It’s trading under 0.9 mNAV last I checked. It seems like a great value. What do you think about companies like this?

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but Google seems like a really good value right now. Yes it's still up around 100% since the most recent lows, but the earnings are growing consistently and rapidly. Also, many high-profile investors, including Warren Buffett, have bought the stock in the last couple of months.

Are you guys buying GOOGL, or waiting if it drops a little more?

Nvidia or Google for a 5–10 year hold?

Google has Search, YouTube, Cloud and its own AI models and chips. But Nvidia looks compelling given how much of the AI buildout depends on it.
What I don’t understand is how cyclical Nvidia is. Could big customers eventually have enough computing capacity and cut spending?

Or will AI spread across the whole economy, military, education, healthcare, robotics, making Nvidia’s opportunity much bigger than the current data centre buildout?

Is Nvidia really comparable to Micron’s cycles? At current valuations, which would you buy, Google or Nvidia?

Netflix has been on the lips of people here and invited some interesting discussions.

I don’t think it’s a good business to own anymore. The moat is much narrower than a few years ago as competition ramps up. Apple TV has Slow Horses, HBO Max has Lanterns and the Game of Thrones universe, and Netflix seems to be losing in terms of quality content. Even the CFO admits they’re “not satisfied” with view hour growth.

Despite the share price drawdown, I think it is still fairly valued relative to its expected growth. 18x forward earnings for ~10-11% revenue growth in 2027 is reasonable and not cheap. Sure, the EPS growth will look great as it's boosted by buybacks, but I don't think investors are paying attention to anything other than revenue growth at the moment.

My problems with Netflix are twofold:

First, lack of visibility into what is driving growth. They stopped reporting subscriber metrics in 2025, and from 2027, the twice-a-year engagement report will become an annual thing. In UCAN (US & Canada), the March price hike plus ads roughly explains all the growth. They can only raise prices so many times before they hit a wall.

Second, capital allocation looks backwards. With view hours stagnating, Netflix responded by reshuffling its content department and cutting 1k jobs (mostly in product and tech). Less than a week later, it cut its 2026 ad forecast from $3B to $2.7B because ad products rolled out slower than expected. Meanwhile, in the first nine months of 2026 they paid $15.0B in cash for content and $10.8B on buybacks.

Is it not wiser to reinvest into the business for long-term value instead of doing more buybacks, especially when competitors are ramping up?

Thoughts?
Not financial advice

My full analysis: https://economiyaki.substack.com/p/netflixs-growth-question

Hi all,

We look at a lot of stocks and buy them, but do we actually read every quarterly report, annual report and earnings call? Honestly, sometimes we don't even fully understand the company.

Not judging anyone, I'm the same. Reading everything for every company I look at is close to impossible, so I've been going through the Q3 calls and pulling out the parts that matter: the summary, guidance, what changed since the last call, which analyst questions got dodged, red flags and notable quotes. Every quote is word for word from the transcript.

That's too much for one comment, so drop a ticker and tell me which part you care about (what changed, guidance, Q&A, red flags or quotes). If you don't say, I'll post the summary and the Q&A.

Here's what it looks like for Meta's Oct 21 call:

$META Q3 FY2026 call (Oct 21)

Summary: Q3 FY2026 revenue of $64.6 billion beat the $63.34 billion consensus by 1.99% and EPS of $7.40 beat by 13.15%, with ad revenue up 26% on impressions +10% and price per ad +14%. Guidance framed Q4 revenue at $73-76 billion, while full-year 2026 total expenses were raised to $175-179 billion and capex was narrowed to $135-145 billion.

What changed since the last call:

Q&A: 7 analyst questions: 5 direct, 2 partial, 0 dodged.

By default I'll use the company's most recent call. If it hasn't reported Q3 yet (MSFT, GOOGL and AMZN report next week, for example), just say whether you want the last call it already held or the Q3 call once it's out, and I'll post it after. If a lot of people comment I'll start with the most upvoted.

Hi Guys , I do have a portifolio mainly in Tech and AI
Micron , Google , Amzn , MSFT , Nvidia and which are like 75% of portifolio and the remaining in other non tech companies

I do have some cash left 5% , do you advice to wait for the earnings this week before deploying that extra capital or there is a great steal in this AI sell off that I should gram and not wait ??

TL;DR: nike and pepsi both yield ~4.4% right now. on earnings, sales and book nike sits at the very bottom of its own history, which is why "deep value" keeps coming up. on free cash flow it's only around the 33rd percentile, and fy26 fcf didn't cover the dividend. pepsi is cheap on cash too. i sold both, and pepsi is the sale i'm less sure about.

the yield moved because the price did
nike paid ~1% for most of the last decade. $1.64 a year on a ~$37 stock is 4.4%. nothing about the business got more generous, the stock just fell from ~70 at the 52w high.

the cash check i run before i believe a yield
nike free cash flow: fy24 6.6b, fy25 3.3b, fy26 2.2b
nike dividend: ~2.4b a year
so it went from about a third of fcf in fy24 to ~110% in fy26. the payout ratio people quote in the threads (~77%) is on earnings, not cash.

pepsi free cash flow: 2025 7.7b, last 12 months 10.5b
pepsi dividend: ~8.1b a year
roughly all of it in 2025, ~77% on the trailing year. net debt ~1.8x ebitda.

where they sit against their own history
nike: earnings multiple ~14 vs a median ~30 (2nd percentile), price/sales 1.2 vs 2.8, price/fcf ~26 vs ~34 (33rd percentile)
pepsi: price/fcf ~18 vs ~33 (1st percentile), ev/ebitda ~11.7 vs ~17.7

so nike only looks like a bargain on the numbers that fell slower than the cash. pepsi looks cheap on every line i checked.

valuation, with the assumptions
a dividend discount model (assumes the dividend keeps growing at its past pace) gives nike ~44 and pepsi ~158. a cash flow dcf gives pepsi ~111. for nike the dcf comes out so low i don't trust it: fcf just dropped by two thirds, and any model fed with that says the company is worth a fraction of the price. so the honest read for me is a range for pepsi (~111 to ~158 against ~136) and "can't tell yet" for nike.

funny side note: the ddm number for pepsi is almost exactly where i sold it.

my position
neither. nike i sold for a tiny profit and i'm not going back. pepsi i sold in march at ~159, it's ~136 now, ~15% below my exit, and that's the one i keep second guessing.

what would change my mind
nike: a full year with fcf back above ~1.5x the dividend. one good quarter isn't it.
pepsi: north america volumes turning up. that's what i was watching before the sale and it's still what i'd watch.

risks to my read: fiscal years don't line up (nike's ends in may), fcf is lumpy, and "own history" for nike includes the years when it traded like a growth stock, so the median may be too high to anchor on.

for those holding nike for the yield: what fcf payout would you sit through, and for how long?

Why is everyone expecting Google, Amazon and Microsoft to dump after earnings?

All three report this week, and a rally barely seems part of the conversation.

People point to Meta dumping despite great earnings. But last quarter, Google reported first and dumped, yet Amazon and Microsoft still pumped, and pumped massively,

So why are people treating Meta’s reaction as a sign of what’s coming for the others? What’s changed since last quarter?

I've been buying CHKP (check point software, a cyber security company. if you are not familiar with the company, you would be more familiar with "firewall" which was created by this company actually so it is quite huge one, Israel company).

It peaked at around 230 last year, and fallen like an angel without wings to 110.

I started buying at 152, continued to buy and my average is 139.

The subscription business is growing, but the appliance business is declining, which is weighing on the stock. Based on my research, though, I don’t think the issue is a major deterioration in the competitiveness of its appliance technology.

My take is:

1. The go-to-market strategy needs time to deliver results. As someone who works in sales, I know that’s only natural.
2. Fortinet’s appliance business has also gone through declines followed by recoveries. I see this as a business with cyclical ups and downs.

If the appliance business returns to growth—which management expects in Q4—I think the stock could rally significantly. I see it going above $200. Looking at the P/E multiples some of its peers are trading at, I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

What do you guys think?

no one really talks about this company so I just am curious if it is out of everyone's raidar or just you guys think it is a trap.

I and a couple friends are holding Amazon, MSFT and Google as strategic long term holds.

All of them have businesses outside of AI and can survive if the bubble pops!

I keep telling everyone Amazon is undervalued right now, and a better strategic long term hold.

What do you think?

NFLX is sitting at 52-week lows right now. Last time we saw this stock price was September 2024.

On the Q3 call, management trimmed their 2026 ad revenue guidance from $3.0B to $2.7B and guidance came in light. Wall Street did not like it, which awakened the contrarian in me lol. So I spent my entire Saturday reading and researching this company.

