爱妻的交易员

Both NVIDIA and META are typical founder-led companies. Jensen Huang has been leading NVIDIA's technology roadmap and long-term strategy since its founding; Mark Zuckerberg has also long controlled META's development direction. Both are very strong-willed, and both companies carry a strong founder's imprint. However, from a corporate governance perspective, there is a fundamental difference between them: Jensen Huang leads NVIDIA primarily through his capabilities, performance, and prestige; Mark Zuckerberg, besides his capabilities and prestige, also holds absolute control over META. This difference may seem like just a matter of equity arrangement...

Many people say that the best way for ordinary people to invest is through mechanical dollar-cost averaging. This statement is certainly correct. Because it's difficult for ordinary people to judge short-term price fluctuations and to time the market accurately. Instead of guessing the market every day, it's better to buy quality assets over the long term and let time and compound interest work their magic. But the problem is, mechanical dollar-cost averaging doesn't mean you don't need to study the market. On the contrary, the more you want to invest for the long term, the more you should seriously understand the market. Because dollar-cost averaging only solves the "action problem," but the real difficulty is the "holding problem." When the money you invest each month increases, and the assets in your account grow from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, even millions...

Many excellent investors say that investing is actually quite simple. It's nothing more than one sentence: buy quality assets and hold them. But the problem is, something that seems simple has only been achieved by a few people worldwide, like Buffett. Because there are too many prerequisites hidden behind this statement. First, how do you confirm that what you're buying is a quality asset? Compound interest is great, but holding long-term is not a cure-all. Junk assets won't turn into good assets just because you hold them for a long time. Some companies are just temporarily popular, some just have a good story, and some are just riding a short-term trend. They may surge strongly during a certain phase...

In the development process of AI, pessimistic narratives are bound to recur. It's not because AI isn't capable, nor is it because the market's worries each time are reasonable, but because pessimism naturally grabs people's attention more easily. Optimism sounds like salesmanship, pessimism sounds like sobriety. If you say AI will continue to develop, computing power demand will keep growing, model capabilities will keep improving, and application scenarios will gradually open up, the market might think you're telling stories, painting a rosy picture, or peddling faith. But if you say the AI bubble is about to burst, capital expenditure is unsustainable, cloud providers' returns are insufficient, there's not enough power, data centers are oversupplied, and NVIDIA's orders will collapse...

When many people buy index funds, the most agonizing question is: Is now the peak? Should I wait for a pullback? What if I buy at the top and get stuck? This concern is very normal. After all, no one wants to buy at the peak. So let's think with a worst-case scenario mindset: If someone has unbelievably bad luck, buying at the Nasdaq's annual peak every year for 20 consecutive years, what would be the result? Assuming an annual investment of $20,000, continuously invested for 20 years. The total principal is $400,000. The buying rule is extremely "unlucky": not buying at the annual low, not buying at the annual average price, nor using monthly dollar-cost averaging to smooth out costs...

Many people want to profit from the long-term rise of the stock market but don't want to endure the pain of its short-term declines. This is actually unrealistic. There's no free lunch in the world; there's always a price behind any high return. It's just that the price of investing isn't written on a label like a product. When you buy a car, the price is clear: $30,000 is $30,000. When you go to Disney, the ticket price is clear: $100 is $100. But when you buy stocks or index funds, the market won't tell you in advance: one day in the future, your account might experience a drawdown of 10%, 20%...

Over the past two years, the strongest logic in the AI industry chain has been simple: not enough computing power, not enough chips, not enough HBM, and not enough data centers. So capital has been continuously pouring into the upstream hardware sector. Companies like NVIDIA, TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron have become the most direct and certain beneficiaries of the AI wave. But at the same time, downstream cloud vendors and application end have not enjoyed the same valuation premium. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta have been frantically investing in AI capital expenditure, building data centers, purchasing GPUs, and training models. However, the market's attitude towards them has become even more cautious: you're spending so much money...

Many people know that compound interest is very important. Buffett, Munger, index funds, long-termism - almost every investment book, in the end, tells you the same thing: buy high-quality assets and hold them for the long term. The principle seems simple, but actually doing it is far more difficult than imagined. Charlie Munger once said that the first rule of compound interest is: unless absolutely necessary, do not interrupt it easily. The importance of this statement precisely shows how easily compound interest can be interrupted. Why? Because there are too many "absolutely necessary" things in life. Unemployment, illness, family expenses, parents' retirement, children's education, career changes... these are the real pressures...

In June, the Nasdaq 100 once again corrected by about 7% from its high. Because I took profits at previous highs and continued to add funds, my cash position kept expanding. Every time the market fluctuated violently, I understood more and more deeply: position determines mindset. When cash is low, a market drop easily causes panic; when cash is abundant, you actually hope the market falls more. Because you know, a drop is not a disaster, but an opportunity. Taking advantage of this correction, I again bought some core assets in batches according to plan. The market's expectations for AI are getting higher and higher, sentiment is becoming increasingly exuberant; and trading behavior is also becoming more short-term oriented...

Recently, after watching an interview with Satya Nadella, I increasingly feel that the most noteworthy aspect of Microsoft is not that Azure's growth rate was 1 percentage point faster in a certain quarter, nor is it how spectacular a particular OpenAI launch event was. Instead, it's that Microsoft is doing something more long-term and fundamental: it is reinventing itself as the enterprise operating system for the AI era. Over the past two years, whenever the market mentions Microsoft AI, the first reaction is OpenAI. This is certainly correct. Microsoft is indeed one of OpenAI's most important partners, and OpenAI has also greatly enhanced Microsoft's market imagination in the AI era...

Everyone wants to be rich. But the problem is, many people's understanding of "richness" might be wrong from the very beginning. Most people think being rich is about what car you drive, what watch you wear, what house you live in, whether you fly first class, or whether you flaunt a luxurious lifestyle on social media. However, these things are often not wealth itself, but rather the traces left after wealth has been consumed. When someone drives a $1 million luxury car, the only thing we can be sure of is not how rich they must be, but that they have at least $1 million less in wealth, or $1 million more in debt, because of that car. Because true wealth...