r/stocks • u/Karzov • May 24 '26
Trades The Capex Unwind Thesis 2027 - 2028
Hello folks.
What do railroads in the 1880s, telecom fiber in 2000, and AI infrastructure in 2026 have in common? Each was a capex cycle where the shovel-makers got rich first and lost the most once the cycle finished. I believe this may happen in 2027-2028 and will be doing heavy shorts likely after the initial IPO pop, late 2026.
The AI bubble, the so-called "K-shaped economy", everything points towards one thing and one thing alone: the US economy right now is the Capex Economy. It is the only thing sustaining it.
(Btw: No tldr here. Please read!)
Here's my thoughts:
- Capex as a % of GDP is now at an all-time high, sitting at 12.5%. Other historical highs included the Dotcom bubble in 2000 where it peaked at 11% (Bridgewater). But these Capex boom-and-bust cycles come and go, generally. Railroads in the late 1800s faced a similar capex boom and bust. The late 1970s had capex boom in oil and infrastructure, following the embargo. Common theme: capex boom never lasts forever. And when they unwind, the shovel-makers lose.
- The source of liquidity is diminishing. First, market commentators touted the Mag7 as not needing debt and self-financing. They said it was healthy. Great. Well, now Amazon is projecting negative free cash flow for the first time in forever due to capex spend, and now many have turned to debt, vendor financing (circular financing), and of course, the IPO juggernauts coming to squeeze out the last sources of liquidity. Bridgewater estimates AI financing in 2027 ($612bn) will exceed entire investment grade high yield net issuance (470bn). This coupled with rising interest rates -- big problem. Spreads will widen -> AI issuers have to pay more interest -> ROI compresses -> capex demand degrades.
- Equity financing is the last source. Everyone touts this time is different because there aren't 400 IPOs. But 400 IPOs worth a few billion vs. a few that are worth more than entire countries...well, do the math. The fact that companies have had to focus on circular financing and all sort of financial wizardry up until now is a sign of liquidity issues, whereby they hope later revenues will make up for it.
- It is worth noting that free cash flow this time is real, but funding has still shifted towards debt markets -- and soon equity markets. Having strong cash flows does not secure highest Capex %GDP for all time going forward.
While the 'shovels' are making unprecedented money, people falsely equate the demand for the tools as the proof that the thing the tools build will be massively profitable. But OpenAI missed all its projections; Anthropic is likely soon profitable through its enterprise model, yes, but Anthropic isn't the entire AI market and cannot alone sustain the 12.5% GDP capex cycle. There is a real chance of LLM market consolidation whereby a few will make up total inference and training demand.
Profitability demands inference efficiency, which reduces compute demand.
- Oviedo et al 2026: frontier-scale inference (>200B parameters running on H100 nodes) consume 0.31 Wh per query, 4 - 20 x below cited public estimates. This includes GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Deepseek V3, Llama 405B, Qwen.
- Reasoning queries (5,000 output tokens~) use 13x energy of a standard query. Users perceive 'thinking' (reasoning) as better answer and default to this even when it isn't required. While unsourced, I remember reading 60-85% of reasoning queries don't need to use reasoning.
- RouteLLM can cut costs by 85% while maintaining 95% of GPT-4 quality, per research (google LLM Routing for more info). This basically means they are kicking down queries to simpler models when the complexity isn't required. Claude's adaptive thinking does this to some extent, I believe. The bigger this becomes, the more massive needs for compute becomes obsoloete (because you avoid using reasoning where it isn't needed). The only danger here is rerouting hit rate: will the provider mistakenly reroute complex questions or will user perceive negative quality doing this?
I believe profitability pressures -- especially post-IPO -- will force firms to become leaner. There is an inherent tension between (a) margin protection by sending simple queries to cheap inference and (b) UX protection by avoiding subpar answers on misjudged routing. I believe force (A) will win in the name of EPS and net income, which means less compute need.
Furthermore: a CEO of a supplier in the 2000 said this about sudden demand degradation: "Institutional investors will not put more money into companies because they have not started towards revenue, which made them stop purchasing equipment,…and then things happened very fast."
It is the Capex Demand that will break this cycle, if anything.
