this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2026
755 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
89619 readers
2963 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow. Plunge 4 whole percent.
On other days this would be considered a "modest market correction", but today it is "plunge".
Relative to their peers is somewhat more telling. But generally agree.
And today, another 4% down, in a market that is not terribly down otherwise. And this is after a decline, currently at a 24% decline for the month.
So this scandal caused them to go down a pretty beefy amount while others made something of a recovery, and it has continued for two days, and exacerbates the stocks broader struggles.
On a $4.3T market cap
What does that mean?
The company is "worth" $4.3 Trillion dollars. Losing 4% of $4.3 trillion = losing $172 billion in one day.
Also, based on how everyone else did today, they probably would have made $172 billion if this story hadn't come out today, therefore it's like they lost $344 billion dollars in one day.
His buddies on the board (who own most of the company and therefore ate most of that loss) are probably pretty pissed at him right now, and also salivating at an opportunity to take some of his shares as punishment.
Ugh. Terminology written by the rich. Like a multi-billionaire being described as being “poorer” because their assets took a downturn yet they’re still a multi-billionaire. I despise the premise that predicted money not made is a “loss.”
No, you never had the value, so you can’t lose what you didn’t have. But businesses get to act like it and then it helps them ditch deferred tax assets if they get deemed unrecoverable. Isn’t that amazing?
True, but also you participate in an economy that legitimizes predicted money. I mean…. Even rental homes/apartment complexes can get loans before they open, based on predicted rent income.
Yeah but I don’t get to write off the loan or cancel part of it if I don’t make the money and the bank can come after my assets for failure to pay. This is not the same thing.
Write off the loan and cancel part of it? I’m not familiar with those mechanics, but nor did I think they were required for this system to be evil anyhow. What are you referring to?
I’ve heard that these people don’t pay back the loans. They borrow until they die, or other loopholes. The debt doesn’t vanish, though. The system is designed to remove the burden of an active debt if you can dance to its tune.
Also, I wasn’t saying you’re doing the same thing as them… so I’m not sure what “this” is when you say “this is not the same thing.”
I was just saying that you contribute to the economy, by working in it and paying into it. I’m not saying that you’re happy about. Just acknowledging that the economy which is very real for you DOES recognize the pretend forecasted money which you rejected. The economy legitimizes it already. So your issue is with the system, not necessarily with some rhetoric people use.
Yeah the bank will come after your assets, but really I’m just trying to show you the enemy here. It’s the fact that the system legitimizes the very thing which you call illegitimate.
A corporation that defers taxes and experiences a “loss” as we’ve been discussing may not have to pay those taxes at all - even if they were profitable when the taxes were initially levied.
If you are wealthy using loans, in lieu of selling assets and incurring capital gains taxes, to buy things is absolutely the way to go. And then in top of that, make sure you’re personally worth very little when you die so there’s little for the banks to take from your estate. That’s how the rich stay rich and get richer.
As far as recognizing future earnings, again, there’s the aforementiond deferral and writeoff, as well as banks not normally coming after wealthy/corporations for failure to pay on time. Yes, both rich and normal people get “future earnings” considered, but the consequences and benefits of how those future earnings are handled are wildly different mechanisms for both parties. Corporations might get a tax bill written off for a bad couple quarters, meanwhile a normal person losing their job and being unable to realize those “future profits” could face foreclosure. To make it equal, make the normal person’s loan payment recalculate every quarter based on projected earnings, let them defer some of a payment if they got a good bonus one quarter, and then allow them to completely not owe some payments at all ever if say they become unemployed for half a year or take a pay cut . That’s why it’s not the same thing. I’m trying to keep apples and oranges separate, one is a fiction generated for the corporations’ benefit, a paycheck or lack thereof is a hard reality for the normal people.
Where do you think the money to buy everything else came from? Money doesn't appear out of thin air. If Nvidia didn't go down then it is unlikely others would have gone up.