184295026 : One particular concern from this article is as follows:
- In the morning, overseas observers received negative speculation articles about the rate hike in December issued by the communication agency, which led to selling the yen. Expectations for the Bank of Japan's rate hike, which had temporarily reached 73%, calmed down a bit, and this morning it was fluctuating around 55%. Expectations suddenly receded, especially among overseas players, and dropped nearly 30%.
The communication agency in the morning, this caught my attention. When I googled the communication agency, just below the top results, there were related questions popping up, which is a feature that uses massive big data from search queries processed by GoogleAI to pick up closely related topics. "World's communication agencies" was highlighted.
- Top 5 Communication Agencies in the World: Reuters (United Kingdom), AFP (France), AP and UPI (American), TASS (Russia).
- 7 Major Communication Agencies: Among overseas communication agencies are AP, UPI (United States), Yonhap News (South Korea), Xinhua News Agency (China), Thomson Reuters (American), TASS (Russia).
All are major overseas agencies that any investor would come across. Like Thomson Reuters, for example.
From my observation, this morning's communication agency release about the "declining probability of a Bank of Japan rate cut in December":
- This was not from a Japanese communication agency, but from an overseas communication agency.
- Communication agencies are more influential internationally than domestically in Japan. However, overseas correspondents research information about Japan and send it in English articles to their home countries and worldwide.
- As a result, there is a risk that overseas correspondents misunderstand the accurate political and economic situations in Japan (not completely off the mark, but discrepancies in the facts) and may potentially send out inaccurate information.
- After all, isn't Japanese considered the most difficult language in the world? With kanji, hiragana, and katakana, that's three writing systems, not to mention the complex grammar. Even for Japanese people, accurately grasping the content of complex academic papers is difficult.
- Furthermore, understanding the intricate Japanese national political system and politics (Parliament and Cabinet), Japanese economy, and accurately reporting on these require intricate expressions of complex kanji. For instance, the complex and esoteric terminology exchanges between the questions from reporters at the Bank of Japan meetings with Governor Kuroda and his responses.
From all of this, there is a possibility that the overseas correspondents stationed in Japan may have misinterpreted the complex expressions of the Japanese language used in the report documents from their Japanese information sources, resulting in a misunderstanding of the original authors' intentions in their written works.
Additionally, the following document is from the Nikkei newspaper:
- On the 4th, some communication agencies reported that if there is no upward pressure on prices due to the progress of yen depreciation, the Bank of Japan may postpone its policy change at the December meeting. Following the distribution of similar English articles, overseas investors intensified selling yen and buying dollars.
Given the distribution of similar English articles, I would think that "some communication agencies" refers to overseas communication agencies, right? Since if it were from a Japanese communication agency, would they use the term "English articles" deliberately? If it were me, I would phrase it like this: "Multiple overseas communication agencies promptly turned the news of the Bank of Japan's declining likelihood of a rate cut in December into English articles for overseas circulation after it was disseminated by Japanese *** communication agency."
From this, it's possible that international correspondents from major overseas communication agencies misunderstood the convoluted discussions in the reports provided by Japanese collaborators due to the complexities of the Japanese language, and proceeded to misinterpret that information in their English articles. This misinterpretation, once published, prompted major overseas investors (overseas institutional investors based overseas, overseas funds) to act quickly and implement substantial investments from their own assets into the Japanese market. When significant market players move, capable of substantial buying and selling of massive funds, the market average prices immediately respond with fluctuations. Japanese investors (both individual and large Japanese institutions and funds) would then rush to follow suit.
Isn't this the breakdown of the flow of the Japanese market on Wednesday? In the evening, after revising today's movements in the Japanese market from the economic news article, I found important points that didn't sit well with me (not easily accepted).