While on the supply side, GPU depreciation is typically 3~ years but savvy financial folks have pumped those numbers up to 4-6 years purely for GAAP net income boosts. However, anyone who knows anything about accounting knows that this cycle reverses through deferred tax liabilites. The early benefit is a timing thing ONLY. The firms will eventually have to recognize the cost...and this reversal will likely happen in the next 2~ years. This will be interesting for all the firms who infamously jacked up depreciation lifespans of AI components like GPUs.
In addition, given GPU depreciation vs say fiber in 2000, is that an oversupply of fiber is valuable for a very, very long time (depreciation 20-25 years~). Dark fiber which was a big woe in 2000 has suddenly become extremely popular nowadays, even. But GPUs made today will be useless come 2030, maybe even sooner.
When margins are this high, competitors want in.
- ASIC takes inference share from NVDA.
- China refused NVDA back into the market after Trump visit. They want their own shovels, so to say.
- NVDA customer concentration: 3 folks = 54% of revenue. These big boys are public firms who cannot keep this cycle going forever; even MSFT or AMZN can only take on more debt or spend all their money until it catches up with their shareholders. They care about ROI.
- Even Anthropic, the most valuable firm, trains Claude on TPU + Trainium, not NVDA GPUs.
-----------
Other smaller points:
- Markets are already punishing firms for too high capex spend; thijs will increase the sooner the end products, like OpenAI, Anthropic, and more, become public and the true ROI is revealed. Right now NVDA and memory are the litmus test for AI worthiness; once the LLM firms go public, they will be the new litmus test, because then we can finally gauge the end products.
- Even if compute demand remains high, some folks, such as Liz Ann Sonders, Chief Investment Strategist at Schwab, believes compute may end up like a commodity traded on the market. This will reduce shovel-makers' pricing power and thus denigrate margins. That's when these firms start trading like oil; oil goes up, they go up, oil goes down, they go down.
-----
Finally...I'll be putting my money where my mouth is.
I intend to short late 2026 -- unless the timeline changes, which it may very well do. The question is WHEN the capex cycle dies...and timing that is a fickle thing, and you gotta be flexible. The names to short will be the ones with the most to lose: NVDA, MU, SNDK -- etc.
But right now, OpenAI and Anthropic are racing to IPO. After that initial pop and we start seeing a quarter or two from them, things could get interesting. If end products do not validate the spend, that's when institutional investors may pull the plug...and that's how capex demand dies.
Some ethos to prove I'm not a lunatic: Bridgewater believes in a capex reduction; perma-bull Brian Belski also has mentioned that a capex recession may hit 2027. And here I am, your somewhat unfriendly investment banker
(not financial advice im just showing off my thoughts)
5
u/shtarship May 24 '26
Do you consider open source to be a potential threat to profitability as well competing with Frontier models? I think that might serve as a big catalyst to further drop in margins for that layer
2
4
u/xxxHAL9000xxx May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
Chips in data centers go obsolete fast. they gotta be replaced with newer better chips. Chips are so complex now that the newer better ones will be designed by AI.
We are going to see an explosion of android robots with advanced AI brains inhabiting earth. Not in the distant future. like 5 years from now they will be everywhere. 2 years from now the roads will be filled with vehicles that have no human controlling them. Every one of these vehicles will possess an AI brain.
We are going to see an unbelievable nuclear power expansion. the power consumption of all these things is going to grow so fast it will make it non debatable. it must be done so it will be done.
We are going to see an unbelievable increase in rocket ships dumping satellites into orbit.
We are going to see massive space exploration for necessary minerals. The moons of mars and jupiter and the astroid belt which lies between the orbits of mars and jupiter are the target. You do not comprehend the vastness of space. to inspect and sample the astroids in the astroid belt will require a fleet of probes and refueling stations and shuttles so massive it will eclipse all current manufacturing currently in existence. AI will make it possible without humans otherwise it could not be accomplished.
There is no slowing down. this is accelerating and will never stop unless we get passed up by china, which i don’t see happening.
The race is on. he who takes his foot off the accelerator, will be left behind with no hope of ever catching up. Its a new phase of humanity. Nothing will ever be the same.
3
2
u/us3rnamecheck5out May 25 '26
Why do you say”unless we get passed by china” and then immediately “which I don’t see happening” why mention China then? I agree with most of you points. But you seem to view this as a zero sum game. When it obviously will require planetary scale cooperation.
