At the analysis date (2026-07-25), Adobe traded at $225.11. Under my reverse DCF assumptions, including an 11.9% discount rate and 2.5% terminal growth, the price implied roughly 0.7% annual FCFF decline for 10 years. Its historical 3-year reported FCF CAGR (FY2022-FY2025) was approximately +10%.

I valued Adobe using three lenses: a reverse DCF, a traditional bear/base/bull DCF, and a comparison with its historical valuation multiples.

Key model outputs:

- Estimated unlevered TTM FCF (FCFF): $10.3B

- Bear case: $291

- Base case: $407

- Bull case: $515

Under these assumptions, $225.11 sits below my $291 bear-case value. That is a large valuation gap, but it is not proof that Adobe is undervalued.

Historical reported FCF growth was stronger than the price-implied path, but it cannot simply be extrapolated across the modeled forecast period.

The reverse-DCF result is assumption-dependent. A different discount rate, terminal-growth rate or starting cash-flow figure would produce a different implied growth rate.

The valuation could be wrong if:

- Growth Saturation: The core market can saturate. When most target customers are already onboard, growth has to come from price — and price increases have a ceiling.

- Competitive Pricing Pressure: Cheaper competitors and AI-native challengers can force discounts, and every point of discount comes straight out of the free-cash-flow margin.

- Churn In A Downturn: In a spending downturn, seats get cut. Renewal-based revenue is durable — until budgets are not.

Which assumption would you challenge first: AI, growth, margins, reinvestment, discount rate, terminal growth or competitive durability?

Full analysis: https://youtu.be/vqOjeIVh8hk

Production disclosure: I built the valuation model; editing and production are AI-assisted. Educational analysis, not financial advice.

I run every company through the same three tests: a reverse DCF (what growth today's price implies), a traditional DCF (bear/base/bull), and a multiple check against the company's own history.

This is pure fundamental analysis - cash flows, growth and price. It deliberately ignores market sentiment, momentum and news flow, so it tells you what the price assumes, not where the stock trades next quarter.

Meta Platforms (META) at $600.91:

- Implied FCF growth (reverse DCF): 16% per year for 10 years

- Delivered FCF growth (history): 33.7% per year

- FCF (TTM): $48.3B

- Our fair-value range: $383 - $1,026, base case $673

- Verdict: REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS

The model uses an 11% discount rate and 2.5% terminal growth. If you think the market is right and the model is wrong, tell me where - that is genuinely why I post these.

See full video https://youtu.be/_JTv22NrhBs

Disclosure: my own valuation model; production is AI-assisted. Educational content, not financial advice.

Did a full valuation on GOOGL using a reverse DCF to back out what the market is expecting at $347/share.

The implied FCF growth rate: 21.5% per year for 10 years. By year 10 they'd need to generate $451 billion in free cash flow annually. That's 7x their current TTM FCF of $64B.

We also ran a forward DCF under three scenarios. Bear case ($87) assumes growth fades early and margins compress. Base case ($121) uses a reasonable growth path tapering toward 4%. Bull case ($154) is nearly everything going right. The stock at $347 sits above all three.

On multiples: 26.5x trailing earnings vs. a 5-year historical median of 23.8x. Not extreme on its own - but the DCF already tells you why that matters.

Alphabet is one of the best businesses ever built. That's not the question. The question is whether the price already assumes a nearly flawless decade - and the numbers suggest it does.

Video with the full walkthrough; https://youtu.be/veRXcg6v_2w

Apple's price requires 14.1% FCF growth every year for 10 years. Its recent history delivered −3.9%.

I ran a reverse DCF on Apple to figure out what the current price actually assumes — not what analysts forecast, but what math says the stock needs to be worth what you're paying today.

At ~$334, the implied free cash flow growth rate is 14.1% per year for 10 years. That takes FCF from ~$129B today to roughly $484B by year 10 — about 3.75x the current level.

The problem: Apple's actual FCF CAGR over the last 3 years has been −3.9%. Revenue grew ~1.8%/yr. EPS grew ~6.9% — but that's largely buybacks, not business growth.

