burry

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-07-28

Final complete day: 2026-07-28. Attention was 0.2% — this entity appeared in 53 of 25,769 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (57 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-07-28 18:36 UTCComment

   Yeah, markets aren't really made up of people, they're made up of algorithms and automated trading 60-70% of all trading is algorithms now and AI is becoming a large fraction of that as well as HFT being a large fraction. Soon it will all be about deltas and inefficiencies if it isn't already. Buffett is still correct that in the long term it is a weighing machine and that's where Burry's theses may start to make sense.

2. 2026-07-28 17:58 UTCComment

   Those data centers are all being debt financed cheaply because nvidia writes contracts that say that they'll buy any unused compute at the data center, which to lenders means there is guaranteed demand and low risk of course that means if the data centers actually do end up vacant, nvidia specifically is on the hook for all of it and is completely fucked that's why burry is shorting them specifically and not the other ai-driven stocks with way worse p/e - AMD's stock price is crazy and will drop 80%+ if the AI bubble bursts, but if nvidia's earnings disappear it'll also cause them to have billions and billions of dollars of new outgoing obligations. they might legitimately be begging for 2008-style government bailouts (if you let us go out of business, china will win the AI war!) to avoid liquidation

3. 2026-07-28 14:12 UTCComment

   Couple things, the stat is that 95% or 99% of managers can't beat the SP500? And he beat the NASDAQ, which is much harder to beat. I don't think you're giving him credit for how difficult that is. Second, not every hedgefund is specifically meant to beat the market - the word hedge specifically means to protect and this often means a better risk adjusted returns because there is less downside in a true market crash (which we haven't had since 2016 and 2025 and is his entire claim to fame). I recall reading his hedgefund is focused on stable returns YoY rather than outright beating the market. I don't even know much about Burry but the fact that he's beating the NASDAQ over 10 years and is very likely to be protected in the event of another '09-esque financial crisis speaks to how incredible of an investor he is. The fact he isn't trying to beat the SP500 and is beating the NASDAQ while protected from downside, says everything that it needs to.

4. 2026-07-28 14:06 UTCComment

   I checked again between 2016 and 2025 (when Scion was closed). looks like I am technically wrong, but the point is still the same. From the start of 2016 through the end of 2025, Scion Asset Management generated a total return of +419.07%. The Nasdaq did 406%, so Scion did beat the tech index very slightly (3% in 10 years). For all purposes, they are the same return, except Burry charges fees. So practically, after fees your return was probably better by being long the Nasdaq.

5. 2026-07-28 13:52 UTCComment

   Can you show us the source/math on this? Last time some guy claimed this and was making multiple posts on other subreddits - turns out the dude was doing the % change formula wrong (something you learn in the 6th grade). That shut the dude up real quick. When I checked 6 months ago, Burry was beating the SP500 over the course of 10 years, which is pretty difficult to do.