You can short them and make a lot of money (to buy RAM with?) if you feel this way and are correct.

rcxdude a minute ago | parent | next [-]

You can make a lot of money with shorts if you are correct about when the market will move. If you think that the market is overestimating the real value you have not even half of the puzzle.

▲

BLKNSLVR an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not having the money to buy a new computer often means not having the money to put where ones mouth is.

Can't afford thing? Gamble on stock market instead.

Ridiculous argument that already rich people make.

▲

demibabs 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No?

Shorting doesn’t only require you to be right. It requires perfectly timing when the market will realize you’re right.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

dist-epoch 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can buy long term put options.

▲

philipov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That still requires perfect timing. Getting the timing right on a long-term contract is even harder than with a short-term contract!

▲

Maxatar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How does buying long term put options require perfect timing? The whole point of a long term put option is that you only have to be right at some point between when you buy it and when it expires.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, put options suffer from time decay and IV crush. A $1,000 MU put for December 2027 was at about $200 today. So if Micron dropped tomorrow, you'd probably start making a bit of money, although the delta is only -0.32. But if you held all the way to December 2027, Micron would then have to drop all the way to $800 before your position is profitable.

When and how that transition happens is subject to a number of complex factors, and it's not even necessarily the case that incremental drops in the stock will produce incremental gains for your put option.

	▲	Maxatar 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is a really bizare argument for anyone who actually knows about options and trades them. If your thesis is that RAM is in a massive bubble and Micron is going to crash when it bursts, you don't express that thesis by buying a put struck around Micron's current bubble price. The fact that you chose a $1000 strike as your example is weird because that's basically the most expensive way to make the argument you're supposedly making. "IV crush" is a strange objection in this context. IV crush matters when you overpay for elevated implied volatility and that volatility subsequently collapses. If Micron suddenly falls hundreds of dollars because the alleged bubble is bursting, then the implied volatility increases which makes your put option even more valuable. The IV that you're claiming will crush you acts in your favor... so once again your argument really suggests you might have heard terms like these in passing but don't quite understand how they actually apply. If you genuinely think Micron is going to collapse sometime over the next two or three years because this entire RAM shortage is an overhyped bubble, then the obvious trade is to buy puts around where you think the stock should return to once that bubble disappears. Micron wasn't remotely a $1000 stock before this run. We can be generous and use a $300 strike since even though that's still 100% higher than Micron's price prior to this run-up, it gets the point across. A long dated $300 put is currently around $7 per share, so one contract costs roughly $700. If Micron eventually falls to $200, that contract is worth $10,000 at expiry. At $100, it's worth $20,000. If the crash happens well before expiry, it can be worth even more than its intrinsic value because there's still time value left. If you're claiming to be certain that a gigantic bubble is going to burst and wipe hundreds of dollars off the stock price, there are long-dated, far-out-of-the-money puts specifically capable of expressing that view. Pointing at an expensive $1000 strike put and saying "look, options are complicated" is not a counter-argument. It's just a weird or rather superficial misunderstanding of some financial concepts.

▲

dcrazy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The point of LEAPS is you don’t have to perfect the timing. You buy far enough out to avoid theta decay, and far enough out of the money to minimize risk.

▲

philipov an hour ago | parent [-]

Regardless of timing, for shorts to pay out requires the market to actually correct itself. You won't be able to get your magical shorts money until the price of ram goes back down anyway. The market will remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

▲

dcrazy an hour ago | parent [-]

The price of RAM does not need to come down in order for a way-out-of-the-money January 2027 put on NVDA to increase in value from its current purchase price.

	▲	tom_alexander 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're suggesting gambling that Nvidia will start to fall within the next 3 months? That sounds like requiring perfect timing to me.

▲

dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google (which is diversified more and whose performance is less likely to track AI outcomes closely) aside, the two other members of the AI Big 3 are non-public, so, no, you really can’t.

▲

swdev281634 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can I? Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are publicly traded.

▲

vor_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

With non-public companies?