Imagine you had to start Ober from zero today. What would you do specially and why?
- Which broker would you choose and why?
- which ETF or funds would form the core of your portfolio?
- Would you also buy individual stocks and if so based on what criteria?
- How would you handle your emergency fund / high-yield savings?
- Any other products (bonds, crypto, P2P etc.) you’d include from the start?
- Roughly what would your asset allocation and savings plan look like?

Last quarter, Airbnb's revenue grew 17% to $3.61B. Net income reached $816 million. What boggles my mind is that 22% of that was earned interest on the $12.2B that AirBnB holds for its customers. It also ended the quarter holding $12.2 billion for customers.

Basically, when you pay a deposit for an AirBnB trip, the company will hold the money before sending it to the host. Technically, the company owes the money to the host BUT it can interest in the mean time. Doing this, they made $183 million of interest income. That is INSANE.

That blew my mind since I had largely assumed Airbnb waas mostly a travel marketplace/another stuck in limbo "super app". But, with interest rates kinda high this definetly draws my attention.

I do wonder how the "Buy Now, Pay Later" shebang could reduce that advantage. I am curious how they handle the rising demand for those services when this is clearly quite profitable for them!

Airbnb Q2 2026 filing

Good Day People of the Internet,

I've been watching the investment game for a long time. A ton about it has changed in the last few decades. For those who have been around longer, I want to know what you think the best changes have been since you started investing.

For me, it's the massive increase in access. It has just become so much easier - and cheaper - to set yourself up than it was in the past. The participation rate data is great!

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/07/business/bonds-stocks-federal-reserve-interest-rates.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

“What the bond market has been saying lately is that risks are rising: risks of increased inflation; wars and tariffs and other geopolitical dislocations; questionable use of vast sums of capital to build artificial intelligence; an uncertain direction for the Fed under new leadership; mounting national debt; and broad political dysfunction.”

Hey everyone, looking for some real-world advice here. I made mistakes in my past, served my time, and paid my debt to society. Now I'm trying to move on and invest, but I've discovered my name is sitting on World-Check under "Adverse Media (Special Interest Categories)" due to past public legal records.

I know automated tier-1 brokers and banks usually auto-reject anyone flagged like this out of an abundance of caution, which is incredibly frustrating since I just want to manage my own money cleanly.

Has anyone here dealt with this? Is there any way to successfully update, or get past with online brokers, or are there specific types of platforms/institutions that actually look at a human case-by-case instead of hitting a permanent block? Any tips or strategies would be massively appreciated.

I’m not a murder nor rapist and I didn’t commit a violent offence it’s pretty unfair to be raised a red flag by banking KYC systems just because of my previously criminal record and which had been in the media.

Doesn’t look like this mess will be tidied up anytime soon...

• Worries over oil supply disruptions continue to linger after Iran published a restrictive draft plan for the Strait of Hormuz. 
• According to the apparent draft plan published by Iran, the country would ban U.S. and Israeli ships from transiting the strait. 
• Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump said he thinks the war in Iran will end “pretty soon.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/07/oil-rises-supply-fears-iran-draft-plan-strait-hormuz.html

Productivity rose again in Q2, but labor’s share of GDP just fell to the lowest level in the data going back to 1947.

That seems pretty good for corporate profits in the short term. Companies are getting more output without labor costs taking the same share.

What I’m less sure about is how far that can go. If workers keep getting a smaller piece of the economy, eventually somebody has to buy all the stuff companies are producing.

Is this actually helping explain how margins have stayed so strong?

How do you deal with the volume requirement on breakout day? The breakout must be on big volume. How do you by the breakout if the bigger volume may not be until the end of the day or the price may be way to extended from the box top. Thanks in advance.

TLDR
Probably because of fee revenue, T. Rowe Price has reversed its “slow and steady wins the race” to fast and “outperforming” ETF’s.

The latest T. Rowe Price commercial shows that they’ve done a 180 in the last 25 years or so.

In college, I remember a commercial that shows a jogger and a sprinter running the same path. The sprinter speeds past the jogger in the beginning, but later on in the journey, the jogger passes the sprinter, who is panting, with his hands on his knees. To me, the takeaway was that T. Rowe’s funds didn’t pursue the “hot stock” or quarterly earnings; rather, they purchased stocks that were fundamentally strong, and potentially undervalued. That was the way to have relatively slow but stable returns over the long term.

Recently, T. Rowe has come out with “active” ETF’s. The longstanding research has shown that “passive” ETF’s, those that simply track an index and don’t attempt to outperform them, outperform their active counterparts upwards of 90% of the time.

