Chris Perruna (@cperruna) - Twitter Profili | Zamantika Mersobahis Locabet

Sabitlenmiş Tweet

THREAD // How I Invest 1. Successful Investing starts with Education 2. Psychology of Trading & General Rules 3. Essentials of Fundamental Analysis 4. Master Technical Analysis 5. Screening for Stocks 6. Making a Watchlist 7. Money Management 8. Diversification of Accounts

English

141

479

2.2K

0

Chris Perruna@cperruna·15m

$CSCO vs $NVDA For now, the story is completely different with the earnings & PE ratio. $NVDA's forward P/E ratio is roughly 24.57 $CSCO's forward P/E ratio was above 196 in 2000

English

3

10

1.9K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@MontyPolla45360 @Silencegoy @CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB Some do and then taxes come into play as well, further eroding the gain vs growing wealth in QQQ.

English

0

1

66

XFightDangaio@MontyPolla45360·1d

@cperruna @Silencegoy @CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB With QQQI you can keep those distributions and either reinvest or withdraw the cash, retaining your shares. With QQQ you have to sell shares to make use of those gains. Some prefer the former.

English

1

0

1

54

FreedomFinanceCF@FreedomFinLB·3d

How heavy are you investing into the covered call ETF gang? $QQQI for instance? No decay, all income...

English

27

2

92

14.8K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@stevenkovar @OddStats That's all relevant today, already.

English

0

1

107

ᴋᴏᴠᴀʀ@stevenkovar·1d

@cperruna @OddStats Attacks on infrastructure, datacenters, supply chain, etc.

English

1

0

57

OddStats@OddStats·1d

I genuinely, deeply hate to say this because people are going to think I'm predicting the future of the stock market, and I'm not. I have no more of an idea how long they can levitate this than you do. I lived in Austin from '94 to '03. I *vividly* remember friends dropping out to take insane jobs that you couldn't pass up (in tech) that paid absurd money and offered stock options. Multiple friends were Dellionaires. I remember the nights out on them on Sixth Street. One night, a stranger I was shooting pool with at the Tavern offered me $$80k+ a year (in 1999 dollars) to "play video games all night, drink Dr Pepper, and answer the help line in case anyone actually calls it." He had money to burn and he was going to. His investors demanded it. A friend with an (non computer) engineering degree from MIT got a job paying him $350k a year with a company that hadn't sold a single widget yet because they needed to make it look like they were a) hiring great people and b) spending their money on the sort of things they thought their investors wanted to see. The money coming in from investors was euphoric and it needed to be spent or the spigot would be turned off and we all knew it. The stories were real. I watched it first hand. It's feeling eerily similar. I'm not suggesting the coming stock market is 2000-2003 because things *have* changed and the tricks to keep the illusion alive have gotten a lot more complex. Maybe this goes on forever. But, man, I gotta tell you. EMOTIONALLY, there are actual similarities to late 90s Austin investor-cash euphoria. Feel free to stay optimistic, but tread carefully.

Yoshik@AskYoshik

The AI bubble math doesn't add up. Anthropic spends $3 to make $1 and that’s before you include any and all other costs like staff or electricity. Microsoft dumped $300B in capex, made ~$18B in AI revenue. OpenAI and Anthropic alone make up 43-54% of Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Oracle's entire revenue backlogs. Enterprises are burning through annual AI budgets in 4 months with zero measurable ROI. This is the most expensive science experiment in history, funded by your SaaS subscriptions.

English

88

141

2.1K

538.6K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@stevenkovar @OddStats What do you specifically mean by that, please expand?

English

1

0

91

ᴋᴏᴠᴀʀ@stevenkovar·1d

@cperruna @OddStats This assumes everyone plays according to the gentlemen's agreement. I'm not confident they will, when push comes to shove.

English

1

0

1

53

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@jam_croissant @OddStats Now do the top 5 or 10, which is what I referenced (the trillion dollar tech companies)...

English

1

0

2

297

Cem Karsan 🥐@jam_croissant·1d

@cperruna @OddStats x.com/thierryborgeat…

Thierry from arvy 🇨🇭@ThierryBorgeat

The S&P 500's free cash flow yield is now at its lowest level in twenty years. Way below 3%. This is what you actually earn as an owner of America's largest companies, before any price appreciation. For context, US Treasury bills yield more than that. With no risk. Investors are accepting less cash for owning stocks than they get for holding cash. The last time this happened was the dotcom era. You don't need a complicated model to understand that something has to give.

QME

1

0

15

2.1K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

One can't have static thinking when it comes to a new technology such as AI. People often judge a rapidly evolving, exponential technology by its current iteration, treating a single point on a timeline as if it’s the permanent destination. AI is improving faster than any technology of the past. Too many folks are looking at AI in 2026 like a person looked at basic dial up internet in 1995. We're in the 1st inning, maybe even the top half.

English

1

0

3

191

Gerard Sans | Axiom 🇬🇧@gerardsans·1d

@cperruna x.com/gerardsans/sta…

Gerard Sans | Axiom 🇬🇧@gerardsans

Marketing ≠ Science. Speculators are heavily invested in you believing AI hype. Science disagrees. The gap IS the bubble.

QME

1

0

262

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Some of these failed implementations are likely a feature and not a bug of AI adoption. The volume of efficiencies already being realized suggests that while the macro-promises may be overhyped, the ultimate shift in productivity is real. It's probably going to take longer and involve more broken inventory systems than the techies care to admit.