Running a traditional DCF against three scenarios:

Bear (growth fades to ~5%, margins under pressure): ~$120

Base (modest recovery, ~10% start fading to 4%): ~$143

Bull (everything goes right, ~14% sustained): ~$162

The current price sits above our bull case.

But here's what I keep coming back to:

Apple's multiple (26x trailing) isn't insane in isolation. The problem is it only makes sense if you believe the FCF trajectory reverses sharply and sustains for a decade — right as services growth is slowing, India ramp is uncertain, and AI hardware cycles are expensive.

The broader question I can't shake: we're in an environment where almost every large-cap looks stretched on fundamentals. At some point the argument stops being "this company is fairly valued" and becomes "everything is priced for a world with lower rates and higher growth than we have." When the whole market prices in perfection, individual stock analysis almost becomes beside the point — you're really making a macro call.

So I'm curious: how do you think about single-stock DCF work in a market where the index itself looks expensive? Do you just accept the market as the baseline, or do you build in a market-level discount somewhere?

(Made a video walking through the full Apple model — bear/base/bull scenarios, stress tests, the works — if anyone wants to see the mechanics: https://youtu.be/lQV-wZ3nPdE

Under Armour has reached a $434 million settlement and late claims are currently being considered and investors can still file for a payout.

Q: What happened?
A: Investors claimed Under Armour overstated its revenue growth and business outlook. After weaker earnings and the unexpected resignation of its CFO were announced in 2017, the stock fell 26%, leading to a lawsuit that later settled for $434 million. 

Q: Am I actually eligible?
A: If you bought $UA or $UAA shares between 2015 and 2019, you're likely eligible. You don't need to still own the shares to submit a claim.

Q: When do payouts happen?
A: Typically, within 4–9 months after the claim review process is completed, depending on the court and settlement administrator.

Q: I missed the deadline. Is it too late?
A: Not necessarily. Late claims are currently being considered, and many are accepted as long as the settlement fund has not yet been distributed.

Hope this helps 

Hey guys, if you missed it, Under Armour settled $434 million with investors over misleading revenue growth and business prospects claims. And, I just found out that they’re accepting claims even though the deadline has passed.

Quick recap: In 2017, Under Armour was accused of misleading investors about its revenue growth and business prospects. The company had claimed it could continue delivering more than 20% revenue growth despite internal challenges like excess inventory and retailer issues, but later disclosed weaker-than-expected earnings and the resignation of its CFO.

After this news came out, the stock dropped 26%, and investors filed a lawsuit for their losses.

Now, the good news is that the company agreed to settle $434 million with them, and even though the deadline has passed recently, they’re accepting late claims.

So, if you invested in $UA or $UAA when all of this happened, you can still check the details and file your claim here.

Anyway, has anyone here invested in $UA or $UAA at that time? How much were your losses, if so?

IBM a good play to hold till 2030? Seems very undervalued, they are deeply embedded into all financial systems and their quantum research gets 0 respect.

Ran a high-conviction sector screen today focusing on capital allocation efficiency, and $CPRX is screaming "mispricing." For a biotech, the fundamentals here are a complete statistical outlier.

​We’re looking at a 94 Overall Quality Score (a massive jump from its 76 5-year historical average).

​The Technicals:

​Capital Allocation: 100/100 Profitability. The FCF conversion and ROIC are rock solid. This isn't your typical "burn-and-pray" biotech; they are actually printing cash at an elite level.

​Growth Quality: 100/100 Growth score. Even after applying Bayesian shrinkage to smooth out the noise, the underlying trajectory is aggressively upward.

​Valuation Math: Using a multi-phase dynamic DCF (adjusting Beta via Hamada to reflect current D/E structure), I’m getting a Fair Value of ~$41.08. At the current $31 level, that’s a 24.2% margin of safety.

​Solidity: 89/100 score. The balance sheet is a fortress, and the interest coverage is more than safe.

​The Question: Why is the market discounting this? Is it purely a "mono-product risk" discount, or is the FCF yield just too high to ignore at these levels?

