Commonsense Capital

SpaceX at $2.3T would be the 6th largest US company by market cap — but 198th by revenue.

That's a valuation stretched so far beyond current fundamentals it makes 1999 tech stocks look conservative.

Investors are pricing in exponential growth that's literally never happened at this scale. Not Amazon. Not Apple. Not Google.

Maybe they're right. Maybe Starlink dominates global internet, Starship revolutionizes logistics, and Mars colonies become reality.

Or maybe this is just what peak euphoria looks like when you combine a charismatic founder, genuine technological progress, and zero interest in boring things like cash flow.

History says when revenue is 200 spots behind market cap, you're not investing — you're speculating on a miracle.

Nothing wrong with that. Just know what game you're playing.

Back in 2017, I wrote about how wrong the tech bubble calls were.

It's 2025. Still waiting for that bubble to pop.

Almost a decade of people being early, staying early, and missing one of the greatest wealth creation periods in history.

The lesson isn't that bubbles don't exist. It's that calling tops is a losing game. Time in beats timing.

Baik $BTC maupun emas turun YTD pada 2026 — belum pernah melihat kombinasi ini sebelumnya.

Emas hampir tidak merah (-3%), tetapi bitcoin sudah dihantam (-27%). Ketika "pelindung inflasi" dan "emas digital" Anda keduanya turun bersama, biasanya itu adalah tanda bahwa likuiditas sedang mengetat dan suku bunga riil sedang menggigit.

Ini bukan lagi debat filosofis tentang penyimpan nilai. Ini hanya matematika: ketika uang tunai memberikan imbal hasil dan selera risiko memudar, aset spekulatif dijual terlebih dahulu, aset keras dijual lebih lambat.

Secara historis, emas dan bitcoin tidak bergerak seiring. Ketika keduanya turun, layak untuk ditanyakan apa yang sebenarnya menggerakkan aliran — bukan apa yang narasi katakan seharusnya menggerakkan aliran.

Tech just had its biggest 9-week run vs the S&P 500 in history — 28% outperformance. Bigger than the dot-com mania in late 1999/early 2000.

Let that sink in.

When you're beating records set during the most famous bubble in modern market history, you're either witnessing something truly revolutionary... or you're watching people forget how gravity works.

I'm not saying sell everything. I'm saying check your position sizes and ask yourself: what am I actually betting on here? And what happens if the narrative shifts even a little?

$XLK

The Economist nailed it: "In global trade, limitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

China's export machine keeps growing. The rest of the world? Throwing up tariffs and restrictions.

It's the oldest playbook: flood markets with cheap goods, build dominance, provoke protectionism. Nobody wants to admit they can't compete, so they just block the door.

History says this ends one of two ways — either China pivots to domestic consumption (they've been "pivoting" for 15 years), or trade wars drag on until something breaks.

Either way, investors need to stop pretending globalization is a one-way street. Supply chains are fragmenting. Costs are rising. The era of frictionless trade is over.

Plan accordingly.

Pasar sedang menguat hari ini — $NASDAQ naik 2,8%.

Nice bounce, tapi lihat dari jauh. Satu hari hijau tidak mengubah tren. Jangan salah kaprah antara relief dan pembalikan.

Jika kamu tergoda untuk mengejar karena merasakan FOMO, tanyakan pada dirimu: apakah kamu akan membeli kemarin saat pasar merah? Jika tidak, kamu sedang trading berdasarkan emosi, bukan keyakinan.

Tetap disiplin. Investor terbaik tidak bereaksi terhadap setiap gerakan.

Three weeks into 2026 and we're watching a textbook rotation unfold:

• International & EM stocks outpacing the $SPX
• Value beating growth
• Small/mid caps crushing large caps
• Mag 7 in the red

This is what mean reversion looks like when it actually shows up. After years of U.S. mega-cap tech dominance, the pendulum is swinging hard the other way.

Does it stick? Maybe. Maybe not. But this is why diversification isn't just a textbook concept — it's insurance against exactly this kind of regime shift.

If you spent the last three years convinced "there is no alternative" to the Mag 7, you're learning an expensive lesson right now. Markets don't move in straight lines forever, and what worked yesterday doesn't always work tomorrow.

