And i was thinking mtar tech etc. were over valued….indeed stocks go crazy where market expects big revenue growth
Earnings were suppressed all this while for both MTAR and STLTECH and thus everything looks bloated on screener. In my view, TTM metrics on screener is not the right way to decide about the value of company. For example, STLTECH TTM PE ratio looks super high of around 600 but P/S ratio is just around 6. Now, if you can calculate how those denominatiors E or S can grow sustainabiliy in mid term and therefore how these ratios will either remain at same level or fall every Q on Q will drive the price. In other words, what it can achieve and how it can better those TTM ratios in mid term is what drives the price.
4 Likes
precisely the calculations you mentined and “mid term” projections drive these stocks crazy…and most often then not such realisations are sudden…within few months some big investor enters, maybe some pms also, some niche analyst also realises the potential, some good retails investors also understand the projections….so in maybe a few months period it becomes a eureka moment for everyone.
Nothing against your viewpoint & and what you mention could be correct reasons of rerating stocks to current 600 pe valuations….my above thought is purely at the amazement of coinciding of eureka moment of the larger investing community….
1 Like
Agree!! Just my view but here technicals help a lot. If nothing, atleast you can gauge if the institutions are entering or not. I was really lucky to find both MTAR and STLTECH at almost when they were breaking out/consolidating. Exited MTAR fully today, made 2.4x in 3 months. Again it was a technical exit today. STLTECH is more than 3x for me in same period.
5 Likes
How do you determine selling point when stock has run up so much ? Even though Sterlite has run up so much, i believe fundamentally it has strong legs. But technically it may slide down. The drop is so steep if we use 200, 50 or 20 dma that a good percentage of gains can be lost. How to determine the exit point and whether exit should itself be done or just sit through the period
3 Likes
@phreakv6 Whats your view on this whole Crusoe - Bloom Energy - Black Hill Saga that is unfolding and how does it impact your thesis on Mtar?
@phreakv6 - this was Spark capital Analyst’s response wrt Crusoe news
Background
-
Project Jade is a proposed AI data center campus in Wyoming, USA initially planned as a 1.8GW facility with a potential expansion to 10GW, which would make it one of the largest AI data center campuses globally. The project was initially announced in July 2025.
-
The project is important for Bloom Energy as it was expected to supply ~900MW of fuel cells, representing a ~US$2.65bn revenue opportunity.
Recent Developments
-
Concerns emerged after Crusoe, the DC developer building out the project, announced it was pausing site development activities at the customer’s request. CEO Chase Lochmiller subsequently clarified that the decision was customer-led, driven by site-related issues, and that work completed so far was largely limited to site preparation. Power development activities continue and approvals remain in place.
-
However, Black Hills, the utility partner building the power infrastructure, later stated that the 1.8GW project has not been paused and is now being advanced directly with the hyperscaler customer, while remaining on track for early 2028. The utility also disclosed that the customer has already committed >US$200mn toward long-lead generation equipment and that key substation agreements and statutory filings have already been completed.
Key Takeaways
-
We believe Black Hills’ comments are particularly noteworthy given its central role in delivering the project’s power infrastructure.
-
While the latest developments could result in project timing delays, currently available information suggests the project continues to advance. Developments around project execution, timelines and customer commitments will need to be monitored.
-
Notably, even in a downside scenario where Project Jade is ultimately shelved, Bloom’s 900MW fuel-cell opportunity was sourced through American Electric Power’s (AEP), which will supply power to the project, 1GW Master Supply Agreement signed in late 2024 rather than through a direct contract with Crusoe. As such, contractual provisions with AEP could provide some protection to Bloom’s earnings, although the ultimate impact would depend on delivery schedules, contract terms and any potential reallocation of fuel-cell deployments.
Impact on MTAR
-
MTAR provides the hotbox in which Bloom fuel cells are stored. Notably, the company received ~Rs. 40bn (2-2.5GW) order in last year from Bloom Energy.
-
While it is too early to assess any potential impact on MTAR’s order book from Bloom Energy, we will continue to monitor developments around Project Jade and the broader AI data center buildout in the US, particularly for any signs of delays in project execution that could affect the timing of Bloom’s fuel-cell deployments.
-
At CMP the company trades at 50x FY28E P/E(x). We currently have a BUY rating on the stock.