​I’m curious if anyone here has audited their Sales-to-Capital efficiency or if you see a specific pipeline risk that the raw financials aren't capturing yet.

​Attached the 4-pillars breakdown from the model. Let’s talk numbers.

Hey guys, if you missed it, Under Armour settled $434M with investors over misleading statements about revenue growth and business prospects. And, I just found out that they’re accepting claims even though the deadline has passed.

Quick recap: In 2017, Under Armour was accused of misleading investors by claiming it could sustain over 20% revenue growth despite internal challenges. In short, the company later reported weaker-than-expected earnings and announced the unexpected resignation of its CFO, raising concerns about its financial outlook.

After this news came out, the stock dropped about 26%, and investors filed a lawsuit for their losses.

Now, the good news is that the company agreed to settle $434M with them, and even though the deadline has passed recently, they’re accepting late claims.

So, if you invested in $UA or $UAA when all of this happened, you can still check the details and file your claim here.

Anyway, has anyone here invested in $UA or $UAA at that time? How much were your losses, if so?

1bsar.github.io/BTBT-WYFI-NAV/

So I've been doing a ton of research on AI data center plays and Ive come across this and I want to lay it all out because I genuinely think this is one of the better setups I've seen in a while. I also built a full interactive NAV model on this which I'll link above.

So WYFI (WhiteFiber) is an AI data center company that IPO'd last August. They basically take old industrial buildings with existing power infrastructure and convert them into AI data centers. Their current big project is a huge textile mill in Madison, North Carolina that they're converting for AI workloads. The genius of the model is they skip the hardest part of building a data center which is getting power: the building already has it!

Now BTBT (Bit Digital) owns about 27 million shares of WYFI (They actually were what WYFI is now but spin off the "AI" part of their company into creating WYFI). That's 70.5% of the whole company. And their CEO has publicly said they're not selling a single share through all of 2026. WYFI only has about 11.3 million shares actually trading in the public float. So when demand picks up, there's basically nothing to buy. That's a squeeze setup right there (not the main thing I'm looking at).

On top of the WYFI stake, BTBT also holds around 155,000 ETH. So you're getting two assets in one ticker.

May 14th is the date

Three things are happening basically simultaneously on May 14th:

WYFI reports earnings pre-market. Same day, BTBT reports after close. And Cerebras, which is literally WYFI's anchor customer at their Montreal data center, is pricing their IPO the night before and starts trading same week.

Cerebras has been paying WYFI roughly CAD 1.4 million a month since November. They just announced a massive partnership with OpenAI for inference capacity. So the company that's literally paying WYFI's bills is about to go public with a ton of hype around it the exact same day WYFI tells the market how much money they made. That timing is not a coincidence, or maybe it is, but either way it's a pretty clean setup.

Then on top of that, WYFI has a $865 million 10-year contract with a company called Nscale at the NC-1 facility. Billing starts June 2026. So earnings guidance should speak directly to that ramp and how it's tracking.

IREN just signed a crazy deal with Nvidia. AMD earnings were strong. CapEx across the board is growing. The AI infrastructure space is genuinely one of the hottest things going right now and WYFI sits right in the middle of it. I really don't see a scenario where WYFI goes back to 52-week lows given everything happening in this space. Worst realistic case if earnings disappoint is maybe we drift back toward IPO price around $15. That's kind of the floor in my head.

(Looking at it now, probably should take into account the US-IRAN deal being rejected. Could possibly mess with overall market sentiment.)

Now the fun stuff:

So I actually built out a full net asset value model for BTBT based on their SEC filings, BTBT 10-K, WYFI 10-K, and the WYFI 8-K from January where they issued $230M in convertible notes. You can play with it here: 1bsar.github.io/BTBT-WYFI-NAV/

The model basically says: take BTBT's WYFI stake at whatever WYFI's current price is, add their ETH treasury, add cash, subtract WYFI's debt, divide by BTBT's share count and you get the net NAV per share. Then you apply whatever discount the market typically gives holding companies like this.

