passed.
    • GuB-428 minutes ago
      I think it is much simpler than that.

      The Trump administration was expected to invest massively into AI, and money invested into AI is effectively free money for AI company shareholders, that free money is priced in the stocks. With the change in direction, investments are expected to be less, which means less free money, and therefore less valuable stocks.

      • apia few seconds ago
        So in other words the industry will have to survive without taxpayer funded welfare handouts. Got it.
  • empath75an hour ago
    Democrats are not going to try and stop AI or rein in AI. There is too much money at stake. They'll pass some regulations, sure, some data center rollouts might be blocked or modified, but they aren't going to stop the train.
    • scottLobsteran hour ago
      They don't have to. This particular train explodes on its own if it drop below 100 mph.

      Even tepid regulation will destroy the "our TIA is the entire observable universe due to the potential of self replicating AI probes so we totally deserve 10 trillion dollars in investor capital" trade

      • 36 minutes ago
        undefined
      • ares62317 minutes ago
        I've seen this movie. I think it was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down". It had Keanu Reaves and Sandra Bullock. IIRC it didn't end well for the bus.
    • fullshark23 minutes ago
      They aren't going to stop AI, but they are not going to let the owners of the superintelligence inference engines become god emperors of the planet, and in that case why not just get 4.5% on some bonds?
    • hologramofham14 minutes ago
      Well, don't forget this is also about national security. China/state of choice AI going after your infrastructure & national secrets is going to take AI to defend against.

      There's zero chance AI datacentres are going away, they are unfortunately a national security necessity now.

      It's the "if we don't they will" thing again.

    • torlok35 minutes ago
      They just have to uphold the existing laws. Start prosecuting SpaceX at the fedral level for runing gas turbines illegaly.
    • Sol-6 minutes ago
      Many safe and good technologies were successfully sabotaged for populist and stupid political reasons, e.g. in nuclear power. Or less spectacular, think of the welfare loss due to the NIMBY-fied housing market.
    • hocusPokeUs27 minutes ago
      The financial aspect/discourse is for the proletariat who prefer to pretend politics and risk of military conflict do not exist.

      They won't stop it because China won't stop. Politicians have to avoid any appearance of xenophobia though (and to be certain many are personally not xenophobic, just saying optics matter to them), so they talk about jobs and wealth inequality as euphemism for ground truth; we aren't secure putting all our eggs in the China basket.

      Arguably screwed up there already letting chips and robotics flow offshore while we focused on increasingly useless education in developer syntax and semantics.

      They will cool the AI investment well aware technology improves and we probably don't really need all our investment eggs in that one basket then

    • tehjokeran hour ago
      They're not even going to do that. Trump isn't going to sign that. When was the last time Congress overrode a veto or played hardball (well the Democratic side anyway)? They have no fight in them.
      • phainopepla238 minutes ago
        I expect more action on the state & local front than federally
  • tinyhouse4 minutes ago
    Great opportunity to buy the dip in a couple of weeks. If anyone thinks they can slow down or stop AI adoption by banning data centers, good luck with that... The Chinese built an AI empire with much less compute that exists today in the US.
  • mschuster9127 minutes ago
    Mwahaha. Hope it all crashes down and burns.

    The earlier it burns the better, because every day the bubble only grows larger otherwise.

  • ak3929 minutes ago
    The Trump-Tech Bro alliance guarantees of bailouts for data centre and AI brinkmanship seems no longer guaranteed to the market.
    • dyauspitr27 minutes ago
      And is actually the only thing I’m sad about in this whole thing. Ecstatic about the blue wave sad that they’re going to restrict AI progress. It’s the future, and it would be a horrible move to curtail it.
      • ianburrell4 minutes ago
        AI progress doesn't require doing it full ahead right now. Beyond the risks of getting out of control, you get bubbles if hype goes beyond economic reality. AI should be done more slowly with regulation and slower build out. Better to do it slowly than wreck the world with unexamined consequences.
      • fullshark10 minutes ago
        Introducing moral hazard for AI investors is a bad way to spur on AI progress.
      • ares62310 minutes ago
        It's _your_ future perhaps. Not _the_ future.

        We curtail literally millions of these "futures" every day around the world. They are called children. They are the literal future of humanity.

  • rvzan hour ago
    The beginning of the AI bubble's dotcom-style crash.

    Accurate. [0]

    [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45960032

    • torlokan hour ago
      Keep calling it. You'll get it right one day.

      Personally, I think that the idea that market always recovers is so widespread right now that it'll take some serious financial hardships for people to start selling instead of buying the dip.

      • mywittyname30 minutes ago
        People need a reason to route.

        With the housing bubble, it was because people owned multiple homes then struggled to pay two mortgages as economic conditions degraded, and banks were willing to absorb losses if the homes were sold below the cost of the mortgage.

        What is encouraging people to route from the stock market? Bond yields aren't high enough yet to encourage people to retreat from stocks, and there's no other alternative investments. Plus, so much of the S&P is held in 401ks. And I agree, economic hardship is not widespread enough for people with significant investment holdings to start selling them off to live. Those who are struggling are those who used to be struggling too (thus, no extra money for investments).

      • k__37 minutes ago
        Bought a bunch of dips in the last 5 years until I had to sell all of them at one point, because they kept dipping.