Tankrich

What isn’t priced into Anthropic’s or OpenAI’s gigantic valuations is that they have no moat. I use both ChatGPT Pro and Claude Max, and we’re reaching the point where there’s very little practical difference between Codex, Claude Code, GPT-5.5, and Opus 4.7. That tells me the long-term value won’t sit in the model or harness layer. Those layers will become commodities, with pricing pushed down to token cost plus a thin margin.

Even It services cos generate good cash flows.. Where is the subscriber growth which decides the terminal value? Equity without growth gets valued like a bond, and eventually worse than a bond. Which is what is happening here. Only path visible is for Arpu growth and not subs add

I don't know why people are so disconnected from reality. Saw a post saying Rs 40 crores must for retirement in India. Do you know how big is Rs.40 crores? In India, only 0.04% of households have it In the richest country of the world, USA, only 4% of households have it If you take the entire world consisting of both rich and poor countries, just 0.13% of households have it. Even Rs 4 crores is difficult for 99% of the population. Saying Rs.40 crores is required for retirement only demotivate people because they can never reach there. These kind of posts at best serve as irritants.

I'll admit this might sound odd coming from me, maybe even clichéd. But it's something I've been sitting with for a while, so here goes. When I started out, like most people, I had a simple wealth goal. I'd actually written it down: hit ₹5 crore, retire in Goa, beach shack, done. That was the dream. After the Zerodha journey, I find myself on a very different side of that equation, and the dark inequalities of wealth and opportunity are harder to ignore than ever. We all know the numbers on inequality. The concentration of wealth among the top 1% is severe and getting worse, and it's even starker among the top 0.1%. The post-2008 era of rising asset prices has likely made this worse, because the people who hold financial assets are, by definition, people who already have money. This isn't unique to India. Barring a few exceptions, it's a global phenomenon. I'm cautious about attributing every socio-political problem we face today to inequality, but it's hard to deny the role it's played in the political upheavals we're seeing across the world. History rarely shows that sustained, extreme inequality ends well. To me, it increasingly feels like sitting in a car with the brakes cut, watching a cliff approach. Btw, all of this even before AI, which has a non-trivial probability of making things worse. I'll stop short of prescribing solutions. It's too easy to reach for simple answers to complicated problems, and that's a separate conversation entirely. But I think we need to collectively acknowledge this: wealth that just sits in financial assets whose value keeps compounding upward doesn't do much good for anyone beyond those who already have it. And if that wealth isn't in motion, if it isn't doing some social good, the fabric that holds us together will only continue to fray and lead to cynicism, resentment, and worse yet, nihilism. We're already seeing all of it. What I am saying is that even if a portion of that wealth were channelled into things that could materially improve lives, that seems worth doing. Hoarding wealth, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really help anyone.

Media and most market participants are trapped by short horizons. They judge a long-duration business with a trader’s stopwatch. Torrent and JB may have lagged over brief windows. So what. In pharma, the relevant clock is 5 years, better 10. Anything shorter is mostly noise dressed up as insight. Skill is never pure; luck is always in the room. But time is the filter. Extend the horizon and luck washes out enough for skill to compound, and occasionally reveal itself violently on the upside. Play long term games with clear long term goals and only with long term management.