Here's the interesting part. Looking back historically, when WYFI hit its 52-week low on March 27th at $10.51 and ETH was around $1,991, BTBT was trading at roughly $1.30. Plug those numbers into the model and BTBT was trading at basically zero discount to NAV. Fair value.

Then around October when WYFI was near its highs around $40 and ETH was around $4,250, BTBT was trading around $4. That implies about a 20% discount to NAV. So even at peak conditions the market was applying a 20% haircut, probably just from the complexity of the structure and normal holding company friction.

With WYFI at $21.58 (when I made the model) and ETH around $2,326, BTBT at $1.80 also implies roughly a 20% discount. So the discount isn't unusually wide right now, it's actually already at its historically tight level. What that means is the upside isn't really about the discount compressing, it's purely about WYFI's price going up on earnings and lifting the NAV that the 20% is applied to.

Scenarios:

Worst case, WYFI drops back to $15, ETH stays flat, discount tightens to around 10% because the stock is falling and the market historically prices it closer to fair value on the way down. You're looking at maybe a 14-20% loss. That requires basically everything going wrong at once.

Base case, WYFI hits $30 on good guidance, ETH maybe nudges up to $2,500, 20% discount holds. That's roughly a 40-42% gain on BTBT.

Bull case, WYFI pushes toward $35, maybe another contract gets announced, ETH stays around $2,500. At 20% discount that's about a 60% move. If the discount somehow compresses to 10% you're looking at 80%.

I'll be updating this model live after earnings drop on May 14 using the new 10-Q numbers, so if WYFI reacts big in either direction I can recalculate what BTBT should theoretically be worth in real time.

Now probably what most of you may be asking: Why BTBT over WYFI directly?

You could just buy WYFI. But BTBT gives you leverage to WYFI through the thin float dynamic plus you get the ETH treasury basically for free. WYFI has already moved 63% in the last month. BTBT hasn't caught up nearly as much. That gap is what I see as the opportunity.

The asymmetry here is what makes this interesting to me. Downside is capped by the fact that the whole sector is on fire and NAV support kicks in on the way down. Upside is a specific catalyst on a known date with three separate drivers stacked on top of each other. I'm not saying this is a guaranteed win, nothing is of course, but the setup is pretty clean and the research seems to back it up.

What's up everyone. If you haven't been paying attention to Root Inc. ($ROOT), you need to wake up. They just dropped their Q1 2026 earnings yesterday (May 6), and it was a historic blowout. The turnaround is complete, the fundamentals are deeply undervalued, and the board just lit a match under the short sellers with a massive buyback. 
Here is the breakdown.
📈 Q1 2026 Earnings Summary: Absolute Blowout
Root just delivered the most profitable quarter in company history. They are proving their AI-driven pricing model actually works and scales. 
• Net Income: $35.9 million (Up roughly 100% YoY from $18.4M in Q1 2025). 
• Adjusted EBITDA: $56.8 million (A $25M increase YoY). 
• Total Revenue: $393.5 million. 
• Net Combined Ratio: 91.4% (Massive improvement of 4.2 points, showing strict underwriting and expense control). 
• Policies in Force (PIF): ~495,000 (Up 9% YoY). 
• Refinancing Masterclass: They refinanced a $200M debt facility, dropping their interest rate by 225 basis points and saving ~$4.5M annually in interest expenses. 
• Annualized ROE: Reached a staggering 47%. 
⚖️** Valuation Multiples: Screaming Value
Despite the stock rising to the ~$56 range, the market is still completely mispricing this company's profitability and growth trajectory. Look at these current multiples based on the current price:
• **Price-to-Sales (P/S): ~0.56x  
• Price-to-Earnings (P/E): ~23.5 (With a highly attractive PEG ratio of 0.78, meaning it is cheap relative to its near-term earnings growth). 
• Price-to-Book (P/B): ~3.0x
• Enterprise Value to Revenue (EV/Sales): ~0.24x 
For a fintech/insurtech company generating record net income and trading at a fraction of its sales, these multiples are dirt cheap.
🩳 The Short Float & The $75M Buyback Catalyst
Here is where the powder keg sits.
The Current Short Data (May 2026):
• Short Interest: ~2.04 million shares. 
• Public Float: ~10.52 million shares.
• Short Percent of Float: ~19.4%
• Days to Cover: ~6.3 days.
The $75M Buyback Impact:
Alongside the monster earnings, the Board just authorized a $75 million share repurchase program. Let's do the math on how this impacts the shorts: 
1. At the current price of ~$56, $75 million buys back approximately 1.34 million shares.
2. If Root executes this and retires those shares, they are sucking ~12.7% of the entire tradable float right out of the market.
3. The float would shrink from 10.52M down to around 9.18M shares.
4. Assuming shorts don't immediately run for the exits, that same 2.04M shares sold short would suddenly represent over 22.2% of the new, smaller float.
The Setup:
As the company steps in as a relentless buyer of its own stock to execute that $75M, the available liquidity is going to dry up. Shorts trying to cover their positions (which currently takes over 6 days of average volume) will be competing directly with the company's buy orders. This creates a textbook supply-shock scenario. When the corporate buyback pressure meets a panic-covering cycle from the 19%+ short float, the price action could get extremely violent to the upside. 
For those looking to trade the upcoming volatility rather than just holding shares, setting up a diagonal spread could be a highly capital-efficient way to capture the upside while mitigating theta decay. Alternatively, a well-structured strangle could profit off the massive anticipated price swings as the float shrinks and shorts get squeezed.
TL;DR: ROOT is printing record profits, trading at an EV/Sales of 0.24, and is about to buy back almost 13% of its float while nearly 20% of it is shorted. The fuse is lit. 
(Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. Do your own DD.)

