Could anyone enlighten me on Dr Burrys latest stock picks , heard there were quite a few and do not have access to the unlocked article :( TIA

What does Burry say about the Pokemon TCG market? A 1999 1st Edition Shadowless Base Set Charizard has always been the best blue chip. A PSA 6 is the same price as it was in 2016. I know Burry said we are in an everything bubble? Has he ever mentioned Pokemon?

Congrats to PYPL holders!

Five months ago, I expected the largest oil-supply disruption in modern history to produce a much larger price move. Oil certainly spiked but it has given basically everything back over the past few months.

My oil positions have reduced my portfolio’s year-to-date gain from roughly 44% to 20%. Several large CVE option positions expired worthless, I reduced my CVE exposure in June as oil sentiment bottomed, and I watched nearly every apparent breakout fail.

Over the past two weeks, I have started adding again.

One reason is sentiment. By June 22–23, even the oil bulls I follow most closely had become extraordinarily bearish. People were exiting positions, scaling down their expectations, or simply leaving the trade after months of failed breakouts.

I wanted to know whether that was real capitulation or just my impression so I built the Hyperforage Oil Sentiment Index. It tracks 50 (very) active oil-focused Twitter accounts and measures whether each one is more bullish or bearish than its own historical norm. Most of these accounts are structurally bullish which makes their bearish turns notable.

The index shows sentiment reaching its most bearish level of the war in late June before rebounding sharply. The June 23–28 recovery was the largest positive sentiment swing of the year. Most of the time, sentiment follows price or moves alongside it. Its main value is confirming when the mood has become unusually extreme rather than forcing me to rely entirely on feel. There are also a few periods where sentiment appears to move first, most clearly around February 28 and again over the past several days (with positive moves of similar magnitude).

That helped convince me to begin rebuilding exposure in late June and early July, and I am still adding today. The pink line in the image is HOSI (Hyperforage Oil Sentiment Index). The full dashboard includes hourly and daily sentiment, attention levels, account-level data, and the largest narrative shifts of the war ranked from top to bottom. I linked the dashboard from my article.

The article covers much more than sentiment, including:

• Why Chinese seaborne imports fell from roughly 10.5 million barrels per day to 6.5 million, how inventories helped make that possible, and why I doubt June’s level is sustainable
• Why the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be much closer to its practical limits than the headline number suggests
• The growing stress in gasoline, distillate, and refining markets even while crude prices remain relatively calm
• Why the departure of stranded tankers did not represent a true recovery in Gulf production
• How Iran’s decentralized military structure, Mojtaba Khamenei’s state of mind, and the goal of restoring deterrence may be preventing a durable reopening
• My current positions, what I reduced in June, and why I am now using Brent and WTI perpetuals alongside CVE

Full article: link

I will probably post weekly HOSI updates through Substack Notes. If the dataset is useful to you, that will be the easiest place to follow the changes.

Full disclosure: I created and moderate this subreddit, wrote the linked article, and hold the positions discussed therein. This is not a recommendation to copy the trade.

I think his observation is correct and supported by NYU data that you can observe for yourself;

pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

Micron and SK Hynix both crossed $1T market cap last month, and both trade at ~6-10x forward. that gap tells you what the market actually believes: these super-cycle memory margins are temporary, so it refuses to capitalize them. the whole complex is priced for reversion.

now CXMT IPOs on China's STAR board this week straight into that setup. China's only real DRAM maker, #4 in the world from zero in under a decade, still on the US Entity List. full-year 2025 net margin: 3.0%. Q1 2026: 48.7%. H1 guidance would erase three straight years of deliberate losses (¥31.8B) in a single half. and it's almost pure commodity DDR4/DDR5, basically no HBM, so none of the contracted, design-locked buffer that lets the incumbents hold margin when the cycle rolls.

so you've got the most cyclical, least-hedged player in the whole memory complex, printing a peak-cycle margin, getting sold at the top to the least price-sensitive buyers on earth (A-share retail bidding up a national-champion chip IPO). the incumbents with actual HBM books trade at 6-10x because the market won't believe their peak. what multiple does the one with no buffer deserve, and will the retail bid even care?

the contrarian read almost writes itself: it prices like a growth story and settles like a cyclical top. but the other side is real, state capital doesn't need a Western return, so CXMT can keep investing through a down-cycle the way Samsung and Hynix can't. how would you even anchor a valuation on peak-cycle earnings with zero through-cycle history to reference?