8 Likes
Don’t want to hijack this excellent thread with my posts and ramblings. But selling is always very difficult. Either you should have a fixed rule based on MAs which is easy to follow but then the pain of stock recovering and going up without you will be difficult to endure or the second way is that you mix fundamentals with technicals and have conviction that small pullbacks are okay with you and you remain in the stock for longer period.
For me, lately I have created some fix rules based on MAs and AVWAPs. I don’t mind reentering the stock if it starts running again but since my position size is massive (because at a time, I don’t invest in more than 5 stocks), can’t afford to bear the losses. Technical patterns help too.
Giving two simple charts here.
First is MTAR, it clearly formed H&S which was the trigger for me to exit. I lost money earlier in Blue Jet and Ceinsys and when I see those charts in hindsight, double top was clearly visible on weekly charts for both of them. They still haven’t recovered fully.
Second one is Stltech. Those red lines are all pullbacks which is part and parcel of all stocks journey. Stocks never go in one straight line up or down. So small pullbacks are perfectly fine unless I see this declining below let’s say 10 week EMA or key AVWAPs.
17 Likes
I have been studying the power transmission space, specifically looking for smaller companies that can benefit from the serious tailwind in power generation and transmission, arising from renewables, data centers and transmission upgrades and grid modernization - both HVAC and HVDC, that can benefit not just from domestic but from international tailwinds. Of course tailwinds alone are never enough, there must be a moat, a uniqueness to the company and this is where a lot of the power sector companies fell by. Hitachi Energy and GE Vernova are likely the only ones that check all these boxes (except the criteria for being small and relatively undervalued). Schneider Electric keeps interesting businesses off the listed entity. Siemens and Hirect are also very interesting but derive bulk of the revenue today from railways which kept me out.
In power generation, I already own Mtar and TD both of which possess strong moats and ride the DC tailwind. In transmission, most of the companies are riding a commodity tailwind at best. Some like Quality Power do differentiate (esp their GIS tie-up with Hyosung gets them a foot in the door into DCs as Hyosung is a leader in the space, not just in GIS) as does RIR (compared to what they initially planned to do in power semis vs what they are currently doing, I am unimpressed and gave it a pass. Execution is seriously lacking though am unsure if its the govt holding them back or promoter’s lack of hunger). That’s the background to the one company that checked all the boxes for me (My search hasn’t been exhaustive by any means).
Yash Highvoltage is a SME in the power ancillary space. They make bushings (those things that stick out of transformer while taking the conductor in) that are used in high voltage and high current transformers. It is a very critical piece of transformers and is ~5% of cost (there are 7 of them used in each transformer - 3 IN, 3 OUT and 1 NEUTRAL). These are pretty much custom designed for each manufacturer/transmission project, so are not a commodity. The company makes decent EBITDA margins of 25% confirming the same. There are also only ~10 players that make these bushings like Hitachi Energy, ABB, Trench, Weidmann and few Chinese companies. In India, only Hitachi and GE make bushings and they use it for internal consumption. What Yash makes is what is used by Toshiba, Siemens, ABB, TARIL, Atlanta Electricals, BHEL and most other Power transformer manufacturers. Today Yash holds 70% market share in RIP bushings upto 245 kV and 35-40% share in OIP bushings in India. Exports are negligible at 7% and there has been a reason for that I think.
OIP (Oil-impregnated paper) bushings are a sort of a older technology and RIP (Resin-impregnated paper) is newer (POWERGRID adopted around 2016 or so). Interestingly Toshiba has recommended Yash’s name to POWERGRID for the same as per an article in 2017.
What I like is how the promoter has built this business over the last 15 odd years taking it from strength to strength. He seems to have cultivated the relationship with MGC Moser-Glaser from 2012 onward which over a period of time has led to Yash bringing their RIP bushing technology to India (MGC incidentally a 100+ yr old company at the time had invented the RIP technology in the early 2000s) by importing the core from MGC and assembling them here.
The assembly itself isn’t a straight-forward process as it requires a lot of precision as the way the insulator core is made is through radial arrangement of electric-grade crepe paper (likely made by Swiss company Weidmann) interleaves with Aluminium foil and impregnated with epoxy resin. The foil essentially then acts like stacked capacitors that equalise the electric field in both radial and axial directions - any imprecise arrangement can lead to a failed bushing and a failed bushing = transformer fire burning down Crores worth of equipment.
