In the year of our Lord 2013, two gentlemen of the coding persuasion, Markus and Palmer by name, did conjure this digital curiosity. Unlike its brethren, which aspire to disrupt the very foundations of commerce, Dogecoin was born not of innovation, but of a fleeting internet fancy – a canine visage, if memory serves. It is, one might observe, a token devoid of inherent worth, lacking the gravitas of a true store of value.
Here’s the tally, if you’re keeping score. Alphabet, around $185 billion. Amazon, a cool $200 billion. Meta, chipping in $135 billion. And Microsoft, bringing up the rear with $105 billion. It’s a land grab, plain and simple. Everyone wants to own the future, or at least rent it out to the highest bidder.
Let us dispense with the notion of complication. Simplicity, my friends, is the art of concealing cunning. If I were forced to begin anew today, burdened with this ten thousand, I would approach it not as an investment, but as a carefully considered wager. A wager against the prevailing winds of optimism, naturally.
Let’s be clear, predicting the future is a fool’s errand. I once attempted to predict the winner of a local pie-eating contest, armed with nothing but statistical analysis of previous contestants’ waistlines. It didn’t end well. But, unlike pie-eating, there are discernible trends at play here, and they point towards continued, robust growth for Nvidia. It’s not about magic; it’s about data centers. Lots and lots of data centers.
To merely compare expense ratios and one-year returns is to reduce a complex drama to a ledger sheet. It is to ignore the underlying anxieties, the silent calculations of risk and reward that plague the investor’s soul. Both funds seek to capture the benefits of dividend-paying stocks, yet their approaches are… markedly different. One, the Vanguard, casts a wide net, embracing a multitude of names, a diversification born, perhaps, of a certain… timidity. The other, the Schwab, is more focused, more deliberate, concentrating its energies upon a select group of companies. Which path, then, offers the greater promise? Which is the lesser of two evils in a world where even prosperity is tinged with melancholy?
Alphabet and Meta have a lot of users. Billions. Six products at Alphabet, each with over two billion people staring at screens. Meta’s various platforms combined? Even more. It’s a staggering number. Enough to make you feel small, and a little bit sad. They’ve built these vast networks, these echo chambers of shared experience. And what do people do with them? Mostly, they look at pictures of cats. So it goes.
The market, a rather jumpy bunch at the best of times, is in a proper fluster about those Medicare Advantage rates. They aren’t soaring as high as UnitedHealth would like, and that’s caused a bit of a kerfuffle. Is this a silly overreaction, a bit of a wobble before the giant rights itself? Or is this magnificent, money-making machine about to stumble and fall? Let’s have a good look, shall we?
For some time, the principal engine of Gilead’s prosperity has been its work with the affliction known as HIV. In particular, a regimen called Biktarvy has become widely prescribed, a testament to its efficacy, though efficacy alone does not guarantee unending success. While the growth in Biktarvy’s sales has not been exceptional – a modest six percent increase in the last year – it has been sufficient to sustain the company, even in the face of vigorous competition and the diminishing returns from its earlier efforts with therapies for other maladies, notably a preparation for the recent pestilence. The total revenue for the third quarter reached $7.8 billion, a figure that, while substantial, reveals a company navigating a landscape of diminishing opportunities. Excluding the aforementioned pestilence therapy, the increase was a mere four percent – a subtle indication that reliance on past triumphs may not be a path to lasting growth.
Micron Technology, Alphabet, and Alibaba. Names that resonate with the clang and clamor of the modern age. They do not offer a king’s ransom in dividends – less than 0.7%, a pittance, really – but they possess a certain… kinetic energy. A restless striving that, for a discerning eye, promises more than mere interest. They are, in essence, not income generators, but engines of speculation, disguised as responsible investments. One might even say they are a little… mischievous.
The third quarter of the previous year yielded a mere $177 million in revenue, a figure scarcely exceeding the previous year’s by a handful of dollars. One pictures a diligent clerk, adding up the figures with a sigh. More telling is the disparity between income and expense. A cost of revenue reaching $297 million, culminating in a net loss of $364 million. A loss, it should be noted, considerably larger than the previous year’s. The company, one gathers, is engaged in a constant, delicate dance with liquidity, a dance it seems determined to continue, despite the music having long faded.