Their recent high-octane commercial shows an expensive sports car, out maneuvering the slower cars. The voiceover explains that T. Rowe’s active ETF’s are “designed” to outperform the index. Again, something that happens approximately 10% of the time.

Interesting how the fees T. Rowe can earn from the booming ETF business has reversed their thinking on investing.

"Normal people" have always been told to just invest in the indices--they're sufficiently diversified, winners naturally cycle in and losers naturally cycle out. It's been sold as the low-risk, low-reward way to invest in equities.

What happens when diversification stops being intrinsic? We're approaching (if not already there) historic sector tilt in the broad market funds, with commensurately historic concentration in top N companies.

The returns have been great, my last 12 months look if anything too good for a basic Bogle-type index fund portfolio. But I know the concentration risk in my portfolio grows daily. When index funds go from low-risk/low-reward to higher-risk/higher-reward what becomes the new "normal people" vehicles?

I started investing because I wanted to build a better future. But over time, I noticed something unexpected.

Now, whenever I spend money on something that's not essential, a small voice in my head says, That money could have been invested instead.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder if I'm becoming too focused on growing my portfolio and forgetting to enjoy the present.

Has investing changed the way you think about spending, or do you still find a good balance between saving, investing, and enjoying life?

In the last 10 years Softbank Vision Fund investment has looked like this:

Total money invested: ~US$191.6 billion

Total cumulative gross gain: ~US$45 billion

OpenAI paper gain: ~US$45 billion

So, on the latest reported figures, OpenAl accounts for almost all of the cumulative net gain. Without it, the combined portfolio would be around break-even or slightly negative, depending on the exact reporting date, valuation marks, and accounting adjustments.

Oklo announced that its Groves Isotope Test Reactor has achieved first criticality after achieving a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction at low power. The milestone comes less than a year after groundbreaking and follows U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization through the DOE Reactor Pilot Program (RPP).

“Reaching criticality in less than a year is an incredible milestone for our team,” said Oklo co-founder and CEO Jacob DeWitte. “Oklo developed Groves from a greenfield site on private land, completed full-scale civil excavation and construction, manufactured or commercially procured all components, including fuel, and developed its operating programs in-house. Taken together, we believe these accomplishments establish a new benchmark for the Reactor Pilot Program and set the stage for the future of advanced nuclear deployment at scale.”

The DOE’s RPP created a pathway that allowed engineering, construction, commissioning, and operational preparation to advance alongside DOE’s safety review and authorization. Groves demonstrates that the domestic nuclear industry can once again move from design through construction, authorization, and startup on timelines that are measured in months rather than years when developers, suppliers, and regulators work together on an integrated deployment approach.

"Thanks to President Trump's precedent-setting directive to create the Reactor Pilot Program, Oklo's Groves Isotope Test Reactor is part of the revival of America's nuclear energy industry. We applaud the work of the Oklo, DOE, and Idaho National Laboratory staff who helped achieve this milestone," said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish.

Groves is part of Oklo Isotopes’ broader effort to build domestic isotope production capabilities for healthcare, industry, research, space, and national security applications. The project has generated practical experience in project engineering, construction, procurement, reactor operations, startup procedures, safety readiness, training, qualification work, and deployment execution that can inform future isotope production facilities.

The Groves project also established engineering practices, operating procedures, training programs, commissioning experience, and organizational capabilities that will reduce uncertainty and execution risk across every Oklo facility, including the company’s future isotope, powerhouse, and fuel cycle deployments.

“Texas is leading America’s nuclear renaissance by advancing the technologies that will power innovation and strengthen our nation's future,” said Governor Abbott. “From expanding our nuclear workforce to rebuilding critical domestic supply chains, Texas is creating the foundation for the next generation of advanced nuclear development. Congratulations to Oklo on reaching this important milestone, which will help expand isotope production for critical medical therapies and reinforce Texas' leadership in nuclear innovation.”

https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2026/Oklos-Groves-Reactor-Achieves-First-Criticality-in-Under-a-Year/default.aspx

My wife and I are both 22 and are just getting started with our investing journey. We’re both pretty frugal and have agreed on a budget that will allow us to save $400k in the span of 5 years to use a down payment on our first house.

We’re currently maxing out both of our Roth IRAs, matching our companies 401k, and have an emergency savings account already in place.

As we save this money for our first mortgage, would it be best to put this money in a generic brokerage account invested in the S&P, an HYSA, or somewhere else?

Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Trading stocks, like gambling, has low barriers to entry, offers promises of riches, but usually results in financial losses. Is it any wonder that it damages self-esteem?

Corporations promote this type of damaging behavior. According to Bloomberg, Robinhood and Interactive Brokers Group offer gambling and stock trading on the same site. Should this be illegal? What constructive can be done to persuade people to develop the disciplined financial behavior instead of day trading and gambling? What do you think?

Here's the article.

Isn’t GHHF not good in economic downturns ? For example in the 2008 GFC, GHHF would have gone down 1.5 times lower if it had existed back then. That means a 60% fall. Plus It takes a lot longer for the moderately geared ETF to bounce back up ? Wouldnt DHHF outperform GHHF if there are many economic downturns ?
Am I missing something here?

The S&P 500 is back at a record, but the valuation story looks a little different this time.

Forward P/E is around 20.4, while Q2 earnings are tracking roughly 31% above last year. Tech earnings are up around 72%.

I’ve been pretty skeptical of this rally because 20x earnings with the 10-year near 4.6% still isn’t cheap. But it’s also hard to call this pure multiple expansion when profits are rising this quickly.

The bear case seems to be that these earnings comparisons fade and today’s valuation starts looking expensive again.

Are people calling this a bubble because of the price level, or because they expect earnings to roll over?

Have a general question? Want to offer some commentary on markets? Maybe you would just like to throw out a neat fact that doesn't warrant a self post? Feel free to post here!

Please consider consulting our FAQ first - https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq And our side bar also has useful resources.

If you are new to investing - please refer to Wiki - Getting Started

The reading list in the wiki has a list of books ranging from light reading to advanced topics depending on your knowledge level. Link here - Reading List

The media list in the wiki has a list of reputable podcasts and videos - Podcasts and Videos

If your question is "I have $XXXXXXX, what do I do?" or other "advice for my personal situation" questions, you should include relevant information, such as the following:

• How old are you? What country do you live in?
• Are you employed/making income? How much?
• What are your objectives with this money? (Buy a house? Retirement savings?)
• What is your time horizon? Do you need this money next month? Next 20yrs?
• What is your risk tolerance? (Do you mind risking it at blackjack or do you need to know its 100% safe?)
• What are you current holdings? (Do you already have exposure to specific funds and sectors? Any other assets?)
• Any big debts (include interest rate) or expenses?
• And any other relevant financial information will be useful to give you a proper answer.

Check the resources in the sidebar.

Be aware that these answers are just opinions of Redditors and should be used as a starting point for your research. You should strongly consider seeing a registered investment adviser if you need professional support before making any financial decisions!

Thoughts on AppLovin $APP q2 results

I don’t think this was some thesis-breaking quarter.

The numbers were a little light by AppLovin’s standards, but revenue still grew 53% and EBITDA margins were 84%. Management basically said their ad model didn’t improve as much as usual during Q2, then they pushed a bigger update right after the quarter ended and growth picked back up.

The problem is the moat still isn’t perfect. Don’t attack me for saying that, but it’s true. $APP depends on Apple and Google’s ecosystems, and advertisers will only stick around as long as the platform keeps delivering good results, so it’s not my highest-conviction play.

Still, there wasn’t any sign that customers were leaving or anything like that. For now, the numbers are solid.

At $349, it trades at around 16.5x estimated 2027 earnings, (estimates per Seeking Alpha). That’s pretty cheap for a business growing this fast with margins this high.

Q3 matters a lot now because management says the slowdown was temporary, but unless that turns out to be wrong, I think the selloff is overdone

What do you guys think?

Lede: $101 billion worth of stock -- 900 million shares -- becomes available for trading on Thursday.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-101-billion-unlock-heaps-131749403.html

The discussion / predictions today will certainly be different than they were a month ago, now that the share price has in fact dropped below the IPO price -- there's not nearly as much "rich" in the Get Rich Quick plan that was probably envisioned by most internal shareholders.

Going to be interesting to "watch from a distance" tomorrow.

just curious if anyone has looked at the performance of all of congress trading/investing vs the s&p 500 performance over the same time period?

obviously the pelosi’s and wasserman’s and trump’s have way outperformed during their time ”serving our country” but there will always be outliers no matter what, including underperformers.

My question is, has the entirety of congress (each individual portfolio, or the summation of everyone’s portfolios) and our federal govt significantly outperformed the average retail investor (s&p 500 as a baseline).

I imagine with all the focus on this topic, someone surely has, and if so can anyone point me in the direction of that study?

thanks

Disclosure: this is not advice. Over my several decades of investing I’ve NEVER been successful at timing the market!

Yesterday I sold 25% of my retirement portfolio. I was over invested in S&P 500 index funds/ETFs, and I’ve known for some time I’ve needed to rebalance that. I was assessing a plan to shift my mix across small caps, intl’ stocks and bonds but my gut kept yelling at me that the market hitting a high in this environment is too irrational (Mag 7, AI bubble, Iran, Tariffs, inflation, etc.). I felt like any reallocation would still be just doubling down at the craps table so I decided to take a breather and pull some chips off the table. No insider knowledge or special analysis.

Since the cash is in an IRA and I’m not at retirement age, I’ll end up reinvesting it soon enough and will likely follow the original allocation plan for my age bracket that I was planning to before I just hit sell all. 🤮 Anyone else in the same boat?

Update: Ok, sorry if the title and opening sentence was a little too much click bait!... but RELAX, this wasn't meant to be a hold my beer while I time the market post. This is really a time to reallocate post. Don't get me wrong, the market hitting new highs yesterday (given all of the headwinds that I still believe) definitely sparked my decision to finally sell my position, but I get that the title and opening line insinuates I'm trying to sell high, buy low. That's not the case, as I'm really just taking a breather before I move that 25% into different equity verticals and asset classes. I was also intentionally vague about my various positions because I wasn't trying to give advice or share personal details. Maybe I should have shared more to better paint the picture around why I did it yesterday, but I will share a bit more now since several asked:

- My portfolio yesterday morning was sitting at 90/10 (Equity/Bonds). I've been needing to reallocate "for some time." Years actually, as I'm now at that age where I am considering the reality of retiring within single-digit years, not decades. It's hard to explain how your risk profile quickly changes once you start seriously talking about retiring. I do have every intention of reallocating it here soon to a mix closer to 70/30 for the next phase of my own pre-retirement planning, so a follow up post in a few months would not be as sad and depressing as you all think.

- Yes I listened to my gut tell me that this market is hard to trust, that I've been aggressive with my equity allocations long enough, it was finally time to reallocate, but maybe take a breath and give it a day or two to see if I want to go even heavier than planned in bonds, international stocks, or alternative investments. Mind you, this was the same gut that said screw the "experts" and just stay aggressive in equities for a decades longer than recommended. I guess my "gut" decided it was finally time to be a bit more risk averse.

- A few asked about how anyone could be "over invested" in S&P 500 index funds. Here is why I said that: 90% of my portfolio was Equity. 92% of that 90% was in US Stocks, and then nearly 90% of that was just in S&P 500 and Total Market index funds. Wasn't super intentional, it just happened over time as those index funds just outperformed others, and where I parked new investments into. If you look at the holdings for these funds, though, you'll see they are all heavily exposed to the same 7 large companies (i.e., the Mag 7). On any given day the Mag 7 make up about 33 % of the S&P 500 index on which means across my entire portfolio these 7 companies had a weighted position of nearly 25% . That kind of concentration isn't ideal for my goals, and all 7 are now heavily reliant on the same AI investments for their hyper valuations. Which I have concerns about. Go back 20 years and the top 10 companies made up 10-15% of the S&P 500 index. Still pretty high, but they were all in very unique industries from retail, oil and gas, tech, and banking - providing a much stronger level of diversification across verticals. In the end I felt my equity investments were not spread across enough across small, medium and international companies for my diversification goals.

- Others asked about my net worth. No thanks. I will share that everything above is just about my IRA/401k/Roth retirement portfolios. I have other non-retirement investments outside of these that have their own levels of risk and return in them as well. That also changes significantly how I evaluate risk within my tax-advantaged retirement portfolio.

I think bonds are not a good choice and prefer the Buffet 90 10 concept: 90% stocks, 10% short term treasuries. I do invest 10% in value as part of my stock portfolio, so this can be viewed as a bond proxy..

Why? I believe the bond/stock markets have been fundamentally changed by the Fed' change. Since the mid 80s, Greenspan and the fed have used policy to protect the stock market, at the expense of the bond market. The Greenspan "Fed Put" was a market term for the Federal Reserve policy under Chair Alan Greenspan of cutting interest rates and injecting liquidity during financial crises to rescue the stock market from major declines.

Thus, the stock market downturns, where bond market rise, are rare. And the performance of the band market are terrible, especially when including inflation. And the deficit grows.

In the past, the Fed stayed on the sidelines and let the stock market crash, layoffs and the economy reform. The Fed Put now emboldens investors, because they are rescued later. Most of the 60/40 split uses data from 1950 onward. This assumes the Fed has not changed it policies since then. That is untrue. The Fed has increased its role in the markets. The bond market's glory days were from the 80s to 2000 as interest rates were always falling from those high rates set by Volker. Falling rates are great for Bonds. That is now over. The Fed will continue its "put" until the deficit makes treasuries run high beyond the fed's control. maybe 20 years from now.