The company has a big 153 Cr greenfield capex underway today that is backward integrating into RIP cores which will be an import substitution - removing dependence on MGC completely. MGC appears to be helping out with the tech transfer through a project management company (my understanding could be wrong) - this is likely an arrangement that they must have gotten into back in 2016 because MGC held a 25% stake in the company until before the IPO.
The promoter has bought out MGCs stake around 225 or so pre-IPO (am writing these from memory, so numbers might be off a bit) and Negen PMS as well seems to have acquired shares around this price (likely part funded the MGC buy out). It is my guess that the company had exclusivity as part of this earlier arrangement with MGC that prevented it from exporting RIP bushings abroad sort of similar to Aeroflex-Vertiv deal (they did export OIP in this period). Now with the tech transfer and removal of MGC board control, they should be able to export RIP bushings (with Indian made RIP cores).
The tailwinds I see
-
Transformer companies are doubling capacity and in concalls of TARIL, Apar, Atlanta etc. you can see references of bushings being in short-supply. Despite there not being any dumping duty etc. to protect company from Chinese competition, the customers still stick with Yash because qualification takes years and the company has a long association (and products are custom designed)
-
OIP:RIP mix today is about 50:50 (company did about 7000 odd bushings with roughly 3500 of each type) and revenue mix is 80:20 in favor of RIP because RIP is 4-5x the price of OIP in realisation. Order book today as well is 80:20 in favor of RIP - capacity itself is going up from 9000 today to 15000 and company is guiding for a ~65% util (a 40%+ growth visibility in volumes). The way OIP bushings supply is stressed more than RIP, my guess is the company is pushing out more RIP volumes as its more remunerative. The favorable RIP mix will aid in holding up margins despite the big capex increasing costs
-
The company has signed up agreements with Weidmann for distribution into Europe and North Africa, Electro link for UK and Ireland and has also established a US subsidiary - all in the last year post listing. Clear ambitions to push into export markets now that the exclusivity has ended. Export realisations are 2.5x domestic on OIP and in RIP as well I think is higher (can’t recollect exact figure). So export push opens up large margin expansion opportunity
-
The biggest of course is the backward integration into RIP core. If you see the imports reported in related party transactions over the years with MGC (since they had a 25% stake at that period), the RIP cores are roughly 30% of topline and roughly 70% of RM. FY25 MGC purchases are low because they dont have to disclose them as RPT
Back of the envelope yields core-as-%-of-bushings at ~40-50%. I feel Yash has a significant cost advantage making the core here because the aluminium foil, epoxy resin, copper conductor and labour are all significantly cheaper here in India. The crepe paper would continue to be imported but that’s only 25% of the overall cost of the RIP core. My guess is that with full operating leverage and 2-3 yrs into operations, Yash can comfortably hit a 40% EBITDA margin from the current 25% margin (please verify the math yourself)
-
The greenfield capex also gives them the capability to go up to 550 kV class bushings from the current 245 kV. Higher voltage and current classes have significantly higher realisations as they are way harder to make. This is another unlock and in higher class there are even fewer players. It also puts them on a path towards doing stuff in the HVDC value-chain in the future
-
Yash appears to have been 15% of MGCs revenues based on publicly available data for past years. RIP core itself could have a decent export market as Yash can now go head-to-head against MGC and that too with a significant cost advantage.
-
Yash and Quality Power bought Sukrut Electric from Maschinenfabrik Reinhausen. Both own 50:50 in the company as a JV. This company has complementary products and can be an optionality in the long run. Dont expect much from this.
So to sum up - I see volume, geography mix, product mix, backward integration all playing out in the next 2 years here. One more thing I liked is how efficient the company is with working capital. 50%+ growth between FY25 and FY26 with barely any growth in receivables. Bulk of the inventory must be RIP cores. Overall growth guided is for 40% for next few years and I do see a path to it with overall market size ~27k Cr and current sales ~240 Cr and current capex can do 700 Cr in 3-4 yrs. I think upto a 1200 Cr in this should be possible by a hungry and capable management if past is any guide.