Because as a result of this particular communication agency's article being disseminated overseas, last week after the interview with Governor Kuroda of the Bank of Japan held by the Nikkei newspaper on Thursday, the probability of a rate cut in December had risen to 70%, but due to the impact of today's global spread of the communication agency article, the probability dropped abruptly to 30%!!! Isn't this too extreme, no matter how you look at it? In other words, it's "extremely unnatural." Moreover, this communication agency:
- Which specific communication agency?
- Where did the information originate?
- Definitive backing of the information from Bank of Japan employees or senior officials, directly obtained from the Bank of Japan, is not written in any economic news sources.
Basically, the reliability of this article can't be trusted. As a result of today's releases from various communication agencies, even if it's a fact that the probability of a Bank of Japan rate cut in December dropped significantly - (this is a fact that outsiders unrelated to the Bank of Japan are causing a stir based on rumors), the most crucial question is whether the Bank of Japan and Governor Kuroda are truly planning that.

184295026 : - Nvidia, no delay in Blackwell!
What are you talking about??
Is the article title incorrect?
In the previous earnings reports at the end of August,
- There were structural defects in Blackwell
- They claimed to overcome them technically and establish a full-scale production and shipping system in autumn (around November to December)
How does it look now that the truth has come out (in this earnings report)?
The structural defects of the new flagship model "Blackwell" chip, which had been mentioned since the summer, are still not overcome!!!
That's why full-scale production has been delayed to next year!!!
It's not going to be within this year!!!
In fact, this is how it was written in the economic articles from August at that time
- Blackwell is a new GPU architecture announced by Nvidia in March 2024, initially planned to start mass production and shipping in the fourth quarter of 2024 (October to December)
Therefore, the article title is incorrect.

184295026 : Sample and prototype products are predominantly made in a very meticulous and precise environment. It seems that Blackwell also succeeded in the prototype stage, otherwise there wouldn't be any prototypes. They won't loudly announce, "A new flagship model is born!!! We will produce and deliver worldwide from now on, please look forward to the arrival of the new AI era ️" through a leather jacket.
However, the problem is,
- Making prototypes requires a very meticulous and careful environment, which means it takes a lot of time.
- Whether it can be mass-produced quickly, in a short amount of time, and with quality that does not produce defects is a different matter.
After the announcement of the start date of mass production system for the new product, if it changes repeatedly, it completely loses credibility. In this explanation of the recent earnings announcement, the delay in the mass production system and the revision of the start date of the previous earnings announcement have caused a loss of credibility from the market. This must be clearly identified as "fact".
- Just NVIDIA is fine.
- They are now the world's No.1 producer of AI chips, so everything will be fine no matter what happens.
If they do this, it would be a truly foolish act, singing a foolish and pathetic song like "We'll be together forever NVIDIA~" similar to those people who are known for their foolish acts.
Regarding your suggestion on "blindly believing stock information",
in other words, the situation of stock price fluctuations in the near future, and the economic news articles made up of words and sentences from various economists and analysts who emit information in line with the stock price change, just like "fortune-tellers at a horse racing track",
some have been unreasonably trusting this.
- Because it's economic news, they won't say lies or mistakes.
- Economists and analysts won't give incorrect opinions.
- After all, if these people were to significantly deviate from the truth, saying something completely off, they would completely lose social credibility by being labeled as liars, falsehood-speakers, or delusional talkers.
Therefore, before disseminating information, they desperately verify and back up the information.
- That's why their words can be trusted.
This extremely strong bias has always been present while conducting a thorough understanding and examination of the current situation from economic information for investment activities. This bias was evident from the market movements after the NVIDIA earnings in late August and the present, that I had made a significant mistake. I realized this is a powerful "curse of thought" that solidifies one's thinking into only one form. Thinking that one is "completely correct" leads to attacking and denying critiques even when identified as a mistake.
A thought deemed correct will lead to the complete denial of self-existence.
Hence, one will never realize the mistake of the bias and be freed from the curse.