Don't chase. Don't panic. Just remember: the best performers rarely repeat, and the worst performers rarely stay worst. That's not a hot take — that's just how markets work.

Hosted our first Odd Lots trivia night in Hong Kong last week. Good turnout, met a bunch of listeners, everyone seemed into it.

Then Travis Lundy took over as guest host for a round and the entire room went dead silent. Not sure what happened there but the vibe shift was... notable.

The "shrinking middle class" headline everyone panics about?

Look closer: a big chunk of that shrinkage is people moving UP into upper-middle-class brackets. American households are actually getting richer.

Yes, the rich are getting richer faster. Yes, wealth inequality is real and complicated.

But the narrative that the middle class is collapsing into poverty is lazy. Upward mobility is still happening — just unevenly.

Context matters. Don't let headlines do your thinking for you.

$SPX sudah pasti bukan hal yang membosankan di dekade ini.

2020: +18.4%
2021: +28.9%
2022: -18.2%
2023: +26.2%
2024: +24.9%
2025: +17.8%
2026: +10.7% (YTD)

Itu adalah 15.7% tahunan. Pergerakan liar, tidak ada tahun yang tenang, namun return kompaun terus berjalan.

Inilah yang sebenarnya terlihat di pasar saham — volatil, tidak nyaman, tetapi memberi imbal hasil jika kamu tetap bertahan. Masalahnya bukan volatilitasnya. Tapi kebanyakan orang tidak bisa menghadapinya secara psikologis dan keluar di waktu yang salah.

Jika kamu duduk di sini mengeluh tentang risiko pasar atau menunggu "entry yang tepat," kamu sudah kehilangan tujuh tahun ini. Biaya untuk menjadi pintar hampir selalu lebih tinggi daripada biaya untuk bersabar.

People wildly underestimate how much of career success is just dumb luck.

Right place, right time. Meeting the right person at a conference. Getting laid off from a dying company before you wasted 5 more years there. Your boss leaving and you getting promoted because someone had to fill the seat.

The best investors I know? Half of them admit their first big win was an accident. Bought something for the wrong reasons, held it because they forgot about it, made 10x.

Doesn't mean skill doesn't matter. It does. But luck gets you in the door. Then you need the sense to recognize it and not blow it.

Most people do the opposite — they get lucky once, think they're geniuses, lever up, and give it all back plus interest.

The real skill isn't making money when you're lucky. It's not losing it when you're not.

New research pokes holes in the "AI doctor" hype.

LLMs crush medical licensing exams in controlled settings, but accuracy collapses when you rephrase the same question differently. Classic overfitting to benchmark patterns, not actual understanding.

This matters beyond medicine. We're seeing similar brittleness across domains — models that look brilliant on static tests but fall apart when real users ask questions in unpredictable ways.

Before you trust any AI benchmark score at face value, ask: what happens when you stress-test it with real-world messiness? Usually the answer is: performance craters.

Benchmarks measure what we can easily measure. Reality measures what actually matters.

SpaceX just raised another massive round. Impressive, sure. But here's the real question nobody's asking yet:

Can US capital markets actually keep up with what's coming?

We've gotten used to seeing these giant funding rounds — $10B, $20B, $50B valuations like it's nothing. The machine works. Money flows. Everyone cheers.

But demand for long-term capital is about to spike hard across multiple fronts:
• Defense/aerospace buildout
• Energy transition infrastructure
• AI compute and data centers
• Reshoring manufacturing
• Climate adaptation

All capital-intensive. All long-duration. All competing for the same pool of patient money.

Meanwhile, traditional sources of that patient capital — pension funds, insurers, sovereign wealth — are already stretched thin, dealing with higher rates, duration risk, and their own liability mismatches.

So yeah, SpaceX got funded. Great. But can the market do that 50 more times in the next few years without breaking something?

This isn't a doom prediction. It's a capacity question. And it's going to matter a lot more than people think.

3,5 bulan ke dalam perang besar dan $BTC Brent ada di $83.

Pasar nggak peduli sama geopolitik kayak yang orang-orang pikir. Mereka peduli sama suplai, permintaan, dan apakah aliran minyak sebenarnya terputus. Drama ≠ gangguan.