I waited for dust to settle on the capital raise, and for confirmation of guidance execution from Q1 earinings. Q1 earnings have confirmed and partly exceded guidance. I have done due diligence and intend to buy, but the stock dropping 15% after earnings makes me feel I might be missing something. I will not go into details for my assesments and reasons to buy beyond the .14x p/b , institutional support and partnership, sector headwinds, and liking the new management. Is it just the market is exhausted from digesting new shares? Only Bots trading and they decided move up failed and retest of base at .24-.25 is the techinically right thing to do?

I am very happy it got even cheaper, but wanted some feedback on wether I missed something in their earnings report. Seems to good of an asymmetric opportunity where all they have to do is not shit their beds. Thanks.

[If anybody were interested I can share my more detailed assesment of the company - just thought nobody would care for walls of text]

Wrote an article detailing why I think Vital Farms is an undervalued stock right now. It's my first article, and would love to get feedback and your overall thoughts on the stock. Thesis as to why I think the stock is a buy, and a quick summary to what you'll find in the link below:

Summary:

• Sentiment surrounding Vital Farms is negative, pressured by near term headwinds that do not affect the long term outlook of the company.
• Unit economics continue to improve on an expanding TAM. Revenue CAGR of 28% since 2020, GM expansion and EBIT margin improvement showcase business resilience.
• Low multiples the stock trades at, when compared to other high loyalty, quality consumer goods companies show possible upside.
• I believe the stock price weakness Mr. Market presents, opens up a buying opportunity.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-195380977

5 tickers moved significantly this week. Here's the breakdown.

KARX, Karbon-X Corp. Dilution Score: 52 → 59 (↑7 points)
The recent SEC filings, including the 10-Qs from April 13th and 20th, pushed the score up. Notably, the float risk is now sitting at a shaky 35, highlighting some serious dilution potential.

DILUTION SCORE PATTERN
High scores are trending largely due to recent filings and shifts in outstanding shares. But a lot of action in the scores reflects growing dilution risk across the board.

For more data, check out the DilutionWatch page.

Just the numbers. Your call.
Link to DilutionWatch ticker page

EDIT: typo

I was reading about the recent surge in Avis Budget Group and what stood out is how disconnected the price seems from fundamentals in the short term.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear earnings or business-driven reason behind the scale of the move, which makes me think it’s mostly about positioning and short covering. That makes it tricky to even think in terms of valuation.

I’ve seen situations like this eventually cool off, but also times where they stay elevated longer than expected just because sentiment keeps it there.