However, this time, through your advice, I realized that I am heavily under the influence of a strong bias in investment activities. Thankfully, I don't follow the beginner-like approach of concentrating over half of my own funds in a single stock, so the damage due to NVIDIA's performance is minimal. However, I hold a significant amount of semiconductor-related stocks that are quite linked and impacted by NVIDIA's movements. But this is essentially the same as focusing on a single industry sector despite not being a single stock concentration approach.
With the Trump administration's full swing beginning next year, it is certain that the global markets (stocks, bonds, currencies) will be greatly disturbed by:
- America-first domestic economic policy
- Diplomatic policies involving geopolitics and war risks that significantly affect the world economy
- Economic diplomacy policies (such as severe tariffs) that directly impact the economy and lead to trade wars
Many American global companies, including NVIDIA, will be noticeably restricted in their global business activities due to these policies. Therefore, it is strongly recognized that selecting and holding investment targets with the same sense as before this year is extremely risky and tantamount to "swallowing a sword." (In reality, many individuals who haven't noticed this global change are optimistic and excited with a sword to their throat, saying, "It's safe because it's a long-term investment." without confirming the breakdown of their own assets → global situation change)
In addition, due to your advice, by releasing the bias from "blindly believing stock information," my thinking horizon has expanded. Hence, I will aim to dismantle and reconstruct my portfolio, which is concentrated on a single sector like I am doing, by the end of this year at the latest.
Finally, thank you for your advice.

184295026 : This time, unlike before, the global market is definitely deteriorating. First and foremost, you should be aware of that.
1 Geopolitical and Warfare Risks Rapidly Increasing
- The intensification of the Russia-Ukraine war which started this week!!!
Biden, in the final few months of his presidency, finally allowed the use of long-range missiles that the USA had been hesitant to provide for Ukraine, in order to give them an advantage against Russia (Mon). Immediately after, Putin announced a relaxation of the requirements for using nuclear weapons worldwide.
- Ukraine promptly fired the "ATACMS" into Russia (Tues). The following day, late at night Japanese time, Ukraine launched the long-range missile "Storm Shadow" provided by the United Kingdom into Russia (Wed).
- Russia retaliated by launching ICBMs into Ukraine (Thurs).
2 Trump Risk
As the Trump administration takes office at the beginning of next year with an uncertain future, Trump will swiftly implement numerous policies simultaneously. It will be like a surprise attack.
The following is an excerpt from a recent Bloomberg article:
Trump recently stated in an interview with popular podcaster Joe Rogan that the semiconductor deal is very bad, claiming that Taiwan stole the USA's semiconductor business. He argued that applying high tariffs would be a better way to get companies to establish factories in the USA.
Trump suggested to Rogan, "Just impose high tariffs on semiconductor imports." He then added that there was no need for him to pay tariffs. He said that it was sufficient to build factories in the USA and remarked, "They didn't need funding to build factories."
In other words, Trump does not want to transfer cutting-edge semiconductor technology to other countries. Whether through technology transfer or through business arrangements like "other countries buying -> exporting or producing and selling locally," he wants to bring it back to Americanism, making America No. 1. He wants to thoroughly enforce complete protectionist trade and protection of industries. Therefore, global semiconductor companies like Nvidia will directly bear the brunt of Trump's protectionist regulations, and their broad business activities will no longer be possible as before.
Instead, there will be a significant increase in semiconductor development and practical experiments in the USA, various machinery automation will drastically increase. However, their performance will decline without being able to do business with the rest of the world.
Even as an amateur without expertise in economics or political science, I can't help but think that unbelievably extraordinary things will happen from next year without a doubt.
Regarding the geopolitical warfare mentioned in 1, in addition to Ukraine, Israel remains.
Regarding the Trump risk in 2, it's hard to imagine what will happen in the USA and around the world for the next four years starting next year.
