非投资建议 · 仅聚合公开内容与公开市场数据 · NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE
Serenity
Serenity
@aleabitoreddit · 2026/6/7 03:37:40
我认为我的投资风格有点不同,只是一些反思: 它本质上依赖于主观判断,基于市场还不知道的东西。也是人生经验的结晶? 如果你看看$AXTI$RPI$SIVE$IQE等。 很大程度上是对非结构化关系的猜测,然后看之后是否正确。 $RPI是个完美的例子: 1. 没人真正想过树莓派用于AI增长。主要人们买一两个只是为了上课、教育和爱好。 2. 在OpenClaw之后,我注意到所有朋友和人们都在购买Apple Mac Minis / RPIs用于AI应用。 3. 在网上找到了这个趋势的验证,很多人分享用RPI进行AI编排的视频教程。 4. AI是他们理想的完美增长向量,我做了一些建模,觉得很有说服力。 财报出来后,我是对的。 媒体上每个人都称它为meme股,因为网上没有显示AI带来的收入增长(预测收入增长14%,实际是58%,我的预测大约是55%)。 所以这是猜测下一个行业趋势(AI使用轻量级硬件而非GPU集群)、现实生活趋势,然后基于我的猜测进行收入预测。 对于像$AXTI这样的: 1. 当我在~12美元买入时,人人都说这是个笑话。LLMs会幻觉说“超级云厂商/政府现在应该已经知道这个,并用InP基板修复了这个漏洞”。 2. 或者混淆InP基板堆栈中非常细微的部分,那里在上游处理中有多个不同的瓶颈。 3. 所以这部分只是基于我对InP基板分解、行业趋势等的观察而主观判断。 4. 然后还猜测主要超级周期是光子学(这发生在所有人注意到$LITE和其他股票之前)。或者在你看到GS的1410亿美元TAM预测之前。 5. AXT拥有InP供应链的40%,没有他们,供应链就会瘫痪。 6. 所有“分析师”都在预测InP基板稳定增长,几亿美元的TAM等,或者出口管制。 7. 每个人都不断说$AXTI基于TAM估计被高估了。但如果只有几亿美元的TAM,你会觉得那是个笑话,然后进入关于分配的博弈论。 8. 然后我不得不猜测,如果这是NAND式的瓶颈,它会值多少钱,基于控制能达到多少市值,超大规模云厂商会如何定价等。 高盛目前的许多研究成果,或外延片公司的财报,在我发表关于AXT的文章后都得到了证实。如果你当时做了研究,很多同样的材料/框架不会出现。 对于你现在看到的$XFAB这样的东西,很多纯粹是猜测: 1. 没有任何CPO材料,他们的MTP工艺能带来多少收入等。网上所有人都说他们不是光子学玩家。 2. 但如果你查看ASE文档或政府网站,它们都把XFAB列为这里的主要新兴玩家。 3. $NVDA也在评估他们(也许成功,谁知道呢)。 4. 这个领域没有明确的收入,因为他们主要的硅光子学工艺仍处于商业前阶段,但如果你猜测他们试图创建一条欧盟供应链来与$TSEM竞争,一旦商业前转向商业,也许类似但合同量更少? 5. 然后在接下来的几个月里查看更新,看看是否有任何确认这个论点的猜测。 _ 我认为很多信息发现仍然可以通过我在网上看到的LLMs完成。但基于不相关的材料,甚至是你现实生活中看到的趋势,做出大量非结构化推断也非常困难。 所以也许最好就按照标准做法,比如基于当前数字进行估值预测。 像$AAOI这样的,如果他们预测2027年上半年收入4.71亿,而市值120亿,可能被低估了,接下来几年做多可能是个好主意。 像三星电子更容易,看看人们对2027、2028年运营利润的建模,然后看当前水平是否被低估。 也许更难的是$JBL。我还没看到关于1.6T LRO的任何大成交量数字,但你可以猜测它可能有多受欢迎,然后预测它如何影响当前市值。 或者选择大家都认可的好名字,比如$TSM$INTC$MRVL,也很稳健。 所以很多事情就是建立你的生活技能,然后将其应用到市场上。我不认为这可以通过课程之类的东西来教。 当然,我所做的很多都是基于不相关部分的高确信推断。总是可能出错。 可乐谈AI: @aleabitoreddit 股神,学习这些需要看什么内容么,新手想入坑
原文 · EN
I think my personal style of investing is a bit different, just some reflection: It's inherently discretionary, based on stuff markets don't know yet. And a culmination of life experiences? If you look at $AXTI, $RPI, $SIVE, $IQE and others. Lot of it is guessing on unstructured relationships then seeing if it's right or not down the line. $RPI is the perfect example: 1. Nobody really thought of Raspberry Pis for AI growth. Mainly people bought one or two just for class + education + hobbyist. 2. After OpenClaw, just noticed all my friends and people just buying Apple Mac Minis / RPIs for AI applications. 3. Found validation of that trend online with lot of people sharing video tutorials on AI orchestration with RPI. 4. AI was their ideal perfect growth vector, did some modeling, and thought it was compelling. Earnings comes out and I was right. Everyone in media was calling it a meme stock because there's nothing online that shows revenue growth from AI (was 14% forecasted revenue growth, turned out to be 58%, my projection was around 55%). So it was a mix of guessing next industry trend (AI using lightweight hardware instead of GPU clusters), real life trends, then revenue forecasting off my guess. For stuff like $AXTI: 1. Everyone called it a joke when I bought at ~$12. LLMs would hallucinate and say "hyperscalers/govs would have known about this by now and fixed this vulnerability with InP substrates" 2. Or would conflate very nuanced parts of InP substrate stack, where there's multiple different chokepoints in upstream processing. 3. So part of this was just discretionary based on what I've seen over InP substrate breakdowns, industry trends, etc. 4. Then also guessing the major supercycle was photonics (this was before everyone caught onto $LITE, and others). Or before you saw the $141B TAM projections from GS. 5. AXT owned 40% of InP supply chain, without them the supply chain just gets cripped). 6. All the "analysts" were forecasting steady InP substrate growth, few hundred million TAM, etc. or export controls. 