Matze (@ItsMeMatze) header
Matze (@ItsMeMatze) profile picture

Historiker 🔸 Mann mit Klasse 👨🏻‍🏫🔸Auf den Hund gekommen🔸Posts zu Aktien sind keine Anlageberatung, sondern nur persönliche Meinungen - DYOR!

Norddeutschland
Joined September 2021
Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)Photo by Matze (@ItsMeMatze)
Replying to @RyanLaley
We are very sorry this happened to you. We hope you know you’re not on your own with this. And while it won’t help right this second, we’ll check the Arasaka hardware archives and see if we can send a few things your way. No choom should have to start from zero. 🤝🏼
313
1,329
277
38,641
1,328,198
An announcement: Under the leadership of Mario Draghi and @patrickc we have set up the Rhine Group: policymakers, economists, entrepreneurs and business people pushing European reforms and the Draghi agenda. rhinegroup.eu/
403
823
326
4,829
1,620,208
The stock market is rightly cheering Microsoft’s stock today following the company’s Q4 earnings report. I find Satya Nadella’s comments regarding the future enterprise AI architecture particularly important: Customers wanted to select the right AI model for each task—based on quality, latency, cost, and regulatory requirements. Since the beginning of the year, the number of customers using models from multiple providers has increased fivefold. Microsoft is therefore building a “model system” in which the harness, context, memory, and action space are not tied to a single model family. The most important quote (OpenAI and Anthropic are unlikely to appreciate) is: “We are very, very clear about the architectural design of the platform, which is that you’ve got to keep your harness separate from the model... That means any given model at any given time is swappable.”
4
2
15
3,479
Quote for the Day: “I realized that technical analysis didn’t work when I turned the chart upside-down and didn’t get a different answer.” -Warren Buffett #KFQuoteForTheDay
6
9
44
8,290
youtu.be/VuEk-1BMuPI?is=FvS1… - Liebe Follower - nun also für Sie der 2. Teil vom Insider by @swissquote_de - ich hoffe sehr es gefällt - SIE entscheiden über dir Zukunft des Formats!!! Über Kommentare, Retweets und Likes hier wie auch #Youtube würde ich mich sehr freuen🙏🙏🙏
4
14
2
99
15,583
As a financial blogger, I can confirm that it's true: I used to run the most successful tech investing blog in the DACH region. Google killed it and all the other independent sites. Creators can either shut down or escape behind a paywall, e.g., on Substack, as I did. The internet we've known and loved for the past 25 years is gone forever.
Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.
3
2
48
11,415
Nr. 8 unter den besten (meist besuchten) Finanzblogs Deutschlands. 👀 Schöner Wochenausklang...
8
8
45
3,303
Matze retweeted
Leute, wir müssen reden! Ich spüre bei meinen Posts eine gewisse Verantwortung – und da andere diese vielleicht nicht so ernst nehmen, will ich hier mal eine deutliche Warnung aussprechen. Der Post unten steht als pars pro toto für eine Art von Content, die ich schlicht als Problem-Posts bezeichnen würde. Dass ich dafür ausgerechnet ein Beispiel zu $NOW nehme, hat einen Grund: Ich bin bei dem Wert eigentlich sehr positiv gestimmt. Aber genau da liegt die Gefahr. Der Algo weiß das und meine Timeline ist voll damit! Die Echokammer steht! Dieser ungefilterte Hype treibt im Zweifel Leute in Aktien, die sich eigentlich intensiv mit der Materie befassen müssten, es aber nicht tun. Natürlich ist das am Ende deren Fehler. Trotzdem gibt es einen massiven Unterschied zwischen Content, der fundiert informiert (und von mir aus gern auch mal zuspitzt - siehe meinen Post mit Burry und seinem PLTR Short), und dem, was wir hier sehen. Nehmen wir diesen einen Satz mal auseinander: Keinerlei Einordnung: Da ist absolut null Kontext oder Analyse dabei, an denen man sich abarbeiten könnte. Die Zielgruppe: Es wird von „ordinary people“ gesprochen – also von dir, mir und deinem Nachbarn. „Es ist also auch für uns möglich!!!!!“ Das Heilsversprechen: Die Behauptung, man könne mit dieser einen Aktie 20 Jahre früher in Rente gehen. Das suggeriert: Massive Gewinne! Ganz einfach! Mit genau diesem einen Wert! Die Wahrheit ist: Das kann niemand wissen. Um 20 Jahre früher in Rente zu gehen, stellen sich doch die Fragen: Wie viel muss man dafür heute investieren? 10.000 €? 100.000 €? Welcher utopische Return wird hier bitteschön erwartet? Und am wichtigsten: Was passiert mit der Lebensplanung dieser Leute, wenn das Ding doch abschmiert und nie wieder aufsteht? Ich mag es ja selbst gern humorvoll und musste bei dem Post im ersten Moment auch grinsen. Aber wir müssen lernen, zwischen Entertainment und Existenzrisiko (Alliteration on Point😉😂) zu unterscheiden. Genießt den Content, aber lasst solche Dinger nicht zu nah an euch ran! Investiert auf der Basis von Zahlen und eurer eigenen Einschätzung, nicht auf der eines Memes. Das ist nur ein kleiner Post, aber wenn man nur noch so Dinger sieht und voll dem Confirmation Bias erliegt, und nur noch positive News zur eigenen Lieblingsaktie sehen will, macht das mürbe. Es vernebelt das Gehirn. Man hält plötzlich Dinge für unmöglich, die der Markt noch nicht ausgeschlossen hat Motto: „Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf!“ Es kann an der Börse immer auch schiefgehen. Bitte vergesst das nicht. Versteht ihr, was ich meine?