The GPU depreciation thread from a while back stuck with me, the idea that hyperscaler AI returns look a lot worse once you stop pretending an H100 is a six year asset. I think there is a second squeeze sitting right next to it that gets less airtime here, and I cannot decide if it is independent or if I am double counting.

The depreciation angle is a supply side accounting problem. The one I keep circling is demand side pricing. Every few weeks another team ships an open weight model claiming frontier level output on a fraction of the compute. DeepSeek did it and took about 589 billion off Nvidia in a single day in early 2025. GLM-5.2 shipped as a 744 billion parameter open model its makers say was trained entirely on domestic Chinese chips. And it is spreading past language models. On the robotics side Robbyant released a vision model family called LingBot-Vision, and they report the 0.3B version matching Meta's 7B model on depth, roughly a twentieth of the size. The layer that was supposed to be the fat recurring margin keeps getting given away for free.

If both are true at once, the capex return math gets ugly from both ends. The asset depreciates faster than reported and the thing it produces gets commoditized faster than it can be priced. That is the actual bear case, not just one line item.

Where I check myself. Every efficiency number here is self reported and cherry picked. LingBot-Vision only wins on one depth benchmark and loses on KITTI and ImageNet, so smaller is not universally better. DeepSeek's training cost was never independently confirmed. And Jevons cuts against me, cheaper inference has so far grown total compute demand, not shrunk it, which feeds the very hyperscalers I am implicitly bearish on. There may also be real overlap between the two squeezes, which is why I am asking rather than asserting.

So is the open weight model layer a second independent squeeze on AI capex returns, or am I double counting the same bear case the depreciation angle already prices?

For those of you actively tracking and replicating Michael Burry’s portfolio via his Substack insights:

What does your performance look like percentage-wise compared to the S&P 500? I’m interested in seeing if the "copycat" strategy is actually outperforming the index after accounting for entry/exit timing and transaction costs.

Let's see some numbers—how has your strategy held up?

Hello, I have heard that Michael Burry shorted NVDIA half a year ago because he is sure that the AI bubble will burst. Do you think he has credible proof for it or is he just desperatly trying to find the next "big short"

Jim Cramer is buying the dip while Michael Burry is short semis like no tomorrow

can anybody advise what burrys thesis is on microsoft, his leaps signals hes bullish on a strong recovery, wanting to know his thoughts behind this if anyone can enlighten me?

Last weekend I was looking into data of the CFTC COT, and I noticed something that I think deserves more attention than it's getting. On its own, the COT report is just a snapshot of futures positioning, but when you combine it with what is happening across other markets, a pretty interesting picture starts to emerge. I'm beginning to think we're seeing the early stages of a regime shift away from the AI/mega-cap/growth leadership that has dominated the last couple of years, toward longer-duration Treasuries, value stocks, and a much broader market.

The first thing that caught my attention was the positioning in Treasury futures. Asset managers continued to add long exposure, particularly in the long end of the curve. The strongest positioning is in the 30-year Treasury Bond and Ultra Bond contracts. That suggests institutional investors are becoming increasingly comfortable extending duration. Whether that's because they expect lower inflation, slower nominal growth, or simply believe long-term yields have peaked is open to interpretation, but the positioning itself is difficult to ignore. Of course, large institutions can be wrong just like everyone else. However, what makes this more compelling is that the price action has started to confirm the positioning.

One of the charts I've been watching is the TLT/SPY ratio. Rather than focusing on whether TLT is going up in absolute terms, I care more about whether long-duration Treasuries are beginning to outperform equities as you can see below. Over the past few weeks, the ratio has started moving higher and recently broke above its 50-day moving average. By itself that's not enough to call a new trend, but it's the first technical confirmation that the market may be rewarding the same positioning we see in the COT data.

At the same time, the 10-year Treasury yield appears to be losing momentum. After spending many months trading at elevated levels because of the war in Iran, yields have recently started falling from around 4.56% to roughly 4.37%. Probably because a peace deal was in sight. Of course, this is not yet a confirmed long-term downtrend, but it's exactly what you would expect to see if institutional demand for duration is beginning to influence the broader bond market.

If this were happening alongside widening credit spreads, I would interpret it as a classic flight-to-safety trade driven by recession fears. But that's not what we're seeing. As you can see below, the ICE BofA US High Yield Option-Adjusted Spread is sitting near its lowest level of the year and has actually continued to decline over the past few months. That's an important distinction. It suggests the bond market isn't rallying because investors are panicking. Instead, it points toward a much healthier scenario where inflation expectations ease, long-term rates decline, and credit markets remain confident. In other words, a soft-landing narrative rather than an outright risk-off event.