Risks:
-
Capex execution and stabilisation remains key. The equipment is under commissioning as per recent call. They aim to do factory acceptance test and product approvals this year to start manufacturing by end of year. FY27 is still sorted even if there are delays by a few months. It doesn’t seem like this greenfield capex is something that the company conceived recently - to me it looks like this was always on the cards for a long time and such long-term plans and aspirations generally play out
-
Transformer companies backward integrating into bushings. I think this is not a very serious risk though there are talks here and there of it. Main reason is that its not something you can master overnight and product acceptance takes years. Also why would someone risk reputation to save 1% in EBITDA margins? The other thing is once Yash is backward integrated, the cost advantage would be untouchable. Also this business should have tremendous operating leverage - stuff like expensive machines, autoclave etc bring in inherent op. lev. - a business doing 20k bushings would have serious cost advantage to someone doing 1-2k for internal consumption (with imported cores)
-
Promoter is clearly market savvy going by the way he bought out MGC before IPO and also appears to be wanting to dilute another 100-110 Cr (enabling resolution of 150 Cr) for capex. You can see it either way - either he knows how to play the market towards short-term gains (very bad) or he knows how much value market can confer to people who play the long game with good ethics - I hope he is the latter but its hard to tell in SMEs.
Sources: AR, IPO docs, Choice broking report
Disc: I own a small pos here from 750 levels
115 Likes
Nicely summarized, just to add an interesting piece of information here,
Every transformer uses multiple bushings, and at EHV and UHV voltage classes, those bushings predominantly use porcelain hollow insulators as their outer envelope.
So if bushings are the bottleneck for transformers, porcelain hollow insulators are the bottleneck for bushings.
13 Likes
I dont think this is true. I did look at HIIL and Modern insulators (thats what got me started on looking at Yash in fact). The porcelain insulator is more a mechanical support/structural component though making it is complex in terms of sourcing the right alumina ceramic and process control etc. Right now there is kiln availability issue but in terms of technical complexity, it is orders of magnitude simpler than a bushing products which is a functional product requiring micron level precision and lot of testing. My understanding might be naive but this is how it felt to me.
12 Likes
I never said anything about technical complexity.
As you mentioned the “kiln issue,” that’s exactly the bottleneck I was referring to.
And just to add, greenfield capex in insulators is virtually impossible today. Most of the existing plants were set up with technology collaborations from German companies, and the capex required to replicate them is orders of magnitude higher. That’s why the bottleneck is likely to persist for a very long time.
And yes, you’re absolutely right that from a technical complexity standpoint, bushings > insulators.
But as investors, supply-demand economics > complexity.
Anyways, appreciate your analysis. I’m invested in all the names discussed.
20 Likes
Sorry I misunderstood your reference to bottleneck. Didn’t think of it as the physical kiln capacity bottleneck. I haven’t been taking these sort of trading bets much these days and focusing more on technical capabilities, so was trying to fit insulators in that framework as a force of habit.
Speaking of trading bets, there is one that was very tempting and relates to one of the stocks i hold - Aeroflex Enterprises is trading at a significant discount to Aeroflex Inds. Though Aeroflex Inds is up almost 3x from bottoms and 2.5x from pre Feb tops, Aeroflex Ents is still 20% down from ATH and is still at Jun ‘25 tops. The holdco discount is now at attractive levels - Aeroflex Inds today is 6500 Cr mcap and Aeroflex Ent holds 60% of Aeroflex Inds, so a value of ~4000 Cr while trading at ~1200 Cr mcap. This is without adding Aeroflex Neu or the NBFC business value at all.
This was made a couple of days back, so mcap numbers are slightly off. Fair value even with a 45% holdco discount is 200+. Right now its at a 70%+ discount. Am not sure when and how it narrows but I see promoter has been buying Aeroflex Enterprises. (There was a notification today also which isn’t part of this screenshot)
Disc: I have a small position in this trading bet bought this week around current levels
50 Likes
Hi bharani, hope you are doing well, I along with a couple of investor friends, recently visited the plants & interacted with management.. Here are a couple of additional pointers which might be useful ~
- MGC agreement will get over in the coming months, they don’t have any tech transfer agreement, to the contrary, they have hired a German engineer who is responsible for tech & stabilising the line (They are paying him some 10-12 Crs for this project & is not related to MGC)
- Export is a long tail opportunity beyond FY28, promoter himself highlighted that while MGC restricted them, however, from next month- they will start 100% procurement of cores from China ( so clealy that wasn’t the sole reason that stopped them from scaling exports, infact approval cycles are 3-5 years long..though they have been on it for some time now) & infact, even a major portion of OIP is via EPC players I suspect.