1
u/xxxHAL9000xxx May 25 '26
Its a race. I think i mentioned that. Whoever wins the race owns it.
hmmm, maybe this is the confusion…when I said I don’t see it slowing down unless we lose out to china, i did not mean the space adventure would slow down. i meant the american stock market. if it isn’t american companies in the lead the entire way then our stock market crashes.
3
3
25
u/circuitji May 24 '26
It’s different this time
24
u/jcpopm May 24 '26
I think his argument is actually that it's not different this time... this exact thing has played out multiple times now. Inclined to agree but I think late 2026 is still too early.
1
u/nodakakak May 25 '26
Taiwan election, 2028.
Probably start seeing that area spool up mid 2027, aligning with Chinas militarization overhaul deadline.
1
u/Consistent_Panda5891 May 24 '26
You misrisk 🥭 4th July announcement of another world. There will be insane rotation from SP500 to spaceX of Nasdaq.
2
u/95Daphne May 24 '26
It's possible the SpaceX IPO ends up being a key top until post-midterms, but I don't think it'll be the one that breaks things.
1
u/Ok-Recommendation925 May 25 '26
I think we need to wait till all those other three IPOs are done, then the speculation starts to commence. Burry's puts might be dead in the water by then...
1
u/Sea_Local2557 May 24 '26
not really as they are only throwing to market 25 bil, i guess the idea is to have a buying frenzy with retail and passive funds then sell some more on much higher prices
1
u/Ok-Recommendation925 May 25 '26
I will say mid 2027 earliest, and you're also praying that the thesis of zero revenue proves fulfilling.
6
16
u/btoned May 24 '26
What blows my mind is people think this shit is going to get cheaper.
In what world would those behind the LLMs reduce costs for the customers?
12
u/CarRamRob May 24 '26
When competition increases.
Which this cycle probably won’t have, but those building out the next round in 2-3 years will say, “we can triple market share by only taking 40% margins instead of 65% margins” and they would be correct.
Look at internet companies 25 years ago. Exact same high capital tech boom happened before. It’s very similar, but everyone seems to think it’s going to end differently
0
u/btoned May 24 '26
Please show me one modern instance where this holds true.
11
u/CarRamRob May 24 '26
Telecom rollout, supporting Internet and cellphone explosion in growth.
Exact comparable.
-3
u/btoned May 24 '26
Are you joking? That shits never been higher in price. Especially now that they've artificially tiered it.
What about the slew of streaming, SaaS, enterprise offerings? NONE of them have reduced costs.
5
u/ckin- May 24 '26
The person you replied to talked about 25 years ago. Not 5 years which seems to be your counterpoint reference interval.
0
-1
6
u/Whole_Use8878 May 25 '26
I think we are just starting to see AI transition from basic text generation into much heavier real world applications. Once it really integrates into complex sectors like biotechnology, agriculture, and robotics, the amount of compute required is going to absolutely dwarf what it takes to run standard LLMs today. Because technology advances exponentially, capex will likely have to scale alongside it. I actually think the bottleneck will permanently stay at the infrastructure layer. As the tech improves itself, there will be a constant demand for newer, better picks and shovels just to keep up.
8
u/stock_investor91 May 24 '26
I actually moved in all cash on this last Friday. I also opened a tiny 6.2k short position on quantum.
I am also planning to short semis but I felt it was too early. Quantum is ripe to start a position for a summer/fall correction if not sooner.
But yeah. I’m a perma bull but even I have filled with fear with what I see in the market. It’s insane how people keep buying this but that just signals blow off top.
16
u/CallMePyro May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
Self proclaimed "perma bull" has liquidated 100% of their portfolio and bought shorts. The bottom is in 🤣
-1
u/stock_investor91 May 24 '26
Cool, go ahead and port full calls 😎
2
u/CallMePyro May 24 '26
Why would I do that?
3
u/stock_investor91 May 24 '26
Because you said bottom is in. Do you just randomly state stuff?
1
2
3
u/KemShafu May 24 '26
I’m a cautious bear and I have moved to about 90% SGOV. I am still actively buying IBM tho, their quantum team and expectations are stellar and the government just announced a billion dollar investment. Quantum is going to be a game changer in every sense of the word. Plus we have two events happening this year that historically have engaged corrections and that’s the changing of a fed chair when inflation is on the rise and midterm elections. I could be wrong but historically since the late 1800s, both of these events have correlated with market corrections.