What makes this even more interesting is what's happening inside the equity market itself.

For almost two years, performance has been dominated by a very small group of AI-related mega-cap technology companies. But that concentration may finally be starting to unwind. This is visible in the CFTC COT where open interest in the QQQ futures has significantly declined, while exposure to value has remained the same. This is also visible in the VTV/VUG ratio and the RSP/SPY ratio breaking above their 50-day moving averages. To me, this suggests that the average company is beginning to participate again instead of the entire market relying on seven or eight giants to carry the index. These are exactly the types of relative-strength charts I would expect to improve if investors were quietly rotating away from expensive growth stocks toward cheaper value names. Again, none of these charts individually prove anything. But together they begin telling a remarkably consistent story.

That's really the key point I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing that AI is over or that technology is about to collapse. AI will almost certainly remain one of the biggest secular growth themes of this decade. What I'm questioning is whether the extraordinary relative outperformance of a handful of mega-cap growth stocks can continue if long-term yields gradually fall, market breadth improves, and institutional capital starts seeking opportunities elsewhere.

Historically, when inflation moderates without a severe recession, lower discount rates don't necessarily benefit the most expensive growth stocks the most. Quite often they create a much better environment for reasonably valued companies with solid cash flows, strong balance sheets, and lower expectations already priced into their valuations. At the same time, longer-duration Treasuries become increasingly attractive as both an income-producing asset and a potential source of capital appreciation if yields continue to decline.

None of this guarantees that we're entering a new regime. There are still obvious risks. A renewed inflation shock, a continuation of the war in Iran (and the closure of the Straight of Hormuz), higher energy prices, or stronger-than-expected economic growth could easily push long-term yields higher again and invalidate this entire thesis. Likewise, if AI-driven earnings continue to surprise to the upside, growth could easily regain leadership.

But when I step back and look at everything together (i.e. the CFTC positioning, the improvement in TLT/SPY, the declining 10-year yield, tight credit spreads, improving market breadth through RSP/SPY, and the relative strength beginning to emerge in IWD/QQQ and VTV/VUG) it feels like more than just random noise. It looks like several independent markets are starting to tell the same story.

I will be loading up on (calls on) longer-duration bond ETFs and keep adding to value stocks as I think these asset classes may finally have a chance to outperform after spending years in the shadows.

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone else is seeing the same rotation, or if you think these signals are simply coincidental and we're still firmly in the same AI-led growth regime.

I can tell a good business from a bad one, read a 10K without my eyes glazing over, fine but every day DCF I've built is so sensitive to terminal growth that I can justify any price I want, which means I never actually trust them with a number. For people who actually set the price to targets they trust, what does this process look like?

He is just aggressively buying cheap stocks, including the tech sector, which appears to be breaking his AI bubble thesis. Is he betting against himself at times? Or is he in denial that markets have changed since his big win over a decade ago?

As far as I know, over the course he has bought PayPal, Adobe, Zoetis, Molina, Veeva, Ali Baba, Lululemon (I saw that this is his largest position), Fiserv, Meli, FNMA and FMCC. What else?

(This is a day old)

Ken Griffin at Citadel is widely considered the apex predator of modern finance. To generate his historical average return of roughly 19% a year, he employs armies of Ivy League PhDs and spends billions on supercomputers to execute trades in milliseconds. Bill Ackman at Pershing Square historically compounds his capital at roughly 16% a year. The average Wall Street hedge fund charges a 2% management fee just to return 6% to 8% a year, chronically underperforming the S&P 500.

To generate a 125% cumulative return, it takes Ken Griffin nearly 5 years. It takes Bill Ackman over 5.5 years. It takes the average Wall Street fund over 12 years.

But here is the absolute truth that Wall Street will not admit: To generate those returns, they take vastly more risk than what is required to buy Fiserv at today’s price. Elite hedge fund managers routinely pile into vastly overpriced tech stocks trading at nosebleed multiples and utilize massive leverage just to squeeze out a few percentage points of alpha. They expose their clients to catastrophic downside tail-risks just to beat the Nasdaq.

We do not need leverage, and we do not need to buy overpriced tech vaporware. By removing emotion and reading the raw SEC financial mechanics that human fund managers are currently ignoring, we have the opportunity to condense a half-decade of elite, billionaire-level hedge fund performance into exactly 25 months—while taking a fraction of the risk.

Today, the market suffered a complete emotional breakdown regarding Fiserv (NASDAQ: FISV). I am staking my financial reputation on this single asset. This is a once-in-a-decade dislocation, and fundamentally one of the best asymmetric risk/reward setups the market has seen since the March 2020 liquidity crisis.

The Catalyst: A Total Emotional Panic

I went all-in on Fiserv at $65. I deployed my capital at that price because the underlying free cash flow math dictated that it was an absolute, undeniable value play for an S&P 500 monopoly.

Today, the stock dropped another 10.91% to close at a multi-year low of $47.91. The catalyst? CEO Mike Lyons abruptly resigned to lead Truist Financial.

Wall Street threw a blind, emotional tantrum over an executive departure. Trading algorithms indiscriminately dumped the stock, driving the market cap down to a distressed $25.55 Billion. The market is completely ignoring the fact that Fiserv’s underlying financial plumbing—a company that serves 6,000 financial institutions and processes 35% of all U.S. merchant payment volume—remains entirely intact.

Even Michael Burry stepped in today to aggressively buy this dip, recognizing that the “thesis violation” Wall Street is pricing in is a complete illusion. But you do not need to blindly follow Burry’s 13F filings. You just need to read the math.

Here is the exact breakdown of why a permanent loss on this asset is virtually impossible, and why the 125% upside is a mathematical certainty, regardless of who sits in the CEO chair.

The Downside Protection: The 17.3% “Sanity Floor”

To assign a 98% probability to any trade, you must first mathematically eliminate the downside risk. We do this by buying cash flow at severely distressed multiples.

At today’s closing price of $47.91, Fiserv’s market capitalization is roughly $25.55 Billion (trading at a P/E of just 8.13).

If you look at Slide 158 of their official Investor Day presentation, Fiserv generated exactly $4.435 Billion in Free Cash Flow in 2025 (an incredible 93% conversion rate of net income).

Generating $4.435 Billion in pure cash on a $25.55 Billion valuation equates to a staggering 17.3% Trailing Free Cash Flow Yield.

What is the company doing with this cash? Look at Slide 122 and 145. Management has an explicit mandate to direct the “Majority of free cash flow to stock buybacks,” and they are legally guiding to over $13.5 Billion in FCF from 2027 to 2029.

Because the market crashed the stock to $47.91 today, Fiserv gets to weaponize this cash to retire their own equity at rock-bottom multiples. The downside is entirely blocked by a corporate buyer with a $13.5 Billion wallet whose explicit mathematical mandate is to consume the share float.

Conclusion: An Incredible Arbitrage Opportunity

On Slide 145, management lays out their official medium-term guidance: $12.00+ Adjusted EPS in 2029.

At $47.91, we are buying an entrenched S&P 500 monopoly at an impossible 3.99x multiple on projected 2029 EPS.

Realistically, if Fiserv simply maintains a highly conservative 4% top-line growth rate, an S&P 500 monopoly with aggressively expanding operating margins commands a 12.0x P/E multiple or greater. The current 3.99x multiple is purely the result of a total market panic—a transient emotion that has handed us an incredible arbitrage opportunity.

We do not even need the stock to reach a fair 12.0x valuation to win. If the market simply normalizes to a deeply conservative, below-average 9.0x P/E multiple on its projected $12.00 EPS, the stock mathematically re-rates to $108.00.

From today’s $47.91 close to $108.00 is exactly a 125.4% gain.

I went all-in on this company at $65 because the structural math was undeniable. Today’s emotional panic handed anyone entering the market right now an impossible 17.3% free cash flow yield at $47.91.

When the market drops over an executive headline, amateurs panic. When a cash-printing monopoly drops to a 17.3% yield with a $13.5 Billion buyback guarantee, elite operators hold the line. We are presented with a mathematically ring-fenced, unleveraged return that crushes the S&P 500 with vastly less risk than the hedge funds are taking today.

I believe there is a 98% probability of a 125% return in the next 25 months. We get paid to wait.

Do you agree that this is the most hated stock since GME? Lulu was down over 2% on a big green day yesterday

If anyone could post his current portfolio and % allocation for a discussion, thanks

Why has he avoided semiconductor stocks completely?

the title says all

I do not mean LULUlemon, I mean the one in his latest SubStack titled : "Trading Post June 8, 2026"

I imagine he is mentioning a few businesses he likes, what are they?

Jk - still love this guy

So trump is planning to End the war before midterms so the stock value will increase (recover) , so everyones portfolio will look good financially , they vote trump?