7. Everyone kept trying to say $AXTI was overvalued based on TAM estimates. But if it's a few hundred million TAM you just think that's a joke and go into game theory over allocations. 8. Then I just had to guess, how much would this be worth if it were a NAND style bottleneck, what MC could it reach based on control, how much would hyperscalers price it as, etc. A lot of the current research outputs from Goldman Sachs, or earnings reports from the Epiwafer companies, were confirmed after I published my piece on AXT. If you did research back then, lot of the same material /framing wouldn't have come up. With stuff like $XFAB as you're seeing now, a lot of it is just pure guessing: 1. Not really any CPO materials, how much their MTP process makes in revenue, etc. Everyone online keeps saying they're not a photonics player. 2. But if you go through ASE docs or Gov websites, they all kinda cite XFAB as a major emerging player here. 3. $NVDA also evaluating them right now (maybe it's successful who knows). 4. No clear revenue around this area because their main silicon photonics process is still precommercial, but if you guess it's trying to create a EU supply chain to compete with $TSEM, once pre-commercial shifts to commercial, maybe similar but less volume contracts? 5. Then just seeing updates over the next few months to see if anything confirms this thesis guess. _ I think a lot of information discovery still can be done with LLMs I'm seeing online. But it's also really hard to make a bunch of unstructured inferences based on unrelated material or even just trends you're seeing in real life. So probably better to just do what's standard, eg. do valuation forecasting based on current numbers Stuff like $AAOI, if they're projecting $471m/M h1 2027 and you see MC at $12B, probably undervalued might be a good idea to go long for next years. Stuff like Samsung Electronics is easier, see what people are modeling for operating profits for 2027, 2028 then just seeing if it's undervalued or not at current levels. Maybe something harder is $JBL. I haven't really seen any great volume numbers around 1.6T LRO, but you can just make a guess on how popular that might be then project how that might impact current MCs. Or picking just good names everyone kinda agrees like $TSM, $INTC, $MRVL is also solid. So a lot of things is just building up your life skills then applying that to markets. I don't think it's that can be taught with courses and stuff. Of course, much of what I'm doing is just high conviction inference based on unconnected parts. Could always be wrong. 可乐谈AI: @aleabitoreddit 股神,学习这些需要看什么内容么,新手想入坑
原帖非投资建议
AI 分析
整体中性置信度 60%openai-compatible:deepseek-v4-pro
作者反思了一种依赖主观判断的投资方式,即在趋势广为人知之前识别它们,并以AXTI和RPI为例,早期洞察被证明是正确的。他们强调了从不同信号中做出非结构化推断的困难,并建议虽然有些想法纯粹是猜测,但像AAOI、TSM、INTC、MRVL这些名字的标准估值方法可能更可靠。总体而言,这篇文章是个人反思,没有强烈的看多或看空倾向。
涉及标的13
看多$AXTI
作者建立了关于InP供应链关键性和光子学超级周期的长期论点,后来被行业报告证实。
看多$RPI
作者正确预测了AI作为树莓派的增长向量,得到了现实观察和后来财报超预期的支持。
中性$SIVESilver Verde May Mining Co
作为多个股票之一被提及,但没有给出具体分析。
新闻 Sunshine Silver Mining Shares Jump 11 Percent in NYSE Debut | INN · Sunshine Silver Stock: Is SSMR a Real US Silver Supply Story? | EBC Financial Group
中性$IQE
与其他股票一起提及,没有详细评论。
中性$LITE
在光子学超级周期的上下文中被提及,但没有表达方向性观点。
中性$XFAB
被描述为具有硅光子学潜力的'纯粹猜测',但没有表示确信。
中性$NVDANVIDIA Corp
仅作为评估XFAB被提及,没有对股票的明确看法。
行情 $205.1 6.2014%
新闻 Ferrari Stock Is Down 33% Since July 2025: 1 Reason the Market Is Wrong. · Why Grail Could Be the Sleeper Stock Everyone's About to Notice
中性$TSEM
在欧盟供应链讨论中被提及为竞争对手,没有给出意见。
看多$AAOI
作者表示基于2027年收入预测和当前市值,它可能被低估。
中性$JBL
被认为更难估值;作者建议对LRO受欢迎程度进行猜测,但没有明确立场。
看多$TSM
被描述为稳健的共识股,每个人都同意。
看多$INTC
包含在稳健的共识股组中。
看多$MRVL
包含在稳健的共识股组中。
关键要点
  • 投资风格是主观判断的,基于市场未知的信息和生活经验。
  • RPI的成功来自于观察AI爱好者的采用并在网上验证趋势。
  • AXTI的论点涉及早期识别InP供应链瓶颈和光子学超级周期。
  • XFAB目前是一个关于硅光子学商业前潜力的'纯粹猜测'。
  • 基于未来收入预测与市值相比,AAOI似乎被低估。
  • TSM、INTC、MRVL被认为是稳健的共识股。
  • 作者承认许多推断可能是错的,标准估值可能更安全。
对公开帖子与公开市场数据的客观摘要,非投资建议;数据可能延迟。