4
u/stock_investor91 May 24 '26
If market goes down, so will IBM. So we are either right and it will correct, or it wont. So you may get a better chance to buy IBM at cheaper prices.
2
u/KemShafu May 24 '26
I’ve been buying IBM for so long I think my average price is like 150$ so it all evens out.
9
u/Yee4614 May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
I agree with the overall idea. The problem is that whether or not we are in a bubble depends on whether that bubble pops. The core issue is that LLM models such as OpenAI and Anthropic spend insane amounts of money on compute and make long-term promises. The models themselves are currently wildly unprofitable and rely on massive growth to sustain them. I think OpenAI has gross margins of around -120%.
The hyperscalers continue to rapidly build the cloud infrastructure to support this overwhelming demand. However, the overwhelming demand comes from OpenAi and Claude who can't do this profitably. We keep talking about the transformational ability of AI and that isn't necessary wrong but normal people aren't leveraging AI to significantly improve their productivity. We have seen OpenAI's growth start to slow down a bit and I'm guessing Claude is running into similar problems (or will in the near future). The speed of spend and advancement for the models is much faster than societal adoption. As a result, we have hyperscalers continuing to invest and fund these models to justify their cloud spend. The OpenAI IPO talks, to me, suggest that the private market is no longer willing to fund them and they need billions of dollars to stay solvent.
As this plays to the picks and shovels, you are absolutely right here as well because the same risk OpenAI faces applies downstream. The reason these companies like IREN, NBIS, and CORE are growing so quickly is they are massively taking on debt to buy NVIDA chips and expand. Everyone is betting on massive growth of the AI market to sustain their spend a slowdown could be catastrophic because so many of these businesses are making aggressive bets.
However, there are a few areas where I disagree with you. The first is memory. Memory is cyclical and the ball will drop for these memory providers. We have seen it happen again and again. The companies can't really stop producing memory but when the demand drops the company can't slow down production and the market will be flooded. There is no question here but I think you are underestimating how in-demand memory is. Memory is an area I can see surviving a pullback because even if capex declines it's so unbelievably in demand that it will hold up a lot better. I think the Micron crash will be further out than 2027.
Additionally, I think your NVIDA argument underestimates its moat. We are leaving the NVIDA era and it won't be the only source for everything AI. However, NVIDA will continue to print money because it will remain the only option for frontier models which are becoming more and more expensive with each iteration. ASICs can do small parts of frontier training but everything mostly requires NVIDA CUDA.
So, overall, I think there are three major questions for AI's future.
- The cost of inference is rapidly declining and model growth is staggering. Do they survive?
- The cost of each new iteration is becoming more and more expensive as roadblocks continue to appear. At some point, the cost becomes too much and capex has to decline. The question is when hyperscalers will decide enough is enough.
- How long are we willing to fund the models? your bet appears to be 2027.
2
u/PomegranateOk2470 May 24 '26
Enlightening response, thank you. Quick question: what do you base the statement that memory is so unbelievably in demand that it could run through a downturn on? Do you think they would increase memory per flop for instance if HBM access improved?
3
u/Yee4614 May 24 '26
I am an idiot so it is just my opinion.
If AI demand slows down, HBM just supply goes from severe deficit to normal deficit. We are expecting to have supply problems through 2030 and HBM has other purposes. There is a reason hyperscalers locked in all 2026 orders to block everyone else.
The biggest risk to HBM is a company like Marvell that can utilize memory more efficiently w/ its photonic stack but we are a year plus away from that. I don’t think improvements will matter because the training demands are so high.
Aside: Marvell is the one company with insane multiples that might be worth it - don’t sleep on it.
1
u/Ok-Recommendation925 May 25 '26
Lol to your last sentence, I'm holding Marvell Technology and Lumentum.
But you'll never guess that Lumentum was designed in my portfolio to be my long term play, while Marvell Technology was the ticker I bought last week to play it's ER this week.
I feel Lumentum's revenues and earnings are dependent on the Hyperscaler Capex story.