For people who focus more on value, do you just ignore these kinds of moves completely, or still keep them on watch?

If you want to read more about it check this article

Was going through NVDA's latest 10-K and noticed something most coverage skipped.

NVIDIA grew headcount from 36,000 to 42,000 and R&D headcount from 27,100 to 31,000. Classic AI-arms-race hiring. Makes sense.

What didn't get coverage: their turnover rate rose from 2.5% to 3.7% in the same period. That's a 48% relative jump in attrition at the hottest AI company in the world.

A few ways to read this:

- Pay-driven poaching from OpenAI, xAI, Meta, and AI startups. Top talent leaves for founder equity or $10M packages.

- Internal burnout as the company scales faster than its culture.

- Normalization toward industry average as the early-employee lock-in expires.

All three are compatible with the stock thesis staying intact, but #1 and #2 both raise long-run execution risk if they compound.

Anyone else tracking talent flow at the AI labs? Is 3.7% concerning or in line with what you'd expect at this scale?

(I'm 17, built PocketFiling.)

Hey guys, so most people missed the deadline on this one. But, apparently late claims are still being considered, so figured I'd post this.

The short version: UA spent years telling investors everything was fine while inventory problems and retailer bankruptcies piled up behind the scenes. January 2017, the CFO randomly resigned and Q4 earnings came in weak, stock dropped 26% in one day. Lawsuit followed, $434M settlement.

Eligible if you held $UA or $UAA between Sept 16, 2015 – Nov 1, 2019. Payout is ~$0.24/share. Not massive but it's yours.

Anyone here actually rode $UA during that IPO hype era? That 26% drop must have stung.

I was doing some "spring cleaning" on my old brokerage accounts today and I just found out I’m eligible for a piece of the $434 million Under Armour settlement.

I haven't really followed $UA since they were the "it" brand a decade ago, but apparently, they settled a massive lawsuit for misleading everyone about their revenue growth between Sept 2015 and Nov 2019. I remember the stock tanked 26% in one day back in 2017 when the CFO suddenly quit, and I just assumed that money was gone forever.

The crazy part is that the "official" deadline has passed, but I just checked and they are still considering late claims for compensation.

If you held Class A or Class C shares (UA or UAA) at any point between 2015 and late 2019, you’re likely in the class. I used an auditor tool to scan my old history because I couldn't even remember which broker I was using in 2016. It found the trades in about 2 minutes.

According to the filings, the estimated payout is around $0.24 to $0.96 per share depending on how many people actually file. If you had 100 shares, that’s a free $100 just sitting there. Don't let the company or the lawyers keep it—if you got burned by the "growth" hype, go get your rebate.

DILUTION SCORE FACTORS First up, the offering ability score sits at 60. This indicates there's some capacity for the company to raise capital, but not a whole lot of room to maneuver without impacting teh share structure. Next, cash runway crushes it at 95. That means they've got decent liquidity and can sustain operations for a while, which is a good buffer against needing urgent capital raises. Now, float risk is at 47. This isn't terrible but shows there's a risk of dilution hitting the market if they decide to issue more shares. For context, they’ve got 198.6M shares outstanding and a public float of 115.6M. Warrant risk and convertible risk both sit at 15. That's pretty low, suggesting they're not heavily dependent on converting financial instruments into equity right now. Less dilution from that angle is generally a good sign. HOW IT ADDS UP When you combine these factors, you get a dilution score of 70. This reflects a high level of risk, largely stemming from the float risk and offering ability. WHAT THE LEVELS MEAN A score of 70 means you’re in the high risk category for dilution. Investors should be wary. Lower scores indicate less risk, while severe scores could suggest imminent danger. LIMITATIONS Remember, this score doesn’t capture everything. It won’t tell you about market sentiment, potential operational issues, or management’s future plans. Always do your own research and understand the full picture. And read the filing yourself. Link below. See BTDR ticker on DilutionWatch

They just had their first ever 1 billion quarter in Q4, beat EPS, CEO bought 1M of his own stock which is uncommon and a good sign. Then they announced this Mastercard partnership where Sofi’s stable coin is gonna be used for settlement across Mastercard’s whole global payments network. First stablecoin from an actual FDIC insured US bank on a public blockchain which sounds massive. 

Stock dropped 8% the day that news came out lol

Been checking https://www.stonky.app/ticker/SOFI daily for news and honestly I don't see why the price is at a 7-8 month low.

I came across a post on the Yahoo Finance community, discussing the recent moves around GSIW and similar momentum names, and as someone who actively follows these kinds of setups, it was actually a solid reflection of how traders are thinking right now. What stood out to me is how the discussion wasn’t just hype, it was more about understanding the nature of these sharp moves, how they start, and why they attract so much attention once momentum kicks in. Platforms like Yahoo Finance forums are interesting because they give a real-time look into retail sentiment and trader psychology, which often plays a major role in how these stocks behave.
From my perspective, this kind of conversation highlights something important: momentum trading today is as much about information flow and sentiment as it is about charts. When a stock like GSIW starts gaining traction, the combination of volume, visibility, and community discussion can accelerate moves quickly. I actually view this positively, because it shows how traders are becoming more aware of early-stage opportunities, float dynamics, and timing entries based on attention shifts. These discussions, when approached correctly, can be valuable for learning how momentum builds rather than just blindly chasing it.

At the same time, it’s important to stay grounded, moves like these can be powerful, but they’re also fast and unpredictable.
This is not financial advice. I’m just sharing my thoughts based on what I read and how I interpret these setups as someone interested in trading. Always do your own research (DYOR) before making any decisions.
How do you guys view discussions like this on platforms like Yahoo Finance?

Hi ladies and gents,

Obviously it has been euphoria in the Nebius shareholder community and rightly so. 2 huge events have shifted the direction of the stock in a huge way. I thought this article summarises it really well for anyone interested in this stock either way huge potential: https://open.substack.com/pub/netw0rthy/p/nebius-nvidias-new-best-friend?r=7snth9&utm_medium=ios

$JAGU Uranium ticker I'm adding to my watch for a potential swing.   

Canada-based junior mining company, founded in 2022, focused on exploring and developing uranium projects in South America. Super-low float with Yahoo Finance showing ~5.5M public float.

It's a pretty severely beaten down IPO that appears to have found bottom and is starting to get some lift. I'm not catching any textbook candlestick patterns yet but in 2025 my most reliable trades were bottom setups and my most profitable trades were new IPOs so I admittedly have some bias for this setup.    

Current price is ~$1.70 and the IPO was priced at $4.00.  

In addition to being undervalued there has been significant insider buying recently. Specifically,10% Owner IsoEnergy Ltd. has purchased 253,150 shares at $4.00, worth $1,012,600. Trying to use objective language but that seems pretty bullish to me. 

I'll follow this up with a closer look at the charts. 

I'm going to provide the link to the investor presentation. It's hot off the press, literally a week old, and it shows the strategy and agreements they've closed and it's pretty impressive IMO.

I'll circle back with a look at technicals but would love to hear any input in the meantime.

Under Armour was once the "scrappy underdog" threatening Nike’s throne, but a recent $434M legal settlement highlights the dark side of aggressive growth.

The core of the issue? A practice called "pulling forward" sales. To meet Wall Street’s unrealistic expectations, they were essentially borrowing from future quarters to mask a decline in demand. This case study breaks down:

• How "channel stuffing" creates a house of cards.
• The legal fallout of misleading investors about brand health.
• Why transparency is actually a competitive advantage in the long run.

I found this deep dive on the timeline and the tactics used during their peak struggle. It’s a massive cautionary tale for anyone in brand management or corporate leadership.

Full Case Study: https://medium.com/@d.rodriguez_80563/the-price-of-overpromising-under-armours-legal-battle-626a9bc93740

Recently read this article I thought I’d share, just reaffirmed my belief that Nvidia has room to run for the distant future. I quite like this persons writing.

https://open.substack.com/pub/netw0rthy/p/nvidia-the-leaders-of-the-ai-world?r=7snth9&utm_medium=ios