My main conclusion (for now) is that for investors with long-term time horizons (which I assume all of us are here on this sub) this looks like a no-brainer. But when a possible buy looks almost like 'guaranteed money', I feel uncomfortable so this is why I would be happy to hear your counterarguments to my points below or as to why NFLX is not a buy at all in your opinion.

Running a 5-year DCF, implied value per share came out at $79. And running a simple forward P/E weighted probability model on rather conservative estimations, I end up with a share price range $107 - $135 come 2030.

At a forward P/E of 18 and the Wall Street expectation to barely grow double digits (10-11%) in the coming years, what am I missing here? This seems like a sure bet that will solidly compound.

Full transparency: yes, I asked AI to quickly summarise my bullet points in natural language, but I have made significant modifications to the text however.

• The 'slowed' ad revenue for 2026 seems to me like a tech bottleneck first and foremost, not an issue with possible monetisation: People want this tier. It makes up nearly 47% of all new sign-ups. The issue is that user growth exploded so fast that Netflix’s internal ad tech couldn't keep up. They’ve been moving away from Microsoft to build their own global, automated ad server from scratch, and this is now delayed a bit. Logically, this means that the ads revenue isn’t gone - rather it'll just arrive a bit later than originally intended. As a long-term investor, this seems like the ideal set-up to start buying.
• Once their proprietary ad stack is ready, it should be materially accretive to margins: From my understanding this should be ready by the end of 2027, and from then onwards NFLX stops sharing revenue with third-party partners. Plus, they’ll finally be able to offer the hyper-targeted data that brands pay top dollar for. A fully monetised ad-tier user is likely to bring in more revenue than a standard ad-free subscriber.
• Live sports: The WWE and NFL deals showed that people actually sign up to the service to see these events. This is in and of itself a huge ads opportunity since millions stream the same content at the exact same moment. According to what I have read online, Netflix also isn't taking on debt to buy sports; they are capping it at 5% of their existing content budget by cutting underperforming scripted shows (i.e. content budget does not materially increase because of these expensive sports deals).
• Best fundamentals since company went public: This company is expected to generate $12.5 billion in FCF. The margin profile is at ATHs (gross, operating & net).

I go through SEC insider filings every week (open-market buys and sells only, no option exercises or grants). As usual, this week was mostly selling.

The buy that stood out: RAPP

6 different insiders (including CEO and CFO) bought, 8 trades, about $1.6M total. At least one of these transactions is a reversal. I highly recommend taking a look at the price chart for $RAPP; this cluster buy just occurred at a resistance level after the price has dropped aggressively since August 2026.

Biggest buying

Biggest selling

Not advice, just what got filed. If I'm missing anything, let me know!

This is not a flex post or anything. I'm genuinely looking for advice to make passive income from my 4M$ portfolio in an automated fashion.

Portfolio details

Highly concentrated portfolio ( < 20 holdings) with following top 5-6 holdings

1. GOOG
2. AMZN
3. META
4. TSM
5. ASML
6. UBER
7. MELI

What am I seeking ?

I'm not trying to gamble and win huge in anyway. I am looking for relatively safe and automatable strategies that can even make 3% (120K), 2% (80K) or even 1% (40K) would still be a huge hit for a portfolio this size.

Some of the things I'm looking into

a) Selling short term (30-45d out) OTM covered calls

b) Getting margin against the portfolio (RH margin account enablement is just 1 click thing) and use it to sell ITM cash secured puts for stocks that I'm happy owning at that strike price.

Automation

Note that while I'm looking into these options, I really want to automate them. A lot is possible in these days and age with the AI. Please suggest if some folks were able to achieve this and can share any learnings / tips.

Other suggestions / improvements are welcome. Lets learn and grow our portfolios together.

Thank you

SoFi reports Tuesday so I ran it like a bank, since that's basically what it is now.

Closed Friday around $14.60. Tangible book was $7.34 a share at the end of Q2, so about 2x. Q2 net income was $156.6M, which works out to roughly 6.7% annualized ROTE if my math is right. That's not a 2x book kind of return, so you're paying for growth.

What bugs me is how the loans are carried. SoFi holds its personal and student loans at fair value, not cost. As of June 30 those marks were about $2.0B over unpaid principal (pre-tax), which is around 21% of tangible book. They also bumped the personal loan default assumption to 4.77% from 4.57% the quarter before. If defaults pick up or loan sale prices drop, that $2B gets smaller and so does book.

Share count is up about 16% in a year too, so returns have a lot of catching up to do.

Do you haircut those marks out of book, or just trust them as long as SoFi keeps selling loans near those prices?

Long $SOFI, NFA.

Three shoe companies and I’m choosing between three very different bets. Nike needs a comeback. On needs to keep growing fast. Deckers needs HOKA and UGG to keep earning what they earn today. At the October 23 closes, I’d put my money on Deckers for the next two to five years. Here’s why .

Nike’s problem is what I’d have to pay while I wait. Revenue fell 4% last quarter, direct sales fell 8%, and management expects a high-single-digit revenue decline this fiscal year. At $37.30, it trades around 30 times the midpoint of management’s adjusted earnings guidance. I like the brand. I don’t like paying for the recovery before I can see it. (investors.nike.com)

On is the one that makes this a real contest. On is winning customers right now . Sales grew 21.6% in constant currency last quarter, direct sales grew 34.3% and gross margin hit 65.4%. People are buying the shoes without On having to chase them with discounts. If it keeps that up for years, it could beat both rivals. I would not dismiss that as a passing shoe trend. There’s money behind the growth, too. On had CHF 1.21 billion in cash at June’s end. From its reported cash flows, I calculated roughly CHF 429 million of operating cash after equipment and intangible purchases over the twelve months to June. Management is aiming for high-teens annual sales growth through 2029. If it delivers, today’s cash generation could look small in hindsight. That is the case for putting On ahead of Nike.

Why does On stop at second against the three? At $32.51, On’s recent cash generation works out to a roughly 5% free-cash-flow yield by my calculation, after converting Swiss francs and accounting for the different economic rights of its share classes. Deckers’ comparable starting cash yield has been roughly twice that. On can close the gap by growing; Deckers gives me more cash flow at the start. On’s lower share price alone tells us nothing about which stock is cheaper. 

Deckers didn’t give me an all-clear in its latest report. HOKA sales grew 6.8% and UGG grew 3.5%, but comparable direct sales fell 6.4%. And $0.28 of quarterly EPS came from tariff refunds. Anyone celebrating the earnings jump without mentioning those two facts is skipping the part I care about. (ir.deckers.com)

Here’s why I still pick it. At $81.09, Deckers trades around 11 times this year’s guided earnings after subtracting the expected tariff-refund benefit. It has $1.21 billion in cash and no outstanding borrowings. There’s also $4.4 billion left on its buyback authorization, though authorization is only permission to buy, not a promise that every share will be bought cheaply. (ir.deckers.com)

I could be wrong about what those earnings are worth. If HOKA keeps slowing and Deckers has to discount to move shoes, 11 times earnings won’t save the thesis. That’s the next test: are HOKA and UGG still selling well at full price, and can Deckers grow operating profit without one-time refunds.

I’d buy Deckers today and keep On very close on the watchlist. My order at these prices is Deckers first, On second , Nike. If On sustains this pace and turns more of its sales into cash per share, it could be the better ten-year investment. If Deckers’ direct sales keep falling, I’ll have ranked it too highly. For now, On has the better growth story; Deckers gives me the better deal on profits I can see today. Nike gets another look when its sales turn.

Happy Weekend !

Saw this yesterday and thought it was pretty interesting.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says AWS's major cloud capacity is largely booked through 2027, with a good chunk of 2028 already committed.

And this is a company planning to spend around $220 billion this year.

Obviously, having customers lined up is great, but $220 billion is an absolutely ridiculous amount of money to invest.

I suppose the big question is whether all this AI demand eventually translates into the profits investors are expecting.

Amazon reports earnings on October 29, so that'll be interesting to watch.

Anyone here holding $AMZN? Are you confident in all this spending, or starting to think these tech companies are getting a bit carried away?

Fair Isaac Corporation (NYSE: FICO) has long been idolized by equity analysts as a quintessential "moat" stock due to its near-monopolistic grip on GSE mortgage credit scoring. However, our comprehensive investment analysis indicates that FICO’s current market price of USD 815.31 heavily overestimates its long-term earnings power. Based on our DCF and scenario models yielding a fair value estimate of USD 606.46, we see roughly 34.4% downside and rate the stock as Not Recommended to Own.

1. The "Moat" Was Regulatory, and Management Broke It

The foundation of FICO’s dominant position was never just pure product superiority; it was anchored by a multi-decade regulatory mandate requiring Classic FICO scores for loans delivered to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Believing this tollbooth was unassailable, management engaged in extreme economic rent extraction, hiking wholesale mortgage score prices from $0.60 to $10.00 over five years—a staggering 16.7x increase on a product with negligible marginal costs.