They have set an ambitious guidance of exports rising to 20% of overall sales ( have already set up subsidiaries in USA & recently hired agents to scale Exports) but Domestic remains the near-term scale-up opportunity even after core comes live, especially given the shortage in Indian markets wherein even after the new capex, the majority of RIP bushings will be imported in India)
Exports ,if cracked, will sharply improve the longevity of growth (given the TAM opening, higher realisations & overall better perception)- aiding higher valuation multiples for extended period of time (considering market still considers it as a single product company benefitting from a strong tailwind..that can benefit on margin front due to backward integration & move towards higher KV products)
-
From what we gather, RIP bushings might have 40-50% higher pricing Vs domestic ones (whereas OIP difference is almost 2X for exports)
-
In the domestic mkt, 400 KV is targeted from new capex, while in exports,target is 550 KV (amazing feat, their testing facilities are mammoth- almost 5-6 floors long & the new plant is top notch)
-
Insulators are procured from Aditya Birla Insulators..OIP bushings are seeing pretty decent tractions (highlighted in concall) which needs procelain insulators & has seen 35% price jump for these guys in past qtr..however, procurement wasn’t such a big challenege so far for them so far.
Infact, based on the commentary in calls of the likes of Atlantaa , OIP seems to be a big bottleneck right now & Yash might well expand further in this category even though margins might be tad lower than RIP
We have been distinctly told that OIP bushing share might drop to the 35-40% level as a % of overall bushings used, but it won’t go away given their cheapness (while the export market, especially developed economies, is dominated by RIP bushings given the benefits over OIP)
Coming back to the Insulator piece, along with Core imports (which are a major % of overall BOM), there might be near-term margin pressure in H1, specifically as a major % of their contracts are fixed-price based, so that might hit them in the near term, which everyone should stay cognizant of!
- Last yr’s 50% sales growth incld 25% volume & 25% Value..Now Value growth beyond a point wont happen, however, since new RIP bushing capacity will come live in H2 (especially assembly) & 60% of sales comes in H2 generally, so they might truly achieve their guidance of 40-50% capacity despite capacity constraints in the existing plant (75% utilisation)
Commercialisation of new plant & subsequent approvals of RIP core in the RIP bushings design in the coming year will be the key tracking point going ahead (considering promoter has given conflicting guidance on the benefits of backward integration coming live in different public platforms- ranging from Q1FY28 to H2 FY28 fag end), however, beyond the nos, few things are clear~
- Bottlenecks are real
- Players with higher KV bushings are few & far between
(Newer players like VILAS Transcore are entering into 145 Kv OIP bushings, however, cracking 220KV+ bushings for OIP & RIP bushing (assembly) is a tough job with only a handful of players catering to the domestic demand - Promoter quality & execution track record is also undisputable
Disclosure: Have a small % allocation
94 Likes
BE price jumped 10% during market hours and another 10% after hours.
3 Likes
@phreakv6 , the massive scaling up of compute for AI (and the massive infra build up as a consequence) is all because we hold AI scaling laws to be true. I’m not a tech guy, but I have heard/read about contrary opinions too. That it is a fallacy to think throwing more compute would help us achieve AGI, the holy grail for everyone working in this field.
You may be interested in this 7 part series (assuming you haven’t read this already 
)
https://balloon-juice.com/2025/10/29/guest-post-ai/
It would greatly benefit all of us if you shared your valuable opinion on this. Thank you!
5 Likes
I did not read all 7 parts. read the first 3 and by then the author lost credibility with me because of several glaring misunderstanding of what AI is, despite his credentials. I saw summary of the rest and understandably his mind is made up even in part 1 and he/she needn’t have written 7 to substantiate.
In my view, hallucinations are a solved problem. I don’t think the big investments are solely chasing AGI. I don’t think there is a need to chase AGI either. A model like Fable 5 is already AGI. Our problem is we have gone too general and we are using a general model for specialised tasks. This will get optimised over time as we get specialised, smaller models wherever there is a need to optimise - or at least a fine-tuning on specific datasets. He thinks AI is not “intelligence” - most people who had this view have by now swallowed their pride and accepted AI’s ability accomplish tasks as “narrow” intelligence at least.