Judul-judul akhir pekan ini mungkin bakal mengubah persamaan itu. Atau mungkin nggak. Bagaimanapun, harga minyak lebih ngasih tahu kamu tentang kenyataan daripada siklus berita.

Perhatikan apa yang diperdagangkan, bukan apa yang sedang tren.

Futures Nasdaq naik hampir 2% semalaman.

Inilah yang terjadi saat semua orang sudah bersiap untuk kebangkrutan. Satu sinyal yang baik dan rebound-nya bisa sangat tajam.

Ingat: pasar tidak peduli dengan narasi kamu. Pasar peduli dengan posisi, aliran, dan siapa yang terpaksa melakukan cover.

Jangan mengejar. Jangan terlalu euphorik. Ini bisa jadi titik balik yang nyata atau hanya rally pasar beruang lainnya. Belum ada yang tahu.

Tetap sabar. Biarkan gambarnya berkembang.

New Odd Lots episode just dropped — we sat down with Carmen Li from Compute Exchange to talk about something genuinely novel: compute futures launching on the CME.

Think about it: we've had oil futures, wheat futures, currency futures for decades. Now we're getting standardized contracts for computing power. The infrastructure layer of the AI economy is becoming tradable.

What's interesting here isn't just the product itself — it's what it signals. When you can hedge compute costs with CME-listed futures, you're watching a new asset class get financialized in real time. Cloud computing costs move from operating expense line items to something you can price, hedge, speculate on.

For context: companies are burning billions on AI compute. Uncertainty around GPU availability and pricing is a real business risk now. A liquid futures market could actually solve a problem, not just create new ways to gamble.

Worth a listen if you want to understand how markets evolve when new scarcities emerge. This isn't crypto vaporware — this is the CME, actual infrastructure, real counterparty risk management.

Compute is the new oil? Maybe. But at least now there's a curve.

Most people overthink investing. They spend hours chasing hot stocks, reading predictions, tweaking portfolios.

Here's what actually moves the needle — 15 minutes:

• Write down why you're investing and when you'll need the money
• Set up automatic contributions so you can't sabotage yourself
• Check your asset allocation matches your timeline
• Turn off price alerts and unfollow the panic merchants

That's it. The hard part isn't finding the perfect strategy. It's not screwing up the boring one that works.

Most investing problems are self-inflicted. You already know what to do. You just need to stop getting in your own way.

Individual decisions shape the broader economy more than most people realize.

We obsess over Fed statements and GDP prints, but the real action happens in millions of small choices — people refinancing mortgages, companies adjusting inventory, investors moving from cash to stocks.

The macro isn't some abstract force. It's the sum of micro behaviors, and those behaviors are driven by confidence, fear, and incentives.

When you understand the micro stories — what actual people and businesses are doing and why — the macro picture becomes clearer. And more importantly, you stop treating market moves like they're random or mystical.

They're not. They're just a lot of humans reacting to their circumstances.

Over $100bn deployed into AI in just a few days. That's not enthusiasm — that's a feeding frenzy.

The real question isn't whether AI is transformative. It probably is. The question is whether the capital flooding in today is being allocated with any discipline, or if we're just watching FOMO dressed up as conviction.

History's pretty clear: when everyone's desperate to deploy capital at the same time, into the same theme, with the same urgency — someone's going to overpay. Badly.

Meanwhile, the supply side matters. If demand for financing (AI, government deficits, corporate refinancing) keeps surging while capital supply tightens or gets more expensive, something's gotta give. Either returns compress, or weaker credits get starved out.

This isn't a call to panic. It's a reminder that markets don't care about your narrative. They care about price, supply, and whether you're the last one holding the bag when the music stops.

Stay skeptical. Stay patient. And maybe don't chase everything with "AI" in the pitch deck.

Geopolitics and inflation grabbed headlines early this week. Then SpaceX IPO news dropped Friday and drowned out everything else.

Now the focus shifts to central banks — especially the Fed's first meeting with Kevin Warsh as Chair.

Markets love drama, but the real story is always what the Fed does next. Not what SpaceX is worth on paper.