<story><title>AMD passes Intel in market cap</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/amd-passes-intel-in-market-cap.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mimikatz</author><text>Yes we do, that&amp;#x27;s literally what a marketcap is. People who are sure it isn&amp;#x27;t correct can beat against it and profit in the correction.</text></item><item><author>elromulous</author><text>So I&amp;#x27;m very much in camp AMD.  But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nicoburns</author><text>&amp;gt; Yes we do, that&amp;#x27;s literally what a marketcap is.&lt;p&gt;I mean in theory. In practice:&lt;p&gt;- You have to use a very specialised definition of &amp;quot;we&amp;quot;. Specifically, it&amp;#x27;s what people think, &lt;i&gt;weighted by how much money they control&lt;/i&gt;. So wealthy people have an outsized say in market cap. Controllers of hedge funds, pension funds, etc an even more outsized say.&lt;p&gt;- People&amp;#x27;s pricing can be based on how they expect other people to price the stock in the future rather than how much they think it is truly worth based on the fundamentals of the business. If someone&amp;#x27;s price is based on this, then it is no longer a reflection of how much they think it&amp;#x27;s worth.</text></comment>
<story><title>AMD passes Intel in market cap</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/amd-passes-intel-in-market-cap.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mimikatz</author><text>Yes we do, that&amp;#x27;s literally what a marketcap is. People who are sure it isn&amp;#x27;t correct can beat against it and profit in the correction.</text></item><item><author>elromulous</author><text>So I&amp;#x27;m very much in camp AMD.  But, market cap has proven over and over again to be kind of bogus. E.g. do we really think Tesla is actually worth more than the rest of the top 10 or so automakers?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>The_Colonel</author><text>Shorting is much more risky than buying stocks. Compare:&lt;p&gt;1) I&amp;#x27;m confident that in the long term, company X will grow in value. I invest $1000 and will wait however long it will take, 10 or more years. I risk these $1000 only, but can earn multiple of it.&lt;p&gt;2) I&amp;#x27;m confident that in the long term, company Y will decrease in value. I can short it with $1000, however either I risk much more than $1000 or I can&amp;#x27;t set the timeframe (because of forced liquidation). I also can&amp;#x27;t earn more than $1000. In the long term, I&amp;#x27;m also exposed to inflation. Effectively, it&amp;#x27;s possible to short only in a short timescale, which is super risky.&lt;p&gt;The two betting options are very asymmetric, which IMHO favors overvaluation of certain hyped stocks, since there&amp;#x27;s no reasonable (not extremely risky) way to bet against them.</text></comment>