Yesterday I'd opened and I just cancelled some very lowball, GTC bids on puts in those three companies. Generally more than 75% lower than yesterday's price, with expirations between Jan 2028 and Jan 2029.

The bid ask spreads on those contracts moved substantially up today, so I can - only slightly bitterly - post about it instead of waiting for them to fill.

When I spitballed a valuation on the underlying equity at breakeven on the PLTR Jan 19 2029 50, for just one example, I came out to a P/S of 10-25, depending on how I bounded revenue projections and SBC dilution. That still seems insane for 2 years of generous growth assumptions and less than 75% of the current quote.

To be fair, I have heavily invested in the long side of AI, in various ways, and this was going to be a small hedge overall. I believe AI will have a substantial impact on society and economies, but I'm just not sure how much the present value of all the current players makes for an attractive investment.

I don't know when gravity will reassert itself, but for today I'll repeat Scott McNealy:

Two years ago, we were selling at 10x revenues when we were at $64.

At 10x revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company.

That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64?

Do you realise how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?