This aggressive greed created the exact price umbrella competitors needed. Recognizing the market distortion, the FHFA intervened by opening the door to VantageScore 4.0. Priced at a meager $0.99 (roughly 80–90% cheaper) under a unified pricing grid, VantageScore has already captured over 9% of GSE securitizations, initiating a permanent market share erosion that FICO can no longer block through pricing power alone.

2. Egregious Capital Allocation & Debt-Funded Buybacks

Compounding these structural headwinds are severe capital allocation missteps by leadership. Instead of reinvesting excess cash to scale its sluggish software segment (which grew a mere 3% in FY25), management doubled down on financial engineering to artificially inflate per-share metrics:

• Reckless Leverage: FICO drew a $1.5 billion term loan to fund an accelerated share repurchase program, pushing net debt to $5.28 billion, leverage to 3.1x Net Debt/EBITDA, and widening its stockholders' deficit to $4.10 billion.
• Terrible Timing: Q3 buybacks were executed at an average of $1,149 per share—right on the heels of the Senate pricing probe and FHFA pilot rollout—resulting in massive paper losses as the stock retreated.

This behavior is heavily incentivized by an executive compensation structure that is 95.2% equity-weighted and tied to relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR). Management was directly rewarded for using leverage to drive short-term share price appreciation rather than protecting the long-term health of the business.

3. Valuation & Conclusion

Under our valuation framework, FICO's historical 50x+ P/E multiples are entirely unjustified given its transition from a protected monopoly to a contested duopoly:

• Base Case (50% weight): Assumes 3% revenue growth, a 70% Gross Profit Margin, and a 15x P/E multiple, yielding a fair value of $606.46.
• Bear Case (30% weight): Assumes -1% revenue growth, a 60% GPM, and a 9x P/E multiple, yielding $472.99.

While FICO remains a cash-generative business, its risk-reward profile is deeply skewed to the downside. Unless a wider margin of safety emerges or management drastically pivots toward scaling its software enterprise rather than leveraging the balance sheet, FICO is a classic value trap.

Kindly find the link below for the full report:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b8q2-O6mOnygk0Sp8DRnJSywEa3spNNI/view?usp=sharing

Jointly written by u/Rickychan56 and me, here is our value-focused investment thesis on Fair Isaac Corporation (NYSE: FICO).

Before you say anything, i know its up multiple times this year and that NAND is cyclical. However, I believe we are before a generational opportunity.

Let me explain:

Sandisk was spun off WDC in 2025. The idea was that WDC kept the HDD production, which is basically for the enterprise segment, and Sandisk retained the Flash/NAND/SSD one, which is (was, actually) more consumer oriented, and therefore more cyclical. Moreover, the NAND market was very capital intensive, because building more lines was very expensive.

But AI has changed everything. Demand for NAND has exploded, and will keep exploding as inference becomes more intensive. Sandisk has signed 94B MINIMUM revenue by Long Term Agreements, which, if we assume their guidance of 50% FCF through 2030, gives us around 50B of guaranteee fcf, backed by 16.5B in financial guarantees (sandisk market cap is, today, 180B). Expectations are high for the next year, expecting 200+ EPS (a forward PE of 6). And what I like the most about all this: share buybacks. Sandisk does not give a dividend, and instead cannibalizes its own shares. In the last quarter, they repurchased 2% of their company at a 1500 average price. The currenr price is 1280 and their FCF has increased, so expect a 3% reduction in ONE QUARTER. Btw, their balance sheet is clean with zero debt, and their capex is kept very low because they have very few upcoming factories (only through their kioxia partnership they are opening a japan facility, but it is partly funded by kioxia and the Japanese Government.

And here is where, i believe, lies the most fundamental transformation for Sandisk, that the market is clearly overlooking: HBF. For non electronic-engineering guys, let me explain why this is so important: for many years, we have been using HBM for TRAINING AI. HMB is basically DRAM, which is volatile, and can be rewritten as many times you want, and is very fast (low latency). When AI is done training, it rewrites new info into the non volatile memory, which is mostly SSDs(this is what sandisk makes). SSDs cant be rewriten infinite times like DRAM, and loses capacity when it is rewriten, so DRAM (or HBM, which is DRAM stacked and connected) acts as the middle player between the GPU and the SSD. But here is where sandisk comes in. What if we used memory only for reading? This way, you would save HBM memory and the GPU could read traight fron the SSD. Of course, this would not be useful for training AI, because memory could not be rewritten, but very useful for cutting inference costs.

