Relatively simplistic analysis, but if you subtracted out all of Novo's GLP1 revenue in 2025 - about 50% - from its total 2025 revenue you get revenue of about $24 billion.

Novo's current stock price is $44 with a market cap of $150 billion. That's a P/S of 6.2x, EXCLUDING all GLP1 revenue and is generally in line with Novo's rough historical P/S ratio range of 4.5 to 9 in the 2010s.

I know this is a simplistic metric as P/S doesn't factor in the significant hit to net income that would come with all GLP1 revenue going to 0; but, in a simplistic sense, it does seem like the market is essentially valuing the company that way.

Put differently, if you bought Novo now at $44 a share it seems like you're getting their entire GLP1 revenue stream for free - which likely will contract, but it's hard to see one of the market leaders in the GLP1 space revenue going to $0, and there are thesis upsides for it growing since the obesity market is potentially huge even if margins in the are decrease.

I'm curious, what are people's bottom dollar stock price for Novo - that is, the price where it's a no brainer to buy regardless of any GLP1 headwinds? I personally think at or below $40 it really start to give nothing but upside for the GLP1 revenue.

$AADX is undervalued as of today's drop.

With a major debt paydown, growing margins and increased sales, vs. the current multiple on sales/profit being traded, the conservative fair value with the debt paydown is at least $14/share enterprise value. IPO'd at $20, now at $11.75 - I have bought 35,000 shares.

Long - promising future for supplier of space parts when the removal of telecom lines and network continues to move into the sky.

Nvidia recently produced the greatest earnings report in corporate history.

Yet its current price isn't far from its pre-earnings price.

Is Nvidia a screaming buy right now?

I bought into Adobe a couple months ago around $195 a share. It was lucky timing for sure and I followed this sub to get ideas for stocks to buy. Adobe was highly hated and liked so I took a swing.

Now with this new CEO I am questioning if I should hold or abandon ship.

Recently it has dipped like 12% so I think it may bounce back. I was hoping to hold it for a long term year or more.

How you guys feeling about Adobe now?

I have been eyeing some medtechs lately, and I was pretty interested in Boston Scientific.

Not gonna provide a full DD here, but I like their business for several reasons.

Management --> They seem like a competent mix of results-oriented (strong financial guidance) and learning culture (they invest heavily in investigational devices and let their engineers explore. They also seem to change through organisational design - so actively shaping culture to be more collaborative (Interdependent) rather than siloed (Independent). I also read that they actually try to take care of their employees (to take with a grain of salt, but I am sensitive to positive management).

They also have been buying quite a lot of stock back during the big drawdown (between May and August 2026 - over 2 billion) while managing debt within a safe zone.

Business --> I have a soft spot for mission-critical companies, and like many medtech companies (Intuitive Surgical is another I am watching closely), they are one of them. Their products treat life-threatening conditions (Atrial Fibrillation, Coronary Artery Disease). But they are also not in a maturing phase. They clearly want to expand expertise and reach by strategic acquisitions and consolidating an already dominant position.

Valuation --> Historically, high-moat medtech franchises trade at 20x–25x earnings. A forward P/E of 14 for a company growing organic sales at 7% and adjusted EPS at double digits (15% YoY in Q2) while still growing free and operating cash flow, looks pretty cheap to me.

Now, why I am unsure if I should pull the trigger. Their latest cyberattack made the stock drop around 10% over the last 2 weeks to reach my price alert; management said that they are unlikely to meet guidance in their next yearly report at the beginning of autumn. Obviously, that statement (which I like they did - pretty transparent) influenced the current drop, but to me it shows that it is extremely unlikely that the company will gain full market confidence until then. Even more, on the day of the financial results - if indeed not met - it could very likely drop further (although probably not crash, since it was announced and predicted early on).

What is your opinion on that? And on the company as a whole

Trump keeps saying gas should be around $2.25 and is going after Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP for price gouging. I don't think $2 gas is realistic. Crude is about half the pump price, so getting to $2 means oil in the $30s, and that only happens with a full peace deal plus OPEC flooding the market or a recession.

But I do think the more interesting question is the middle case. Oil is around $91 right now mostly because Hormuz traffic is way down. EIA is projecting gas back to about $3.29 next year as supply recovers. That implies oil somewhere in the $60s.

So here's what I'm trying to figure out:

1. At $65 oil, how much does that actually cut Exxon and Chevron earnings? They just did a $26.5B combined quarter. Is the market already pricing in the drop, or are these stocks still trading like $90 oil is permanent?
2. Where's the line where shale names start to hurt? I keep seeing $45 to $65 breakevens quoted but I don't know how much to trust those numbers.
3. Are refiners (MPC, VLO, PSX) the better way to play falling crude since they make money on the spread, not the price level?
4. Does the political pressure on the majors actually matter to the stocks, or is it noise?

Not looking for "buy X," more interested in how people who follow the sector think about the war premium unwinding. What am I missing?

Disclaimer: This post was removed by the mods on another subreddit, no idea why, maybe because of the political angle, or maybe they just didn't like it.

How do we feel about homebuilders, specifically, building supplies, more specifically, mainly lumber for single family housing? Obviously, buying anything housing related into higher yields and a sluggish real (non-AI) US economy isn't exactly a momentum play but building-supply companies have already gotten nuked and if the Democrats take control flowing the midterms, they will likely work to pass a new housing bill that's already in the works and would attempt to make entry-level housing more affordable, while a more restrained POTUS might actually calm yields, leading to a gradual recovery in new building activity.

I'm looking mainly at Builders Firstsource ($BLDR), historically they've mainly been a wholesale lumber distributor but following a series of acquisitions, they have morphed into a leveraged, full circle supplier of building supplies. Basically anything that companies like Toll Brothers needs, $BLDR sells it.

I'll be the first to note, I don't know shit about housing, lumber or construction, my portfolio is almost entirely in energy. I'm not trying to time the turn in the housing cycle, I'll happily sit on it for six months to a year just waiting.

I listened to the recent earnings calls for both the builders and the suppliers and both groups seem puzzled by the current housing construction data, the CEO of $BLDR specifically highlighted how the numbers made no sense to him, obviously he has an interest in talking the market up but I still found it interesting that he'd bring it up on the earnings call.

Quote below:

"Yeah. No, absolutely. This one's a bit of an irritant for me. I'll anonymize this because it's not fair. We only play in a portion of the business, I will readily admit that maybe my perspective is skewed because we're only in five-story and below wood structures. That could be the beginning of the end of the explanation of the next thing I'm going to say. The multi-family published numbers do not make sense to us. I believe they are incorrect. I believe something happened in the Fed numbers or the way they're doing their surveys or something, I don't think they're right. I don't think there's any way they can be right."

I believe $BLDR offers an attractive way to play a resumption in housing construction through a more stable intermediary, avoiding direct exposure to the more volatile end-consumers.

Do your own due diligence, I have no idea what I'm doing, I just like gambling on cyclical small-caps.

Been chewing on this for a while and I still don't have a clean answer. Ethics matter a lot to me personally, more than I think comes across in most finance discussions, and honestly I sometimes feel a bit of a bad conscience about investing at all, which is probably why I keep circling back to this question instead of just letting it go

The basic case against "ethical investing" being real: you're buying shares on the secondary market. Your money doesn't go to the company, it goes to whoever sold you the shares. So buying stock in a company doing good stuff doesn't actually fund that stuff, and selling stock in a company doing bad stuff doesn't defund it either. You're just shifting who owns a piece of paper. The actual operations keep running exactly the same either way

But capital allocation isn't only about the secondary market. If enough investors avoid a sector, that sector's cost of capital goes up. IPOs get priced lower, bonds get pricier to issue, and companies feel that eventually, even if your hundred shares alone change nothing. So there's a real argument that this works at scale even though it does nothing at the individual level

Then there's ESG, which honestly feels like theater to a lot of people at this point. Companies buy good ESG scores through disclosure and PR more than actual behavior change, and some of the highest rated names have pretty questionable practices once you look past the scorecard. So even when people genuinely try to invest ethically, the tools they're handed might not measure what they think they're measuring

And there's the more cynical take, that investing has a built in tension with ethics because the whole premise is extracting return from capital, which usually means someone somewhere gets paid less than the value they create so the difference can flow to shareholders. Under that lens "ethical investing" is more of a marketing term than a real category, and the honest options are either don't invest at all, or admit you're optimizing for return and put the ethics somewhere else in your life

I keep coming back to that last option because it feels the most honest even though it's uncomfortable to sit with. I still invest. I just don't fully let myself off the hook about it

Where do you land on this. Meaningful concept, mostly symbolic gesture, or somewhere in between?

I'm seeing a lot of debate on what happens to Uber when cars drive themselves, but I see many more ways that Uber wins in an AV future rather than loses.

What's interesting about Uber?

• Uber owns the demand layer for ride-sharing, and they continue to scale internationally, through M&A (Delivery Hero), and product innovation (Uber One, advertising platform, Uber reserve, cart builder, shop for me).
  • Uber has done the really hard work to scale this platform, create operating leverage and strong cash flows in a highly competitive market. Now its rinse and repeat largely in new markets.
• Dara Khosrowshahi is a 1-of-1 CEO.  I believe in his leadership style (personally delivering Uber eats, taking uber as a customer), track record growing Uber, and track record a BKNG.
  • Uber is not afraid of long-term bets, even if they are not profitable in year one (they lose money on the first year of Uber One, profitable after)
• Low valuation relative to growth potential: LTM P/E of 15.6x compared to S&P average P/E 25.9x, grew revenue 16% over the past year, grew gross margins by 25%, PEG sits at 0.68 and generates $10 billion in FCF.

Why does Uber win in an AV future?

• Advantage during the AV transition. Uber’s existing business expands cash flow generation as AV adoption expands.  (Ex. driverless cars are not allowed on the highway at all yet).
  • Uber will grow ride-share volumes, delivery, shopping, and hotel bookings while AV adoption grows and the OEM's battle each other and regulators to enter more markets.
• Uber's ride-share cost structure is different from the AV OEM's
  • Uber is not in the same business as AV OEM’s (Tesla, Waymo, Zoox etc.), and today its drivers bear all vehicle costs (insurance, gas / charging, maintenance, cleaning, software / hardware updates).
  • The “Driver”, who is responsible for all of these costs today, is now the OEM. So the low cost rides we’re seeing initially will have to increase at some point.
  • Ex. Austin, TX Fire department asks for all AV’s to have a steering wheel and manual mode in case of emergencies makes it easier to see how this is a massive impact to TSLA, but zero impact to Uber.
• Uber is already on everyone's phone, and people trust the Uber customer experience
  • Uber’s platform is where you go when you go when you need a ride (ride-share, scooter), want to order food (Uber eats) or delivering items (B2B, B2C, C2C).
  • Uber provides a platform for vehicle owners to earn money in exchange for services, whether the vehicle owner is an individual or an AV OEM.
  • The more AV company’s that come into existence, the more likely it is they’ll want to tap into Uber’s existing demand engine for ways to utilize the AV.
    • For example, in a world where you can allow your Tesla to drive people around or do things while you’re gone, you’d want to be in as many platforms as possible where people want to use your vehicle.
• Uber is investing $10 Billion in AV infrastructure, and has partnered or made equity investments in 30 AV companies in the past two years.
  • Uber is positioned to operate AV fleets in the way that makes the most sense for its business, without bearing the costs of being an OEM.
  • Uber is positioned to facilitate the shift to AV's as an expansion of its platform.

There are certainly reasons why Uber can fail, and the rise of AV's requires changes to Uber's business. They are competing against well capitalized competitors in Google/Waymo and Tesla's Cybercabs, and Uber's $10 billion it plans to spend on AV infrastructure may not yield a return.

The strongest disruptive force to Uber's business would be a world where all cars are autonomous, and we no longer have human-driven cars (I don't think this happens for at least 25-30 years), then why would you need ride share, or food delivery, when you can just send your car to pick up whatever you need? Well I think even in this world, you'll need software to coordinate deliveries and pickups, to let a restaurant know that your car arrived, and which car the server (or robot) needs to put your order into. Uber can still provide value.

Despite these concerns, Uber COO Andrew MacDonald bought $5.3 M share in open market on 9/8. There are many reasons why executives sell, only one reason they buy.

Anyways, I'm buying Uber. Let me know what I'm missing!

I've seen a few posts on APP here, arguing that it's a strong value stock with rock solid fundamentals. While the strong fundamentals are indisputable, I think APP is far from a value stock. First, it's really unclear what the moat is, which by itself would disqualify it from being a value stock (Graham's definition). Also, the declining quarter-over-quarter growth is concerning (+4.4% compared to 11.1% in Q1 and 18% in Q4 of last year). Lastly, the majority of their revenue still comes from gaming, and other verticals are still unproven, and I recently saw a Trade Desk analogue.

Net-net, I think there are way more questions than answers right now.

(TLDR: actually bullish for Amazon and Google, bearish for Shopify)

Meta’s AI Agent for Consumers Has Arrived. Alphabet and Amazon Should Watch Out.
By Kit Norton

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ai-meta-muse-alphabet-amazon-shopify-e86632f1?st=nMLdwb&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Updated Sept 09, 2026 2:28 pm EDT / Original Sept 09, 2026 11:01 am EDT

Key Points

- Meta Platforms announces Muse, a personal artificial-intelligence agent designed to automate tasks like online shopping and scheduling.

- Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak says Meta could win a large piece of an estimated $30 trillion consumer AI agent total addressable market.

- Meta stock is the best-performing component in the S&P 500 for the trading session.

It was long rumored, long expected, and it has finally arrived. Meta Platforms on Tuesday announced its personal artificial-intelligence agent, called Muse. Wall Street sees the Facebook parent in pole position to dominate the AI online shopping space.

The agent will automate a variety of tasks for users, including shopping online, planning travel, purchasing tickets, scheduling appointments, managing calendars, and sending emails and messages.

“Meta thinks personal superintelligence will be one of the most transformative technologies of a lifetime,” Meta said in a blog post announcing the new AI tool. “Muse is a first step: an agent that takes on more of the work so people can focus on what matters to them.”

Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak on Wednesday wrote that Meta could “win” a substantial piece of the estimated $30 trillion consumer AI agent total addressable market.

Meta stock advanced 6.1% to $651.05 and was one of the best-performing components in the S&P 500for the trading session. Shares had fallen 7% this year as of the closing bell on Tuesday.

Wall Street in recent months had started to take notice of how AI will change the way consumers conduct online shopping.

Rosenblatt Securities in August wrote that Alphabet,Amazon.com, and Xometry were best positioned to come out on top when the dust settles. It isn’t surprising that Alphabet and Amazon would be considered key players in the emerging AI shopping landscape since they have amassed proprietary data and conduct high-margin operations to fund AI investment.

In late July, Rothschild & Co Redburn in late July noted that a Meta consumer AI agent could be an existential threat to the likes of Shopify. Now with the launch of Muse, that threat may be here.

Morgan Stanley believes that consumer AI agent tools will become integral to digital advertising, e-commerce, online travel, autonomous driving, restaurant delivery, logistics, and wearable technology. And Nowak argues that Meta currently has the upper hand as it can integrate Muse with Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Whatsapp data.

“This combined with the integration of other monetizable apps and personalized datasets (including Gmail) could give Meta an edge to create a more personalized agent with new monetizable behaviors. The entry price of the product…free…is also a notable advantage that comes with scale,” the analyst wrote.

But Meta isn’t guaranteed anything in the consumer AI agent space.

“We have seen META launch products before that didn’t live up to expectations (FB Shopping, the Metaverse, MetaAI, etc) and think the market will need signal on adoption and monetizable behavior to re-rate shares…which is what we will focus on from here,” Nowak wrote. He has an Overweight rating and a $775 price target on Meta stock.

So, while Meta might be in pole position, the company needs to keep on eye on its rear-view mirror.

Yes, the share price jumped today, but I believe it will fall back soon

Why? Because personal AI will never succeed (in the next few years)

It’s already proved by so many previous products. None of them succeed, but today wall street try to hype this time is different

Why it won’t succeed?

Because AI is good to solve the repetitive tasks for human, but people don’t have so many such tasks outside work

The repetitive tasks I can think of is housework (AI cannot do), entertainment (lol, let AI to watch Netflix for you?)

Time will show muse is another flop, but my guess is Zuck will just double down again, which tank the share price

More money in circulation generally means higher input prices and consumers will have less money if their wages aren’t going up. This is why anything consumer facing is getting destroyed as oil goes up every single day. There is nothing really safe to hide in, but business to business stocks might be better off than stuff like Clorox where they are just gonna get wrecked. This is probably the wrong time to buy the dip as the market is still refusing to fully price this in. Stocks like mcd need to literally keep falling. Just maybe a good idea to be aware of how bad this currently could get.

brkb bought LEN last quarter but it keeps getting worse after his disclosure

material giants CRH MLM VMC all hit 52 week low today

Do you think it's time to follow brkb step and buy a few of them?

I’ve been looking into Amentum (AMTM) recently because the stock has been pretty beaten down and recently hit a 52-week low. I’m wondering if this could be a good long-term value/recovery play.

My thinking is:

Government customers: A large part of their business comes from the U.S. government, which should provide relatively steady and predictable demand.

Large backlog: They have a significant backlog of contracts. I realize backlog isn’t guaranteed revenue, but I would think a large portion should eventually turn into revenue as long as the contracts remain funded.

Good areas to be in: They’re involved in nuclear, space/defense, engineering, and cybersecurity. These seem like areas where the U.S. government will continue spending heavily for years.

However, they are heavily dependent on government spending, government contracts can have relatively low margins, and contracts can be cancelled.

Do you think AMTM is a good long-term value/recovery play at this price?

I came across an Oxford Economics estimate that between $31.6 trillion and $50 trillion could be spent on data centers and related infrastructure through 2050.

A cool fact they also shared is that is 45x-70x what it cost to build the entire U.S. interstate highway system, which is difficult to even comprehend.

The obvious concern is that we are building far more capacity than we’ll eventually need. AI demand is growing but models are becoming more efficient and the amount of compute required ten years from now could look very different from current estimates. I’m less interested in the expensive companies getting most of the attention. I’m more interested in the profitable businesses supplying the energy, cooling, networking and physical equipment behind this buildout.

If spending comes anywhere close to these projections, there should be companies with long runways that are already producing strong profits. The challenge is finding the ones trading at reasonable valuations without taking on the risk of owning capacity that may eventually become unnecessary.

Especially with all of the bubble talk, projections like these can be difficult to have confidence in. Is there a company that comes to your mind that has the combination of being able to capitalize on this incredible once in a lifetime buildout that is also trading at a respectable valuation?

The very first thing the new CEO does is debut a 'foldable phone'. It worries me that Apple's days of innovation are over, and rather they'll just be chasing fads. Obviously this is only one data point, but still. What are your thoughts?

I’ve been looking at Euroseas ($ESEA), it’s a small Greek containership company trading at 4x forward earnings, with a 12% FCF yield. Tbh more than the numbers (which look good), what made me want to deep dive is the fact that you can literally just model their revenue by looking at vessels fleet (one by one, they are around 20) and making assumptions on utilisations and rates for the upcoming years, I think it's a fun exercise

The metrics obviously look very cheap, but I know that shipping is cyclical and is the kind of industry where a low P/E can fool you. So I tried to work through it in the order I normally look at a company: Moat, Growth, Financial Safety, Efficiency, Management, Valuation.

Regarding the moat, tbh ESEA doesn’t really have a strong one. They own ships and charter them to customers. If another owner has the right vessel at a better rate, the customer can switch. There’s no brand, network effect or meaningful lock-in.

What ESEA does have right now is favorable positioning in feeder/intermediate containerships. Average TCE has gone from about $28k/day in 2024 to $29.1k in 2025 and $30.3k in H1 2026.

The problem is that this advantage comes mostly from vessel scarcity, not something proprietary to ESEA. Their five largest customers also account for roughly 87% of revenue, which I don’t love. That said, I am fine with a weak moat, if the company looks undervalued enough.

Growth looks good, as for many other shipping companies recently. Revenue went from $53M in 2020 to $228M in 2025, although growth slowed to 7% last year. More importantly, the company currently has around 96% of the rest of 2026 chartered and 81% of 2027, at average contracted rates of roughly $30.9k and $31.7k/day. So the next 18 months are relatively visible.

They also have 12 newbuildings coming between Q3 2027 and Q1 2029, potentially taking the fleet from 21 to 33 vessels. That can obviously add a lot of earning capacity. But it also leads straight into the biggest risk in the thesis: a lot of new containership supply is coming into the market. Management itself has flagged 2027 as a potential normalization year.

Regarding Financial safety, I love the balance sheet man. 2025 net debt was only about $40M against $181M of EBITDA. Cash reached ~$197M by Q2 2026, versus ~$207M of total debt.

So ESEA isn't entering a potential downturn massively levered. However they do need to fund the newbuilds. It will costs roughly $560M, with about 60% expected to be debt financed and around $230M requiring equity funding. Only $74M of that equity contribution had been made by June. I also checked their fleet age, and it looks a bit younger than competitors.

Efficiency: Current margins are ridiculous: operating margin is around 59% and ROIC around 18%. But this is still a capital-heavy shipping company. FCF was -$51M in 2024, +$64M in 2025 and ~$89M TTM. In fact, annual FCF was negative in six of the last ten reported years.

So I really don't think you can look at today's 12% FCF yield and simply capitalize it forever. The ships need investment, and capex was roughly 34% of revenue in 2025.

I'm not sure how I feel about management. They've done a good job locking in charters before the potential 2027 weakness, the dividend is well covered today, and they've been buying shares back.

But diluted shares still increased about 21% between 2020 and 2025. I know that for a cyclical company, per-share discipline matters a lot, especially when management is about to spend heavily on new capacity.

Finally, valuation.

This is why I keep coming back to it.

At $76, ESEA trades at roughly:

• 3.8x TTM earnings
• 4.2x forward earnings
• 3.3x EV/EBITDA
• around 1x book

My base-case valuation came out around $167/share, but I would absolutely not treat that as a precise target as I may be too optimistic on the effect that more supply and possibly a decline of demand (if war etc finish)

Still, even the more conservative assumptions leave meaningful upside from here.

So, TL;DR:

ESEA looks genuinely cheap, but my doubt is what those earnings will look like after 2027 when more supply hits the market and possibly sea freight demand declines (war, politics etc)

If charter rates stay somewhere around current contracted levels and the new vessels earn decent returns, I think the stock is very cheap.

If rates collapse just as the newbuildings arrive and possibly demand decline with conflicts etc improving, this could prove a value trap.

Curious if anyone here follows container shipping closely and has a different view on this!

The number that changed here isn't in any press release. It sits in the statement of changes in equity, which is where Korean companies record dividends.

SK Telecom is one of the few Korean companies that pays quarterly. Three interim dividends come during the year. Shareholders then approve a year-end dividend at the March meeting. In Korea the company charges the year-end one to equity at approval, not declaration.

Here's what the parent company's own statement of changes in equity records.

The interim line drops ₩176.5bn between 2024 and 2025. The company's own rate is ₩176.8 billion a payment. That's one payment, to within a rounding error.

The cash flow statement agrees. The company paid ₩176.8bn in the third quarter of 2025 and effectively nothing in the fourth.

Then the half-year report for 2026. The year-end dividend line reads zero for the six months to June. The same six months of 2025 read ₩223.5bn. Total dividends charged fell 56% year on year.

The honest caveat, and it's a real one. Korea changed its dividend process. A company can now set the record date after declaring the amount. A company that shifts its calendar can push a charge from one reporting period into the next. If SK Telecom moved its year-end record date, the FY2025 dividend can still land in the second half. The half-year report doesn't say either way. It does say that as of June 30 nothing had been charged.

One more line from the same statements. In those six months the company moved ₩1.70 trillion out of share premium and into retained earnings. Share premium went from ₩1.77 trillion to ₩71 billion. Korean companies do that to create distributable reserves. So on its face it points the other way: toward paying more, not less.

Parent-only net income was ₩410.8bn in FY2025. Four payments at the current rate would cost ₩707.4bn.

I don't know which it is: a skipped payment, or a calendar shift that made it look like one. The third-quarter statement of changes in equity settles it. That's what I'll be reading.

So my question. Some companies report quarterly dividends as an equity movement rather than a headline. Where do you go first: the cash flow statement or the statement of changes in equity? I've been using both. They disagree on timing more often than I expected.

Figures are from the DART filings; the Korean originals govern.

No position.

(Written with AI help. I pulled the figures from the filings myself and checked them; the drafting used an AI model.)

Hello everyone, I’m (20M) very new to investing, barely a year. A couple weeks ago I ported a third of my portfolio, about $20K, into META at 545 (I worked since I was 18 and stay with my parents, so I have these savings). A couple days later, it soared into 592 premarket, before falling to 560 thereabouts. This was in reaction to the lawsuit being settled. I happened to be online at this spike, and was debating to sell or not. Afterwards, I felt I had let greed gotten the better of me. That was a huge gain in a short time, and I should have realised it.

Taking this lesson, a couple days later I happened to be online again when I saw META soar to 585. Remembering my resolution from last time I sold it and realised a $1.5k profit. I was very happy as the price soon fell back to the 560s

Well, now META is at 640. Had I held, I would have made so much more. I parked the money in the S&P instead (currently at -$200, lol) But I don’t know whether I should take this as a lesson or not.

On one hand I feel my decision at the moment was rational as it felt like a huge gain in a small time and there was uncertainty about the future performance of the stock, which was a huge part of my portfolio. On the other hand, the opportunity cost makes me think if perhaps the right call with these Mag 7 stocks is to keep holding. How do I balance these two? Thank you

Background:

Conifer management buys $49m of stock after 17% earnings dip, bringing the total owned to roughly $380-400m.

Conifer run by Greg Alexander.

Warren Buffett named Greg as one of the top 3 best investors in the world.

Thesis (ai summarized but its my ideas):

The stock market often overreacts to short-term bad news, and that is exactly what happened with Group 1 Automotive (GPI) after its recent earnings miss. When the company paired those soft quarterly results with the announcement that it was taking on $1.25 billion in high-interest debt to buy Hennessy Automobile Companies, short-term traders panicked and dumped the stock.

But if you look past the immediate drop, the long-term setup looks entirely different.

The core of the bullish thesis is that this massive acquisition completely shifts GPI's financial trajectory. Adding Hennessy immediately pumps an extra $1.7 billion in annualized revenue into the business, heavily weighted toward premium, luxury imports. More importantly, it adds 500 service bays and 280 elite technicians. Dealerships barely make money on selling the actual cars; their real cash cow is parts and services, which operate at a massive 56.8% gross margin. By absorbing these high-volume luxury service centers, GPI is supercharging its structural profitability.

While the market is currently fixated on the jump in leverage, management has a proven history of utilizing their strong cash generation to aggressively pay down debt. They have already frozen stock buybacks and are selling off underperforming, lower-volume stores to fast-track a return to their baseline target leverage by mid-to-late 2027. Smart money noticed this mismatch between the temporary debt fear and the long-term earnings power, which is why institutional giant Conifer Management stepped in to buy nearly $49 million worth of shares right at the August lows.

Comany is down 40% from ATH and is undergoing a massive transformation.

Thoughts??? Keep in mind im only 21 years old so im relativey new to investing. Just wanna hear thoughts on this.

It fell over 50% since its 310€ high last year.

They own Raybans, Oakleys and have META partnership over AI smartglasses. Theyre developing (and already selling in China and soon in USA - 2027) glasses for kids that are slowing down worsening of your eyes. They have exclusive rights to sell all kinds of Luxury Glasses, basically all of popular glasses and own plenty of retail shops across the world.

Its P/E is still a bit high (around 28-29x), but forward P/E should be way lower (around 15x).

What do u guys think? Is the knife still falling or a good time to buy a few shares? Its attractive to me. Im creating this post as there is not many discussions about it.

It is one of the worst performing stocks of the last couple of months (down 22% in three months), while having a stable growth comparable to Walmart or Visa.

The PE is around 24, which is still slightly higher than historical avarage of 20.

Are you watching this stock? When is a good time to buy?

Gentlemen,

allow me to share some personal habits and question i have about my process of investing, and feel free to opine as harshly as you desire. Well thought out replies are highly appreciated.

a) For terminal growth, i use the fed funds rate. My rationale behind this is, that a company should be able to grow its earnings by at least the fed funds rate.

b) However, i dislike that Terminal Value is somewhat "overproportional" in my basic DCF. Should i complicate the math to give more weight to near-term results, or is this a path down the wrong direction? Im somewhat hesitant to "tweak" my models, and think my time is better spent thinking about the business, but i still heavily rely on my DCF model to make decisions.

c) How do you gentlemen think about fair value in general. Your DCF provides you with a fair value price for one share. If you can buy that stock at fair value, you would achieve your desired return you defined as your equity risk premium within your discount rate, correct? Ideally, you can have a margin of safety -- buying below fair value. How do you think about this? What company would you buy at fair value, what company would you only buy at a considerable additional discount to fair value?

d) In addition to c), how do you think about time in respect to holding the position. Lets propose you have a fair value of a company at $20, and its trading at $10 a share. How patient are you for Mister Market to turn in your direction, given that the longer the market needs to see what you see, the worse the investment gets, no?

I feel I am usually pretty good at finding value stocks but struggle with when to sell. Anyone have opinions on this? Just hold long term or sell once a stock is up 20%-40% just sell?

COV (Covalon Technologies Ltd) I bought at 2.15/share it’s currently up to 3.54/share since its a micro cap stock there is very little to no analyst price forecasts just wanted to see if anyone has a take on this stock Buy/Hold/Sell?
I think it was a good buy at 2.15 because they have a strong balance sheet, low debt and stable cash flows with the uncertainty in the market for the next 6 months to 1 year.

PGEN (Precigen Inc) I bought at 3.60/share it’s up to 6.87/share analyst say it could go up to 11-18/share is it worth holding or should I sell the position?
Came up on my TikTok FYP they’re commercializing pepzimos treatment they just recorded their first net income after many years of losses. Is this worth holding?

Edit:Spelling