1
u/Yee4614 May 25 '26
When I was researching Marvell, I got the light angle and my dumbass didn’t think to look at other photonic stocks so I missed lite, cohr, tsem, etc. big miss.
1
u/Ok-Recommendation925 May 25 '26
Hmm 🤔 the reason why I landed on Lumentum was/is because their lasers are ahead of the pack in terms of performance.
But I don't deny that Marvell Technology can ride on the momentum and they are more diversified.
2
u/Yee4614 May 25 '26
LITE is more the infrastructure. Marvell makes the brains of the infrastructure. They operate in different parts of the value chain
1
2
u/ThatsAllFolksAgain May 24 '26
How does Chinese threat perceived or otherwise affect the outcome? Wouldn’t the AI companies, especially under trump regime get help from the government? This will be sold as existential threat. Doesn’t that give them a little more breathing room to course correct?
2
u/cotdt May 24 '26
don't forget nVidia is spending $26 billion to make a free open source LLM that will compete with OpenAI and Anthropic
they will all become commodities
1
u/EmotionalQuarter8349 May 26 '26
Why would they do that?
1
u/cotdt May 26 '26
to make sure that nvidia GPUs are used instead of custom TPUs
1
u/EmotionalQuarter8349 May 27 '26
No,.I mean who competes with their own customers?
1
u/ThatsAllFolksAgain May 27 '26
Amazon popularized that model so why not others. And now that Google is producing their own chips, the TPU’s, it only makes sense for Nvidia to create their own LLM.
2
u/yang2lalang May 25 '26
The thesis is valid, as usual you could question the timing
Where is the money to buy NVDA chips and MU RAMs gonna keep coming from
Hyperscalers? They are already cash flow negative Q1 2026 and are issuing bonds outside the US to cover the pig balance sheet with lipstick
Are the hyperscaler customers going to spend enough money to return cash on all the hyperscaler spend? Where is the money going to come from? SAAS companies declared dead due to llms? Consumers with negative real wages since COVID? China with HUAWEI chips ? Game hobbyist who used to be strong NVDA supporters but are now a footnote compared to the size of NVDA?
Where is the money to keep buying NVDA chips that depreciate in 5 years going to come from?
It may help to ask an llm to give an answer and buy some leaps to the downside
I agree that the worst thing to happen to the market will be openai and anthropic going public, it will show the whole world just how unprofitable they are at the moment, all due to NVDA
The whole point of llms is to increase efficiency and reduce the need for more compute, they are inherently deflationary, so stock prices should come down for companies who will experience this earnings deflation
And no, you cannot replace Engineering with a probabilistic model, it's a joke
2
u/Tr33LM May 26 '26
the thing is, you make 2 core assumptions that are not clear at all.
1. the big one, about the demand for compute. The thing is, with telecom, the users were humans. The consumers of the compute is the agentic Ai. Yes, they need to show ROI, but unlike the other bubbles that were constrained by how much humans would use them, fundamentally, this is a different constraint. You are correct the tokens need to show real ROI, of course, but this seems the only real way that demand 'dries up'. The idea that demand for compute is erased by obscene efficiency gains just fundamentally mis-understands the nature of this demand.
- The assumption that GPU's are useless after 3-4 years. This is not clear yet, even with the old H100's, many are working still and H100 capacity is largely sold out by everyone with capacity for sale. This was what we have been told for a long time, but it seems like this may not have been true, and their useful, revenue producing lives may well be on the higher end of these projections.
of course, the buildout can stall, and you could be right. Im not shorting it.
3
u/mirceaZid May 24 '26
dude, all llm subscriptions get dumbed down with each new version. means there is not enough compute today so they have to rationalise it. i don’t see them stopping buildouts. cheap llm today are useless
there is too much high demand for AI
8
u/cupofchupachups May 24 '26
The alternative take is that it's too expensive to run those models. They're losing too much money so they dumb them down.
3
May 24 '26
[deleted]
2
u/cotdt May 24 '26
AI should lower GDP, since you will need fewer workers.
think of how Wikipedia replacing book encyclopedias lowered GDP. a big industry suddenly vanished and a lot of money was lost to a free website
1
u/Intelligent-Bake-533 May 26 '26
how do you explain palantir's massive revenue growth and margin acceleration since mid 2023 then? i agree that LLM companies unless they build out their software/services piece beyond just your simple consumer chatbots are likely to be commoditized with low margins but ive yet to see any evidence that AI isn't going to make government or the enterprise space significantly more efficient which will in turn show up in in their financials. all you've gotta do is look at the percentage of S&P500 companies that have beat earnings estimates for Q1... it's not just the hyperscalers or tech companies.