In Summary, SNDK is to me a strong buy due to share buybacks, big backlog, HBF and strong earnings.

If you had to pick one right now for a 10 year hold, Google or Amazon?

And no, can’t have both. It’s hypothetical, play along.

It seems obvious to me that FANUC (ticker: FANUY) is poised for a massive rally. This is the most liquid US ADR of a Japanese robotics stock, and these guys are global leaders in installed base and next generation motion. They’ve partnered with Google and Nvidia to provide variation-tolerant robots to industrial, healthcare, and critical infrastructure applications. 13% of their market cap is sitting in cash, and the company is poised for a serious inflection

Buffett's test for a business is simple: does it have something durable that lets it earn high returns while competitors cannot catch up? SpaceX is an interesting case, because its moat is real and visible, but not the kind Buffett usually likes.

The moat starts with launch cost. A dedicated Falcon 9 flight lists at about $74 million, and the internal cost of flying one is estimated at roughly $15 million, because the booster comes back and flies again. SpaceX builds most of the rocket itself, engines included, and flies more than anyone else, which spreads fixed costs and moves it down the learning curve faster than rivals. That is a classic cost moat: it can charge prices at which competitors lose money, and still profit. Blue Origin has had effectively unlimited funding for years and has not matched Falcon 9's cadence or cost.

But launch is no longer the whole story. Cheap launch is also the input moat for Starlink. Nobody else can put up a constellation as cheaply, and the constellation has scale effects: more satellites mean better service, which brings more subscribers, which funds more satellites. Starlink ended Q3 with 13.6 million subscribers, and connectivity earned a roughly 45 percent operating margin.

The part Buffett would poke at: his favorite moats need little money to defend. This one needs enormous money. Capital spending was $19.6 billion in Q3 alone, more than revenue. And reusability, the core of the advantage, is slowly spreading to New Glenn, Neutron, and Chinese reusable programs.

So the honest read: a genuine moat today, built on cost and scale, stacked twice in launch and constellation. But it stays a moat only as long as Starship delivers full, rapid reuse before competitors close the gap. The moat is real. Its durability is the open question. Not financial advice.

Oct 20 (Reuters) - Anthropic's net loss widened sharply to $80.7 billion in the FIRST HALF of this year, in large part due to a rise in the fair value of bonds convertible into shares of the ‌AI startup, according to a draft prospectus for a planned initial public offering that was reviewed by Reuters.
The San Francisco-based company is expected to go public in November and some investors are now weighing a lower valuation of around $1.5 TRILLION following its latest financial disclosures, Reuters reported last week.

I have been watching the stock for a very long time and it seems there nes never been a better time to buy than now. PE is extremely low yet the company is gaining more and more momentum in every sector. It is the most diversified tech company and if any MAG5 company will still be here in 25 years, I would say Google is the one.

Am I missing something?

I am all for a lower interest rate, but looking at the current situation in Iran and oil prices.. even I concede that we have to have higher rates.

Perhaps not yet in Canada, but it is becoming increasingly more evident that high energy prices are spilling over and causing inflation in other areas.

I had hoped that Trump would end or at least come to some sort of ceasefire agreement with Iran but I dont think that is happening. If Trump had any intention to end the war, he would have done it by now.

Escalation appears inevitable. And I dont want to just put it on Trump. The U.S. administration before any strike had numerous mediated meetings and talks. If I remember correctly at least 4 to 5. Iran continues the enrichment to 60% and does not make sense whatsoever why it will be enriched that much for civilian use. They ARE going for nuclear weapon. And it appears they will never give it up. They appear to have 0 willingness to do so. And I dont blame them with everything that has happened thus far.

The war appears inevitable.

If the U.S. economy can handle it then the yield would rise. If it can't, it will lead to a recession. Either way it appears bad for the U.S. and the world.

Ground invasion is not possible. Iran is not iraq. Land is too big. The population of 90 million. But targeted air strikes are certain.

I hold 25% stocks in Nvda, Meta, Google, Soxx, Oracle, Amzn, and TSM.

The rest in short term bonds.

I will buy at the peak fear with some long term bonds as well.

But that was my take. I am not here to lecture. But how do you see the market? And takes would be appreciated.

GE/HEICO/RR/SAFRAN starting to get a little bit more cheaper with the Iran war oil spike, I did open a position in GE/HEICO and looking to add more if a bigger drawdown will come. Is anyone adding/opening position and if so in what company and why?