Yoshik@AskYoshik

The AI bubble math doesn't add up. Anthropic spends $3 to make $1 and that’s before you include any and all other costs like staff or electricity. Microsoft dumped $300B in capex, made ~$18B in AI revenue. OpenAI and Anthropic alone make up 43-54% of Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Oracle's entire revenue backlogs. Enterprises are burning through annual AI budgets in 4 months with zero measurable ROI. This is the most expensive science experiment in history, funded by your SaaS subscriptions.

English

11

7

39

16.5K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@stevenkovar @OddStats It's more of a funding race towards AGI. Whoever gets there first wins big, financially speaking.

English

2

0

157

ᴋᴏᴠᴀʀ@stevenkovar·1d

@cperruna @OddStats Think about why they are funding the AI companies so hard (i.e.: immediately direct the funding directly to their cloud/compute services as revenue).

English

1

0

129

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@EggsWhite @OddStats Amazon was unprofitable for 9 years at the beginning.

English

1

0

2

49

Greg White@EggsWhite·1d

Aren't OpenAI and Anthropic unprofitable even with billions of $'s in revenue? Btw, this does not have to be the same as the 2000 bubble. Btw2, the 2000 bubble was not just the dot.coms, it was also the buildout of networks, including the internet, and Y2K where everyone had to buy new pc's and servers. Both of those were larger than the dot.coms. Pets.com maxed out at under $300 million market cap. Furthermore, there were a lot of highly profitable co's like $CSCO back then with only a fraction of the market cap (maxed just over $500B). Just saying be careful.

English

1

0

43

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Some of these failed implementations are likely a feature and not a bug of AI adoption. The volume of efficiencies already being realized suggests that while the macro-promises may be overhyped, the ultimate shift in productivity is real. It's probably going to take longer and involve more broken inventory systems than the techies care to admit.

English

1

0

5

1.7K

Jack@alphacharts365·1d

What if all the AI efficiencies don’t pan out like we were promised. Starbucks just eliminated their AI inventory program because it made too many mistakes. Maybe it’s time to start talking about the null hypothesis.

Yoshik@AskYoshik

The AI bubble math doesn't add up. Anthropic spends $3 to make $1 and that’s before you include any and all other costs like staff or electricity. Microsoft dumped $300B in capex, made ~$18B in AI revenue. OpenAI and Anthropic alone make up 43-54% of Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Oracle's entire revenue backlogs. Enterprises are burning through annual AI budgets in 4 months with zero measurable ROI. This is the most expensive science experiment in history, funded by your SaaS subscriptions.

English

17

1

23

9.2K

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

NAV erosion does NOT necessarily mean “the chart always goes down.” It means that the portfolio retains less internal compounding power over time because cash is continually extracted and upside is capped. That’s EXACTLY why the total return gap already favors QQQ, despite QQQI’s large yield. There is NO argument here. Just facts with ACTUAL outcomes already. We already see the proof as QQQI is lagging by 13 points to QQQ since inception. The spread will continue to widen because gains above strike prices get surrendered.

English

1

0

2

73

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@Silencegoy @CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB The results since QQQI inception (1/29/24) vs QQQ and S&P 500 ends the debate. Watch what happens before and after the next downturn and then over the years, the spread will keep growing.

English

1

0

2

125

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

Wall Street makes money on QQQI from multiple layers of fees, spreads, trading activity and asset gathering. You are the money maker for them. - management fees - options trading flow - bid/ask spreads - asset gathering from attractive yield marketing The business model works well for issuers (Wall Street) as long as investors keep chasing income. Just buy QQQ with a lower expense ratio. QQQ ~0.20% QQQI ~0.68% QQQI costs about 3.4x more annually than QQQ. QQQI was born in 2024 so it hasn't even seen a downturn and already underperforms. Fact after fact after fact! But keep cursing and name calling because you have no counter argument!

English

0

1

81

Chris Perruna@cperruna·1d

@Silencegoy @CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB During more major market declines, a QQQI investor will lose capital, distribute capital and cap their own rebound upside later. That combination will materially impair long-term compounding vs owning the QQQs.

English

1

0

1

98

Chris Perruna@cperruna·2d

@CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB "Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."— Mark Twain

English

1

0

1

118

CB@CB30A1·2d

@cperruna @FreedomFinLB Please answer my question about GPIQ? I can’t stand people posting inaccurate information. You have AI at your finger tips. Use it if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

English

1

0

72

Chris Perruna@cperruna·2d

@CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB Do you always call people names when debating? Low IQ folks resort to that because their points are usually weak so they get angry and attack. I can strongly debate my points it without names.

English

1

0

106

CB@CB30A1·2d

@cperruna @FreedomFinLB I can show you plenty of CEF’s with decades of NAV grow with the same strategy. The NEOS team has been running their strategy for a long time with no NAV decay prior to the release of their ETF’s. Check GPIQ real quick. How’s that NAV decay? Don’t be a moron.

English

2

0

76

Chris Perruna@cperruna·2d

@CB30A1 @FreedomFinLB Show me an ETF track record for decades. Go ahead.

English

1

0

1

115

CB@CB30A1·2d

@cperruna @FreedomFinLB NAV erosion overtime is blatantly false. There are funds running these strategies for decades with no NAV erosion. So why did you write that?

English

1

0

67

Chris Perruna

Keşfet