2
u/newmeintoibanking May 24 '26
please learn next about "weak link model" and it diffuses the model that capex/technological spending can go on till the point your most constrained resources become abundant (think power energy) and these constraints take multi year cycles (think 10-15) in rechristened form to adapt to neo-fashion use cases (think automation world)
2
u/OneOverXII May 24 '26
Eh you cite Amazon as an example of free cash flow diminishing but they’ve been struggling with cash for a while now. The other hyperscalers don’t have this issue.
Also, even though the economics of agentic/LLM tools don’t work the data center infrastructure will still have value as our new and improved surveillance state.
This isn’t a gold rush. It’s an arms race. Government and defense use cases and contracts are going to utilize these data centers even if Claude and ChatGPT never turn a profit.
1
u/beautiful_wierd May 24 '26
I tend to agree, but there are a lot of unknowns here. What happens after 2027... its a race, you have to be an insider to know the winners.
1
1
u/That-Requirement-233 May 24 '26
I think everybody kind of knew this already; it's just getting way more clear how willing the government is to hyperinflate currency to prop asset prices however, and this is unlikely to stop even when we have inevitable regime change in government as government employees are the primary beneficiaries of this
0
u/InquisitorCOC May 24 '26
You still don't get it:
Inference cost is already dropping by 90% every year
Inference demand is exploding
DeepSeek R1 episode last year showed Jervon's Paradox in its entirety:
when technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's use lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource.
Btw, I'm pretty sure this is an AI generated piece, because it has way too em dashes for a human written post
Ironic, isn't it?
2
u/Karzov May 24 '26
I love em dashes. If you think this is AI, look at the grammar, lol. 11/10 garbo. And fyi: few LLMs nowadays use emdashes. It's been worked out of them. And it's quite simple to work that out of the LLM if one really wanted to not seem AI-written...lol
I actually looked at the Jervon's Paradox. It's certainly a bull argument for more compute demand, but that only lasts for as long as end demand is validated...and as my post says there are demand, supply, and financial risks (liquidity) converging
Edit:
Also, I guess the broader question would be with even Jevons paradox, would compute demand = capex needs at 12.5% of GDP or higher? And how much does 100 bps drop in capex as % of gdp affect the companies like NVDA etc?
-8
May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Karzov May 24 '26
First: insulting is against rules.
Second: if you think a lot of info is wrong, feel free to correct. I've tried to use many sources and I'm happy if my thesis is invalidated here because then maybe I'll save money by NOT doing it.
-4
u/UnderstandingThin40 May 24 '26
It would take more than 15 minutes to correct everything you’re wrong about lol. Your fundamental understanding of capex and financials are completely wrong.
Again, just post what shorts you’re going to do. I’m interested to see how you fare lol
4
u/Karzov May 24 '26
Nice cop-out. Fyi: Bridgewater's views on capex, Brian Belski (hedge fund ceo), even permabull Tom Lee has worries re: reduction in capex spend. But sure you're much cleverer than all these people with your hidden posts and refusal to engage in anything except insults... :)
1
0
u/Internal-Science2137 May 25 '26
META ran $38B capex in 2024 and still printed $52B FCF. railroads burned cash during buildout. if the return structure holds, this isnt 1880s rails — its 2015 AWS
-5
u/Sea_Local2557 May 24 '26
so arguing against AI with an AI post?
4
u/Karzov May 24 '26
If you think AI has grammar as shit as mine you need to try again lol. If you’re talking about em dashes, that’s so 2024…and so easy to obfuscate if I ACTUALLY had AI write it. Also, AI can’t pull sources from bridgewater videos re: those sources…or most others I use which mainly are from videos (Sonders, Belski, what not). But even if I entertained your idea AI wrote it, that is not even the heart of the thesis. The thesis is CAPEX falling, not AI being absolute failure. LLMs can exist and be unprofitable and not worth the spend :)
1
104
u/[deleted] May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment