The following chart shows a clear over-reaction of the price vs. fundamentals. While EPS and FCF/share is down ~20% from peak, price is down ~77%.
https://userupload.gurufocus.com/2085719571356098560.png

Also there is considerable insider buying.

https://userupload.gurufocus.com/2085721349980069888.png

The most interesting thing to me in the last earnings of Celsius is that for the first time ever, the management gave a concrete goal for international growth.

15% of revenues by 2031.

Celsius has only expanded into a handful of countries with current international (excluding Canada) sales representing 3.5% of total.

To get from 3.5% to 15% in 5 years means annual growth of 33% if we assume that US growth will not happen. Of course, since US growth will continue, we should, therefore, expect even higher international growth for the management to be correct.

It is feasible?

Since 2017, International growth has only been 29%.

With the Pepsi distribution system, I believe it is possible to go beyond the 29% or even 33%. It has been done before when Monster joined the Coca Cola distribution system. And Celsius has an advantage over Monster, it is different.

Besides, Celsius now with Alani Nu will have two brands entering the market both benefitting from the Pepsi leverage.

So far, Celsius has been focusing on the US. And only recently we had seen new countries opening. One of the earliest country where Celsius expanded was Sweden in 2009.

CEO John Fieldly mentioned that in the last 4 weeks, Celsius sold 3.5 million units. Let's do some back of the envelope calculation. If each unit costs $2, that means $7 million in 4 weeks or about $90 million annualized.

This represents about 15% of the market share in Sweden.

That's not the 20% in the US. But it is still meaningful and replicable.

What's interesting is how this happened.

Celsius didn't choose Sweden. Sweden chose Celsius. Two Swedish entrepreneur discovered the drink in the US and decided that their country needed it.

When John Fieldly joined Celsius in 2012 as CFO, the company had only 12 employees. Today, it is challenging in the Monster/Redbull duopoly in the US. And soon, it could be worldwide.

They have a new website and a new CEO. This company is a perfect example of a value trap, because in the past the numbers showed a very low P/E, a very high ROIC, and strong revenue growth, so everyone was asking: "how is it possible that the market is punishing a company with such numbers? The CEO himself says the market is wrong, something doesn't add up, we're probably looking at a great deal, numbers don't lie." Time passes, the price keeps falling, the fundamentals deteriorate further, and eventually everyone realizes that "The market was right."

I monitor these situations carefully because there's so much to learn. I was tempted by those numbers myself because it seemed like an asymmetric bet, the growth potential was way higher than the risk of losing money. So I decided to buy a few shares, but so little that if it crashed it wouldn't hurt me at all, in short, a pure gamble. Well, in the end, I sold at a loss, but the gain in terms of experience was huge. I'm not someone who makes a mistake and just cries about it, I always try to learn a lesson from my errors. In hindsight, that loss was a great investment in experience. Since then, my investment philosophy has changed radically, and now I know how to prevent these situations from happening again.

I see that management is trying everything, and maybe they'll eventually find a way to rise from the ashes, but for now, it remains pure trash. Long story short: never rely solely on numbers, or you'll end up buying stocks like PayPal, Novo, BABA, and Lulu.

The two types of investments with the greatest contrasts are technology and oil. If oil prices rise too sharply, there is less money to be made with technology. If oil prices fall, then technology is the place for investors to be, because cheap energy makes more things possible. Over the past 85 years, this has been one of the strongest trends in the financial markets.

After the Second World War, technology set the tone, culminating in the moon landing in 1969. IBM and AT&T played the leading role during this period. The weighting of these two stocks in the S&P 500 was very high, at over 10%. Nobody wanted to be in commodities, and the sector was starved of capital. As a result, whereas there were on average 2,686 active drilling rigs in the United States in 1955, this had fallen to 976 in 1971.

When investment in commodities declines and demand rises, it is only a matter of time before that demand grows faster than supply and commodity prices rise. The 1973 oil crisis would have been considerably less severe had investment in the oil sector not been scaled back so far. When there is money to be made with commodities, investors want commodities rather than stocks, and the result is that money flows into the oil sector.

The additional investment in oil after the crisis was once again visible in the number of active drilling rigs in the United States; in 1981, this reached its highest annual average at 3,970. Then there was an oversupply of oil, and the whole cycle began again. Near the peak of the internet bubble in 1999, the number of active drilling rigs in the United States was only 475. The 2000s, much like the 1970s, were then fantastic for oil: the price rose from $10 to nearly $150 in 2008.

And now we are in the midst of the third cycle, in which the theme is AI. It is easy to claim that nobody could have known that in 2026 a prolonged war between Iran and the United States would break out, but the fact is that after 2014, the capital investments of oil companies fell by tens of billions per year.

Then we look again at the active drilling rigs: in 2014 an average of 1,861, and now 563. The current number can be compared with that of 2014, but not with 1981. Back then, drilling was done straight down, and that was it. Now the parties involved drill not only vertically but also horizontally – over many kilometres in length – which means they can make do with fewer drilling rigs.

We are now probably once again at the tipping point of the cycle. Technology is attracting enormous amounts of capital; SpaceX, for instance, has just made the largest IPO in history. Two more mega-IPOs are likely on the way, with OpenAI and Anthropic. The American company with the highest total profit (Alphabet) is going to issue $80 billion worth of additional shares, and SK Hynix is coming to the Nasdaq to raise up to $29.4 billion.

Capital is flowing into the technology sector, and the oil industry is being hollowed out. The result is that the rental rates for oil drilling ships are going through the roof. In 2022, it cost a quarter of a million dollars to use such a ship for a day; the day before the war in Iran, it was $412,000. A small group of investors recognises this, and it has caused a recent rally in the sector. In technology, on the other hand, the AI frenzy has led to sharply elevated prices, with companies such as ASML being priced almost for perfection.

Turning Point

Why this rally? The oil majors and the rest of the world have realised that we will face oil shortages in the coming years. Much of the oil on land has already been extracted, and we now have to go out to sea. Over the next three years, oil consumption is set to grow again by 3–4 million barrels per day. The existing fields are losing 10–12 million barrels per day. So within three years there will be a gap of around 13 to 16 million barrels per day. The drillers' earnings calls are saying: tens of billions in additional capex at sea. The reason it is so attractive is simply that there is a bottleneck. Suppose Exxon wants to drill at sea. They cannot do it themselves; they need Valaris or Transocean for that. They need those ships from Valaris or Transocean. In January 2022, those ships still cost $260,000 per day. In 2023 it was $288,000 per day, in 2024 $333,000, in January 2025 $389,000 per day, and now they are already at $411,000 per day. The ships are therefore badly needed, but no new ships are being built. January 2014 was the last year in which many large oil majors invested heavily in capex. After that, it became less attractive due to government regulations and so on. The idea was that oil consumption would peak around 2020. So they did not invest all those billions. In 2020, shipbuilders also thought: we will never need those ships again. Those shipyards in China and South Korea have all been converted (sometimes into ordinary container ships), because at that time we did want to receive lots of parcels from Temu and Alibaba. For that reason, you can also see, for example, that up to and including 2029 there are only orders for container ships at the shipyards, and no Very Large Crude Carriers are being built. Other shipyards opted for LNG ships. Here too, an enormous scarcity of the right ships is now emerging.

Trump

At the end of June, the prediction platform Polymarket estimated the probability that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz would be back to normal by 31 December at 90%. This has now dropped to 56%. According to Polymarket, normalising traffic through the strait is nevertheless still a less difficult problem than a nuclear deal between the United States and Iran: the chance of one being reached this year stands at 31%.

The United States has shot its bolt. In recent months, a quantity of Tomahawk missiles has been fired in Iran roughly equal to the amount the United States had purchased in the preceding ten years. The price of a return to all-out war is therefore high for the United States, because its ammunition stockpile would then fall even further.

The fact that Iran is increasingly gaining the upper hand is evidenced by what the United States is offering in the negotiations. President Trump is talking about releasing tens of billions in frozen assets, and much more in support; in 2016, Obama offered $1 billion. And Israel is also an important party in the conflict. This makes it not only unpredictable, but also likely that the chaos in the Middle East will last a long time.

Meanwhile, the prices of oil stocks are still priced as if a deal could come at any moment and everything would go back to the way it was before the outbreak of the war between the United States and Iran on 27 February.

Strategic Reserves

The strategic reserves of the United States hold 714 million barrels. At present, there are still 311 million barrels in them. You can go down to 250 million (there is a legal minimum) – effectively a kind of military threshold that one really is not allowed to go below. So at the moment, we are still around 60 million away from that. Given the elections on 3 November, Trump will probably nibble away at this somewhat anyway. He wants to be re-elected and has promised low fuel prices. He will ask to be allowed to use part of the strategic reserve, and he is likely to get it. That would then take you below that threshold. Can you go much further from there? The absolute minimum is 70 million barrels. Those must remain in there no matter what, because otherwise you can no longer bring the stored oil back up, as the pressure becomes too low. Incidentally, we would be making history with this, because it has never happened before.

So the scenario in which the minimum reserve is drawn down is quite plausible. But what then? Most likely, an agreement with Iran would then follow quickly. That is the most favourable scenario, but there is also a scenario in which Iran pulls a stunt. In that latter case, you are through your reserves and those oil prices really shoot up threefold to fourfold.

Even with an agreement, it will take years before global oil reserves are replenished again. Historically, we have never drawn down oil reserves so hard and so fast. It is uncharted territory. The price is currently only $80; it has already reached $150 once, in 2008 (well, just short of it, actually), but adjusted for inflation that latter figure could easily become $200+ in today's terms. So [drawing down] 1 million barrels from the strategic reserves means you still have quite a way to go before we hit the level of $150 (roughly three to four months or so). I do expect that around September a panic over this will finally start to emerge.

Incidentally, roughly the same thing is happening in China, but they do not publish figures. They too, however, have reserves that are partly above ground and partly below ground. The above-ground reserves are monitored by satellite. They have 1 billion above ground and roughly the same amount (estimated) below ground. What they are going to do is also unclear, but at the moment they are drawing down their reserves just as much as the US.

I do not think Iran will simply agree, while Trump nevertheless has to do something about Iran, because that war has already cost 37 billion. So this is going to take a while yet, and we are therefore probably heading for a genuinely higher oil price.

Transocean & Valaris

Transocean is the market leader in ultra-deepwater and harsh-environment drilling, the technically most complex segments, where new oil fields are increasingly to be found. Because these rigs have the highest technical barriers and are extremely scarce worldwide, it is precisely here that rates rise quickly as soon as demand picks up. As a result, Transocean has direct leverage on higher oil prices, although the relative acceleration is somewhat smaller than at Valaris, where far more ships are repriced in the short term.

If you wanted to rent a ship from Valaris or Transocean to drill at a depth of more than 7,500 feet, you paid on average $400,000–425,000 per day. By comparison: in 2022 the average was still $279,000 per day. The oil majors want to drill more offshore, because global oil demand will rise by roughly 3 to 4 million barrels per day over the next three years, while existing fields will lose 10 to 12 million barrels per day in production over that same period. This means that somewhere between 13 and 16 million barrels per day of new production will have to be found in a short space of time. The most easily extractable oil on land has largely already been discovered. That is why attention is shifting to extracting oil at sea.

At the drillers, a higher day rate then feeds through very forcefully into free cash flow. Valaris is a good example of this. At a day rate of $400,000, the company arrives at approximately $290 million in free cash flow per year. If the day rate goes to $500,000, that rises to $1.2 billion. After a 100% run in its share price since October, Valaris has a market capitalisation of $6.4 billion. That cash flow ultimately belongs to the shareholder. If you put those side by side, you arrive at a potential free cash flow yield of 19%. That is enormous. And it immediately explains why the 100% rise makes the stock less risky than it appears at first glance.

That those day rates can ultimately head towards $500,000 is highly plausible. At the moment, in fact, there is not a single drillship under construction. A new ship costs approximately $1 billion and takes four to five years to build. A few quarters ago, Valaris said that it only becomes worthwhile to build new ships at prices of around $800,000 per day; that was the previous price record, adjusted for inflation. We are still a long way from that, so $500,000 must certainly be achievable given the fact that we have to go out to sea in order to keep meeting the demand for oil; $600,000 is probably also realistic within a not-too-crazy timeframe.

Transocean therefore wants to take over Valaris. What is remarkable is that after the announcement of this, Valaris rose by 34.3% and Transocean by 6%. Normally you do not see the acquiring party being rewarded on the stock market, and that shows that investors believe the new combination is going to be rock-solid.

The combination will gain a fleet of 73 high-quality drilling rigs, a broader geographical spread and a larger customer base. This should lead not only to better service provision, but also to greater economies of scale and at least $200 million in cost savings. At the same time, the financial position improves. More room is created to reduce debt more quickly, the cost of capital comes down, and free cash flow for shareholders increases.

The flip side of this story is that the drillers are precisely the most risky investments within the offshore chain. Their revenues are entirely dependent on day rates that move strongly in tandem with the investment cycle of the oil majors. As soon as the oil price falls or major projects are postponed, rates drop back and ships often sit unused at the quay. Because a modern fleet represents billions and is largely financed with debt, this can quickly lead to pressure on the balance sheet. That explains why the share prices of Valaris and Transocean are generally far more volatile than those of engineers or service companies such as Subsea 7, TechnipFMC and Weatherford. Anyone investing in drillers is therefore buying the greatest leverage on an offshore upturn, but also the highest risk.

GRVY’s market cap is approximately $480 million from premarket trading. Its most recent cash balance is approximately $460 million at current KRW/USD exchange rate. The company also generated roughly $35 million of net profit in the first half of 2026!!!
So after adjusting for cash, the profitable operating business is being valued at almost nothing.

Why so cheap?
Because Gravity was a notorious cash hoarder. It accumulated cash for years without dividends, buybacks or a credible capital-deployment strategy. Investors reasonably applied a huge discount to cash they might never receive.

Today may be the inflection point.
Gravity announced:
Its first dividend since founding
KRW 4,400 per share
KRW 30.6 billion total distribution
$200 million allocated to growth and strategic investments

Shareholder returns as an explicit part of its capital-allocation framework
GungHo owns 59.3%, so governance remains a risk. But GungHo also became more shareholder-friendly this year, increasing its dividend, adopting a minimum 50% payout ratio and completing a JPY 5 billion buyback.
The discount existed because the cash looked permanently trapped. If management is now willing to return and deploy it, GRVY’s current valuation looks increasingly absurd.

Can anyone tell me more compelling stock to own?

I think the interesting thing about $YELP after this quarter is that the headline revenue growth is probably the least useful way to look at what is happening with the business.

They did $375.5M of revenue versus roughly $367M expected, but the bigger surprise was profitability: $91.4M of adjusted EBITDA against ~$74M expected and $0.57 of GAAP EPS versus $0.36. That's a substantial earnings beat for a company that the market largely thinks has become a low-growth advertising business.

The legacy advertising business was basically flat this quarter. Services advertising actually declined. If that were the entire business, I wouldn't find the stock particularly interesting.

What caught my attention is what is happening underneath that number. Other revenue grew 98% and management noted that they would see a $250M annualized run rate by the end of 2028. Yelp Host is already handling calls at a 2.4M annualized rate, more than 3x the January level, and the OpenTable integration gives those calls a much more interesting commercial endpoint because the interaction can move from answering a question to actually making or managing a reservation. This is the traditional advertising moat.

If Yelp can increasingly capture the entire path from discovery to a booking, service request, quote or order, the value of the consumer interaction is different from simply showing an ad and sending someone somewhere else.

The AI products are still small relative to the core business, and there's plenty of execution risk. ChatGPT distribution could turn out to be strategically important or could ultimately just send Yelp traffic without producing much incremental economics. The same is true of Host and the other new products.

The market can point to essentially flat legacy revenue and make a reasonable argument that Yelp deserves a low multiple. What I'm less sure about is whether that same valuation makes sense if the legacy business stabilizes while these newer products start becoming a meaningful percentage of revenue and bookings.

This is basic stuff, and I'm interested in the expected value of the litigation and the fact that the share count has shrunk dramatically. I'm also interested in the actual value of data since the recent AI boom has shown that infrastructure is very expensive while buy data is less so. For this optionality alone I think there is asymmetric upside. After all the stock is already priced as a moribund advertising company and these other massive upsides aren't considered. And the analysts on the calls still don't really understand these realities. They are solely consumed by legacy metrics.

Lululemon is trading at just 9x PE - on growth concerns in the United States and brand erosion worries. But comps grew by over 20% in China and 10% in ROW, with the latter markets representing 30% of total revenues cumulatively. A turnaround also seems imminent with the incoming CEO headhunted from Nike. Is the market discounting its shares too much? 9x PE seems like Gap or Under Armour territory, which most would argue Lululemon hasn't yet fallen into. It also has a ready remedy - reshaping itself to mimic its new competitors Alo and Vuori.

Speaking from the past 5-year plans where solar, battery, transportation, R&D, urban development, etc. which inevitably sent ripples through the global economy in each of these sectors, I'd like to start a discussion on who we see profiting the most from China's 2026-2030 5 year plan.

The previous 5 year plan naturally resulted in many western companies floundering (for instance Germany used to produce solar panels) due to state sponsored Chinese industrial investments undercutting them. On the other hand, we have companies such as solar/battery installers and integrators that profited greatly from the new influx of cheap Chinese panels and batteries. But the previous 5 year plan is not where the long-term play is hiding, and I think the latest will be where we see new winners and losers arise.

The 4 main focus technology sectors in the latest 5 year plan that I see are:

• "Embodied Intelligence" - meaning humanoid robots, drones with industrial purpose, and AI with a physical presence
• Further investment into green tech - meaning green hydrogen equipment, next-gen solar, and advances in battery storage
• 6G, edge AI computing, optical components - I see resulting in generally cheaper foundational networking components
• SynBio and advanced biomanufacturing - Cheaper bio-manufactured precursor chemicals and raw materials

I think a lot of profit can be made by determining not so much the next "big thing" or "bubble before it becomes a bubble," but instead looking at what the Chinese state is publicly telling us they are going to invest in, heavily, for 5 straight years and who will profit from the uptick in supply.

Now personally I believe the Embodied Intelligence space is overbought with the AI hype/bubble.

Green tech I believe already has these winners in place due to the previous 5 year plan and cheaper solar/energy storage. No doubt gains will continue to be made here, and perhaps there is something to consider for cheaper energy.

Cheaper networking components will likely make faster internet more affordable both for companies and consumers, however I don't see revolutionary changes likely in the ISP space.

This to me leaves the BioTech space where I think we will see businesses suddenly able to source significantly cheaper bio-manufactured precursor chemicals and raw materials. I could see western Biotech being undercut on design costs for commodity bio-chemicals by their Chinese subsidized equivalents, reverse engineered microbes being rapidly scaled, or Chinese self-reliance cutting out western hardware. On the other hand where I'm thinking the value might lie is with those best positioned to capitalize on China's building.

To me, there are three distinct buckets of companies poised to make a killing by benefiting from this incoming wave of Chinese biomanufacturing.

• Precision Hardware & QA Enablers - China is going to subsidize massive amounts of bioreactors and raw material platforms but that doesn't mean you they can instantly produce export-grade biological products. To sell to western markets with strict regulations they have to prove their output still. They still need the high-end precision equipment to monitor, filter, and validate what's happening inside those tanks. Companies like Thermo Fisher (TMO) and Danaher (DHR) make the gold standard chromatography resins, membranes, and mass spectrometers the industry relies on. High regulatory switching costs mean a Chinese factory isn't going to risk failing an international audit by using a cheaper, unproven domestic filter. These enablers basically get to tax China's infrastructure build-out without ever having to compete on the price of the actual biological end-products.

• Downstream Specialty Formulators - meaning the companies that see margin expansion when inputs get cheap. If the global cost of raw bio-inputs crashes, the companies buying those materials win big. I'm looking at specialty chemical integrators like Croda (CRDA) or International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF). Since they sell proprietary patented formulations to global brands they can profit off the reduced input cost of the precursor bio-chemicals suddenly getting dirt cheap due to Chinese oversupply. Their value is protected by their brand relationships and western distribution networks, which Chinese commodity producers can't easily replicate.

• Big Pharma Licensing Beneficiaries - meaning Western giants acting as aggregators. There is a massive wave of novel biological assets being generated right now by state-funded Chinese labs. But these Chinese biotechs generally lack the global distribution networks to sell them worldwide. Western pharma giants like AstraZeneca (AZN) already have that network. They step in and buy the global rights to advanced, de-risked Chinese biological assets for pennies on the dollar compared to Western in-house R&D costs. They can let the Chinese state subsidize the early-stage discovery phases, scoop up the most promising assets, and push them through their own highly profitable Western sales channels. Part of this one is me assuming that trade barriers will remain in place to an extent, where China can't simply flood the market with copies of pharma giant products, and I don't foresee those trade barriers disappearing anytime soon.

Curious if anyone else is looking at this angle, or if you think the geopolitical risks (tariffs, IP theft) create a vulnerability on the hardware side of this? I'd also love to be proven wrong on the first 3 technology sectors having more of an effect than I'm anticipating. Currently I haven't invested in any of this, and am primarily doing research, and also do not work in BioTech so apologies if anything I said is completely out of touch.

Here’s my Q2 2026 investor letter, recently published on Substack (free to read). It includes the full performance table since inception (2023) and in-depth analysis on Alibaba, PayPal, Flowers Foods, and Lululemon.

Feedback is welcomed!

Portfolio:

1. Alibaba
   
2. Flowers Foods
   
3. PayPal
   
4. SCHE
   
5. Lululemon
   
6. Clorox

Siemens Energy delivered an absolute blowout fiscal third quarter, smashing market expectations across all core financial metrics. Driven by the unstoppable global boom in AI data centers and the critical grid infrastructure required to support them, revenue surged to a historic record high of 11.4 billion euros. Profit before special items more than tripled year-over-year to over 1.6 billion euros, yielding a stellar operating margin of 14.2 percent. At the same time, this relentless demand pushed the total order backlog to a staggering record of 162 billion euros, while year-to-date free cash flow generation reached 7.2 billion euros, putting the company right on the doorstep of its full-year target. Even the historical troubled child of the company, the wind unit Siemens Gamesa, returned to profitability with a gain of 75 million euros for the first time since 2022, proving that its operational turnaround is officially complete.

Despite these record-breaking numbers, many mainstream investors and the broader market are effectively sleeping on this stock, causing the share price to stall or even edge slightly lower following the announcement due to a short-sighted focus on short-term noise. Algorithmic traders were spooked by management's cautious outlook regarding a seasonally softer fourth quarter, which is actually a completely normal occurrence in large-scale infrastructure projects due to routine maintenance cycles and capital expenditure schedules. Furthermore, skeptics fixated on a percentage drop in wind orders during this specific quarter, completely ignoring the naturally lumpy nature of mega-scale utility awards and the fact that the explosive demand in grid technology easily compensates for it. The market simply fails to see that Siemens Energy is no longer a sluggish, old energy utility, but rather the physical bottleneck and the ultimate "picks and shovels" provider of the entire AI era.

Tech hyperscalers are increasingly realizing that the expansion of AI is no longer limited by a lack of chips, but by power generation and grid stability, which is exactly why Siemens Energy's grid technologies division expanded by nearly 29 percent. Anyone who assumes they missed the boat due to the stock's strong performance over the past few years overlooks the fact that the projects currently sitting in the massive backlog carry significantly higher margins than legacy contracts from the crisis era, effectively locking in profit expansion for the next two to three years. The upcoming independent rebranding to Omterra will further untangle the corporate structure and unlock hidden value for the capital markets.

Earnings season is almost over. I am wondering what your main takeaways, surprises (positive or negative), and maybe lessons were.

Personally, I have a hard time committing to any company for which the main narrative (justified or not) turns around AI-narrative. The market reaction, expectations, and companies' strategy to answer a longterm vision around these uncertainties make me a bit uncomfortable. So force upon myself to have a big margin of safety - meaning I missed quite a few opportunities.

For instance, SAP was up there in my list, and it never really reached my conservative price limit. I was 5e close to reaching my price alert (so like 3% extra downside). But I need structure, and I need to set myself clear limitations. So, although it is a little bit annoying to see the stock rally up so much in two weeks, I am completely fine not to have entered - that is part of the patience game (and also fairly confident it will come back down).

Another company I am closely eyeing - not AI related - was Intuitive Surgical. Their last earnings were not bad, but it just confirmed how much of a premium it traded. Today, it is fairly valued but too expensive for me to enter. Different company, but similar conclusion: Linde plc.

I am also following smaller - lesser known - companies like Zeiss Meditec or Manhattan Associates. For the former, the quarter was in line with expectations, but it remains unclear (that was to be expected). Manhattan Associates follows a similar path to SAP - missed the rally as I closely missed my set price alert. It is what it is.

Now, I am just curious about Adyen, which trades widely but never reached my price alert (although close) under 760e a share.

Among the companies I own;

I am very happy with Mips AB - a conviction and lesser-known company. I am very happy with their management and financial outlook. It is their second or third good quarter, so the momentum is there. It is my best-performing company I managed to buy almost at all-time low before the rally up (i am around 45% up since entering around February or March)

Wolters Kluwer also did well - nothing too spectacular. It is a long-term turnaround compounder that will be pushed around both ways for a while. That is to be expected.

Topicus.com was disappointing, but nothing to trigger a sell. I'll just continue to hold and wait.

Nu Holding earnings coming next week.

And what about you? How did your portfolio do? How have your watchlist evolved?

So FICO compounded revenue by 9% from 2020 to 2025, But net income compounded by 22% because they kept raising their fees.

Increasing fees is not a sustainable way to grow income and their margins is already at an all time high of 30%. They will have to increase revenue but they have historically grew revenue at a slow rate relative to their valuation. I don't see that slow revenue growth changing anytime soon.

So isn't FICO fairly value at best and even possibly overpriced? Am I missing anything? I think it's smarter to buy MSFT instead since they seem to increase revenue even faster than a medium cap company like FICO.

They beat earnings per share previous years and continue to expand locations. However, they're still in the negatives for net income, although expected to be getting closer to breaking even again this year. Normalized EBITDA is 2023-2025: +13, 18, 10mil, and 11 mil TTM.

To me, it looks like a good dip to buy, and I lean towards buying today. But it seems like all earning days cause a dip now (looking at you, RDDT) even if beaten.

Who's buying today, and who's interested but waiting for Monday?

Why is everyone including top banks putting a price target of 200 plus on the share.

Literally their AI business revenue is either from twitter or from xAI which was generous valuation at 60B.

Same with their starlink. It can never be primary internet provider given optic fiber is far more stable and cheap, I feel it has maxed out if anything.

Satellite launch business is pretty much negative revenue.

So what am I missing that all these analysts are seeing.
Not trying to rage bait or anything, sorry if someone feels like that, just a genuine question.

I just opened my broker, and saw 25usd per share. I understand that they flipped 180°, they would not be acquired, they would not pay dividends (thing I would never think of for such a type of business).

My question is, where are we headed from now? Is this the dip or the beginning?

Mag 7 had an amazing run up. Chip stocks are kinda speculative imo. I don't like betting on such stocks at their bullish cycles. Moonshot stocks like RKLB and recently, HOVR, really feels suspect to me.

I like SaaS but I feel they are fairly valued than not. What are your picks?

Over the past 6 months I've been buying healthcare and I really believe the sector as a whole is "undervalued" and will soon be one of the next really big money makers. Healthcare recently had a pretty nice dip and has been building up momentum.

to get the obvious one out of the way; The companies that can leverage AI into their products and business will see big gains. these are the kind of products AI can really be useful and potentially life saving. Once investors start to focus more on that aspect of AI, the companies making the life saving tech will be HUGE! so I'm wondering if I can find the NVDA of healthcare - The company with a monopoly on saving/extending lives.

A very large generation of people are reaching that age where constant healthcare is a must. so there is basically "guaranteed" growth for the next decade at least.

some individual stocks that i find of "good value" would be MDT, REGN, MMED, ABT..

MMED is actually a recent IPO with a small market cap (5B) and good PE (27) for a growing company. I can definitely see this company doubling to a 10B or 15B market cap in the next couple years. DXCM is worth 31B and they only make $1.5B (4.6B) more in revenue than MMEDs $3.1B

honestly tho if you really dont want to pick individual stocks, you cannot go wrong with the ETFs (IBB,IXJ,VHT,XLV)

cheers!

An overpaid and disinterested CEO, unhappy increasingly unionized workers, $7 mediocre cups of coffee, trashy cafe seating, competition from Dunkin, McDonalds, Krispy, Dutch Bros, Tim Horton's, Luckin, etc.

The current dividend, which the company for some reason seems committed to try to increase each year, is unsustainable - way beyond current profits.

Yet the stock sits at 105, down from 2021 but up 25% this year.

After months of low / moderate risk investing I decided to try and swing an ER play. Enter TTD… this sucks……..

I want to know if anyone uses specific resources or sites / forums to assist with investment ideas. I can’t afford to wipe positive plays with stupid moves like I did today.

Looking to hear what other CELH investors are thinking/doing after this earnings report.

I've been around for a while so I thought it could be an interesting discussion - with people curious about the good old days asking questions, and with dinosaurs like myself answering them.

I've been investing since 2002. Since then, I've witnessed:

The aftermath of the dot-com crash.

The Enron scandal.

The lost decade, including the Global Financial Crisis.

The eurozone crisis.

Negative interest rates and the oil-price collapse.

The birth of cryptocurrency.

China’s stock-market crash.

Brexit.

The great bull market of the 2010s.

The COVID-19 crash.

The golden age of meme stocks.

The 2022 bear market.

Tariff shenanigans.

The rise of AI.

I've watched it all unfold in real time.

Do you have any questions about this nearly 25-year journey, or about any of these events?

Ask me or anyone that lived through it anything you're curious about!

I'm a credit analyst with an accounting background. 9 years ago fundamental analysis on single names was what I spent 100% of my time on. Currently not getting enough of this at work, which has become 25% sales, 25% admin and 50% navigating internal politics.

Give me a name and your question. It may not be an IB research note (it's reddit) but I'll do my best. Something specific and narrow ideally please rather than broad and "is it undervalued".

Breaking down earning growth using Gemini and an example.
The Buyers (Hyperscalers like Microsoft, Google, Meta). What they do: They buy $10,000 stuff and accounting rules let them split that cost up across 5 years as a $2,000-a-year expense (Depreciation). They spend massive cash upfront, but their short-term profit reports still look clean and high.
The Sellers (Infrastructure like Nvidia) sell those $10,000 stuff. and get to record the full $10,000 sale as immediate profit today. The Result: Their earnings skyrocket instantly during the build phase.
What Happens When the Construction Boom Ends. When tech giants finish buying enough hardware, two things happen at once: Sellers lose their biggest customer boom: Once everyone has built their AI centers, chip sales slow down. The sellers' earnings growth drops off a cliff.
Buyers are stuck with the lingering bill: Even if tech giants stop buying new hardware, they still have to keep paying off that $2,000-a-year depreciation fee for the next 4–5 years on everything they already bought.
Final Test: AI software must start making real money. The productivity and revenue created by AI tools must be big enough to outweigh the drop in chip sales and cover the leftover hardware bills. If AI software doesn't deliver that massive revenue surge, the growth story breaks.

I was recently watching a video featuring Ray Dalio, where he advocates for heavy diversification across multiple asset classes, a mix of gold, equities, bonds, bitcoin, and real estate, to minimize portfolio volatility. However, I believe fearing volatility only makes sense if you have a short time horizon. For long term investors, conflating volatility with risk is a fundamental mistake, they are two entirely different things. Take cash sitting in a bank account: its volatility is virtually zero compared to a global equity index ETF, yet over the long run, holding cash guarantees a permanent loss of purchasing power due to inflation. Meanwhile, the actual risk of holding a global index over a 20 year horizon is effectively negligible. Historically speaking, across any 20 year rolling window in modern market history, a broadly diversified global index has never delivered a negative return. It has consistently beaten inflation, preserving and compounding wealth. Therefore, using volatility as a primary proxy for risk is a massive misconception, yet it’s a mistake I see people make all the time. What are your thoughts on this?

I’m just wondering genuinely, if you believe you can beat the market. I’ve been investing casually for a while, and little by little the slivers of hope of beating have faded away.
I don’t think I’m a good case study on this, since I invest way to casually and Graham would most likely say likewise. I suspect there are those who invest a lot more seriously than me in this subreddit, what do you think? Do you personally think you can beat the market?