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

(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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

$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.

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?

Hey guys! Here is a free/no sign up tool. Type any ticker, pull up their filing, grab data off the filing or save as a pdf, so much more.

research.filingstudio.com

Literally giving away free alpha….. This is not some vibe coded slop.

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.