8
1
1
45
6,535
Matze retweeted
Liebe @ING_Deutschland / @ING, während Banken wie die @DKB_de ihre Kunden bei der #Quellensteuer-#Vorabbefreiung unterstützen, lasst ihr mich als größte Direktbank mit dem 🇫🇷 Fiskus alleine. Sollte die Kundenbetreuung eines mächtigen 🦁 nicht mehr „Biss“ haben? #FinX #Dividende
1
2
1
11
1,085
Matze retweeted
Das Gefühl hat man jetzt schon eine Weile: Die Märkte werden rein politisch getrieben. Ich hab mich gefragt, wie ich mich selbst dazu positionieren könnte. Die Antwort ist simpel und (wie ich finde) genial: Gar nicht - auch das geht vorbei, so meine Devise😂
2
1
8
1,736
Matze retweeted
#DKMS #ZKRD #AKB #Gesundheit #Blutkrebs #NonFinancial #Helfen Werte Mitlesende! Für dieses 3 jährige, tapfere Fräulein wird ordentlich Reichweite benötigt! Gern reposten! dkms.de/aktiv-werden/online-… – at Altenholz, Deutschland
8
8
577
Warren Buffett: "I would still hold stocks even if I knew that World War III would happen."
197
363
76
4,258
537,912
We are introducing EU Inc. To make building and growing a business across the EU faster, simpler, and smarter. 🔸 Start a company in less than 48 hours 🔸 No minimum capital requirement 🔸 Fully online and borderless
601
1,139
549
7,347
2,354,365
Wer hat die Landlord-Strategie perfektioniert❓️🤔 McDonald's❗️Der Konzern sichert sich den Standort, baut/finanziert das Restaurant, vermietet die Filiale an einen Franchisenehmer, erhält Miete zzgl. Franchisegebühr sowie Umsatzbeteiligung und erweitert den Immobilienbestand🏠
Mapped: Countries With the Most McDonald’s Locations 🍔 visualcapitalist.com/mapped-…
3
2
1
25
6,019
McDonald's - Overview 📊
Wer hat die Landlord-Strategie perfektioniert❓️🤔 McDonald's❗️Der Konzern sichert sich den Standort, baut/finanziert das Restaurant, vermietet die Filiale an einen Franchisenehmer, erhält Miete zzgl. Franchisegebühr sowie Umsatzbeteiligung und erweitert den Immobilienbestand🏠
1
4
1
15
3,639
This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?
335
944
210
4,466
870,364
Why I continue to hold $ASML
11
9
2
154
21,513
Wait.. $HIMS CEO was massivley selling the stock at ATH, but now when its down 70% and "everything is improving" he didnt buy a single share, hmmmmm 🤔🤔
99
37
19
863
118,323
Dazu heute im @handelsblatt wieder mal auf den Punkt @johannesvogel: „Es geht im Rentenkonflikt gar nicht zwingend um Jung gegen Alt. Es geht um die Frage, wie viel neues Denken wir zulassen. Denn nicht das gesetzliche Rentensystem an sich steht durch die Demografie unter Druck, sondern nur die Organisation als reines Umlagesystem.“ hbapp.handelsblatt.com/cmsid…
3
8
2
59
6,857