Optimism about Nvidia should be abandoned. It's okay to have expectations for the company, but in the face of politics (domestic and foreign), wars, and such immense influences, a single company's performance can disappear in an instant. It's easy for a country to enact new laws, place legal constraints on corporate activities, and put significant restrictions on overseas business agreements, especially if sudden conflicts arise in the partner country or its related nations and material transportation (exports) becomes restricted due to war zones. The power dynamics between this company and the state/war are a reality.
Therefore, it's best not to place excessive expectations on Nvidia. Be prepared for the future, not necessarily for complete cashing out of all sales, but more like allocating a small amount from surplus funds that you genuinely don't plan to use for many decades ahead (retirement funds). However, concentrating over half of your personal funds in the stock of just one company like Nvidia, a method that worked from the beginning of this year until early July, is no longer viable.

184295026 : Ah, it's just audio. Good morning. I couldn't sleep well last night due to anxiety, only about 2 hours...

184295026 : This is already confirmed to be a significant drop after the N-Vee earnings report in the early morning of Thursday the 21st, no matter how you look at it. It will follow the same pattern as the significant drop after the earnings report at the end of August. In the previous earnings report, it was pointed out that there were structural flaws in Blackwell, and it was explained that they would overcome this in the fall and transition to full-scale production. However, the problem has not been resolved even by the fall, that's the reality.

184295026 : Blackwell, on one hand, still has structural technical issues (chip heating issues) as seen in the latest MoMo article. Additionally, with the same chip,
- An AI for generating XX answers questions (simple text output)
- How many times, and how many questions can it answer in the same amount of time as the traditional chip?
Have such specification comparisons been announced with numbers? I might have missed it.
In other words, isn't it an exaggeration to say in the article, "Sell Apple stocks before the debut of the first-generation iPhone"?
The fundamental principle of investment is to understand what the investment target is, what kind of performance it has (quantified), calculate the expected profits from it, and only then proceed with the investment.
Without doing this and investing based solely on the momentum of the overwhelming opinions and atmosphere saying, "This is good!!!" around you, will result in a "loss." Similar to the unexpected turn in the previous NV financial results at the end of August.
I don't understand the specific numerical performance of Blackwell (where one chip can handle processing that would require more than XX existing chips, and it completes the task faster than XX seconds compared to processing with XX existing chips), but in recent economic articles related to NV, it can be inferred that the performance of the same chip is higher than the company's existing products. So, it's not a complete denial of investing in NV.
Out of the completely surplus funds that are not needed immediately, allocating around 10% for purchasing stocks of the company in anticipation of its growth might be a good idea.
However, if you unreasonably expect from NV, become greedy, and pour most of your own assets into it, it will lead to the following:
With the announcement of the US CPI in July and the simultaneous foreign exchange intervention, (following the intervention, the market showed a downward trend, and then came the shock of the BOJ meeting and rate hike at the end of July, followed by the unexpected drop in US employment statistics at the beginning of August leading to a world crisis exceeding the previous boom and hype), as many Twitter stock enthusiasts were saying during the intense and heated market before that, "Invest 90% of savings in stocks, investment funds, and other investments. Those who do not do so, why do they cherish their assets as cash for the future? I don't understand." and ridiculing those who do not invest, they later became "big losers" who disappeared from various SNS platforms including Twitter, due to things like the Nikkei surpassing the previous boom and the major crash in NV financial results at the end of August. In the period from June to early July of this year, during the extreme plunge in the yen exchange rate, there were indeed many investment solicitations being made... I don't know what happened to the people who were singing silly songs like "Let's go, Nvidia~♫" Now, those who are still investing are most likely the "investment enthusiasts" who survived the August crisis. Therefore, I believe they have a good sense of timing and when to pull out. I don't think they would engage in the foolish act of allocating more than half of their own funds to a single stock (even if it is a direct purchase, concentrating on one area may lead to significant losses in the event of a downturn, effectively applying negative leverage). For something whose future prospects are speculated, but the profit outlook from its actual performance and capabilities is uncertain, a "moderate" level of greed-free investment seems appropriate based on the lessons learned from past losses.