AI winter of 1970s happened due to compute not catching up. Now compute has caught up which is why we are where we are. Anyone who thinks newest SOTA AI models are not good at coding/math/science probably is blinkered or has never used AI. A capital down cycle will happen due to human tendencies to invest ahead of demand - but I don’t think we are close to it in this decade - and it has nothing to do with the merits/demerits of AI.
If you want to define AGI as a self-improving system, we are almost there because the newest models are being built with AI and hyper-parameter tuning is also automated which is why release frequency has picked up so much of late. Well designed loops will replace prompts in the next few months and that will feel like magic as it matures.
If you see the pattern of my posts in this thread, I have blown hot and cold on local AI. With the recent price hikes Apple has done, it has pretty much killed local AI. Its not economical because Apple is competing with the same DC supply chain and DCs will attain higher capacity util so can always pay more for memory and other things. So economic value of DCs I think are becoming more and more apparent if anything.
As for demand, we have not even exhausted demand for Claude Code and the frontier labs are already opening up several new demand channels which are more specialised. I don’t think are even 1% in the journey yet. The biggest token sink is yet to open up - video. We are having brief glimpses of it with Sora/Seedance but its still prohibitively expensive.
See what it takes to generate video. Imagine someone tweaking each video on avg. at least 10 times.
Current plans are good for a video or two polished at most.
As token generation becomes cheap, jevon’s paradox will play out and its usecases like this which will take up almost all of the demand. The barrier to entry is very low and people love posting on tiktok and instagram and imagine being able to create and post videos for cheap and what an explosion of demand that will lead to. So, even if models become more and more efficient to run, there will always be new token sinks popping up all over the place to mop them up.
What about value add you might ask - ask yourself how much value today’s jobs add - say receptionists, lawyers, healthcare or university admin workers (see how much US healthcare/universities employs in just admin positions) and all sorts of supervisors and managers etc. Today we count all these into GDP though they effectively produce nothing. We count electricity produced in GDP, so it’s not long before we add token generation to GDP. While we are at it, why not social media output? I know it sounds like satire - most of what we have done to jobs in the last 20 years sounds like satire too (read this book “Bullshit jobs” for eg.). Its in the best interests of AI labs, DC investments, politicians who have to show GDP growth and people who want to feel productive to embrace slop and keep the cycle going.
70 Likes
Seeing some news on Chinese vendors being allowed to supply in power sector. Since I have been following this sector for sometime, I think this is not of huge impact. It impacts Power transformers mainly and in that too - 765 kV ecosystem mainly - GIS transformers predominantly. It still should be manufactured in India and these companies which are allowed do have plants and can scale up. I think it will ease some of the power transformer supply crunch. But the fact is that there is enough and more demand for these in export markets as well, so the impact should be negligible if anything, though there could be pricing war in the tendering that comes up - but I dont see a huge impact either way. I am not invested in this space but I do follow it closely to see if valuation of some of these companies can come down (esp. Hitachi and GE Vernova).
I dont understand why rest of the companies are hit today though. Yash has zero impact from this as bushings were never restricted even prior to this as per recent call
This QP on impact of this decision if it happens in Q2 call (this has been in consideration for awhile). The impact is on power transformers and not instrument transformers that Mehru makes. Endoks being Turkish, of course has zero impact. On QP’s products, the impact if any could be on EHV reactors but since they must be manufactured in India, I dont see why QP wont be able to compete on cost.
Disc: I have positions in both Yash and QP as disclosed earlier
52 Likes
Can you elaborate on how token cost will become cheap ?
From what we’re seeing, the cost of chips and memory continues to rise, and building a local system capable of running AI models is becoming increasingly expensive.
Wouldn’t token costs only decrease if the underlying components required to generate them compute, power, chips, and memory also become cheaper?
Building data centers on land is already a costly endeavor, which is why the idea of space-based data centers seems, at least in theory, to have some financial appeal.
Personally, I’m not too concerned about AGI. Even the current capabilities of AI are far ahead of what most people are able to effectively utilize. It feels like the limiting factor isn’t the technology anymore, but our ability to harness it well.
I also have another question. As AI improves, engineers become more productive, which appears to reduce the demand for engineers. At least, that seems to be the current trend. We’ve already seen many companies lay people off. Ironically, even companies like Anthropic could end up losing potential customers if fewer engineers remain employed.
There don’t seem to be enough new jobs being created to offset those being displaced. So how does this system sustain itself in the long run, unless entirely new categories of jobs emerge?
4 Likes