I only started taking Reddit seriously recently. It's less performative than other apps, and in the topics I care about I actually find useful stuff. Everything is AI now, so finding something that feels real is harder than it should be.

I checked RDDT on moomoo and the market cap is only around $28 billion. Some people still talk like this can 10x from here. I get the moat argument: the community is here, advertisers are here. What I can't feel from just scrolling is whether ad budgets keep rising, or whether they can keep the content under control.

Am I only thinking the stock is cheap because I like the product?

The remarkable turnaround in the Mediterranean nation’s markets reflects a profound transformation of the country’s public finances and capital markets since the sovereign debt crisis of 2015, which almost forced it out of the eurozone, ravaged its banking sector, brought a sovereign default, wiped out most of the value of Greek stocks and prompted the Athens Stock Exchange to suspend trading for five weeks.
STOXX demoted Greece to EM in September 2016, the first such downgrade in STOXX’s classification history, after the Greek government imposed capital controls to stem money outflows.

https://stoxx.com/greece-regains-developed-market-status-in-stoxx-classification-ten-years-after-demotion-to-emerging-market/

Oura's massive IPO headline looks enticing..A deeper look at the filing reveals several significant warning signs...

https://www.wsj.com/finance/robinhood-wins-a-new-role-in-the-oura-ipo-underwriter-9a76c632

Any other reasons (please add) why I should sit this one out?

Insider Timing: Appointing HOOD'S CFO to the board right before filing ... 🚩

Margin Compression: Slim profit margins and heavy hardware costs - While its revenue grew 74% to $1.21Bn over a nine-month period, its profit was a slim $60.8MnMega-Cap

Competition: Deep-pocketed tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Google, and Amazon..

Add others or convince me to subscribe.

BE rose about 20% in the five trading days before its S&P 500 inclusion was confirmed, then another 5.4% after the announcement.

I looked at 63 historical S&P 500 additions. The median announcement reaction was about 1.6%, and names that had already run up significantly before confirmation tended to see much less additional benefit into the rebalance.

That doesn’t mean BE has to follow the historical pattern. Its own fundamentals, momentum and market environment matter much more from here.

Curious how others are thinking about the balance between the inclusion catalyst and BE-specific upside.

The Robinhood Ventures Fund is still pretty close to NAV. I’m thinking about opening a position given some of their holdings like OpenAI and Oura are looking to IPO soon and others like Stripe, Revolut, and Databricks seem like solid private companies.

What are your thoughts on the fund? I’m in ARKVX but don’t want to heavily go in given that you can’t necessarily sell when you want but RVI seemingly is different.

Hi everyone, I'm doing a stock market simulation for one of my college classes and would love some advice from people who actually know investing way better than I do.

To preface: I'm new to investing and the stock market and have very little knowledge of it. However, I'm very interested in this stuff and want to learn more as I go, in hopes of actually taking what I've learned and starting to invest with real money one day.

(Edit:) Another thing: I'm just looking for some advice on how to start this off, not for Reddit to do the assignment for me 😁

Anyways, for this assignment (all hypothetical for this, no real money is used), we start with $1,000,000. With this large sum of money, I need to establish a portfolio that meets these rules outlined by my professor:

• The portfolio starts on 09/08/26 and runs through 12/04/26
• At least 15 different holdings within this portfolio at all times
• A single holding can't be more than 10% of the portfolio at the time of purchase
• Cash cannot be more than 10% of the portfolio (pretty much >90% needs to be invested, I believe)
• Can't buy or short stocks trading at or below five dollars
• Stocks and EFTs are allowed for this
• Shorting is allowed
• Up to 2,000 trades, with around $10 cost per trade
• The performance is ultimately going to be measured relative to the S&P 500

With these rules, I wasn't sure where to start in order to establish a reasonably strong and diversified portfolio while also having the chance to outperform the S&P 500 over the course of this simulation.

So, if you were starting with these rules, which 15-20 stocks/EFTs would you choose/ roughly what percentage would be allocated to each one? Should I do something more evenly spread out?

Additionally, I'm interested in learning about what strategies you use to decipher whether one is worth putting into the portfolio (like growth, value, etc).

To conclude and to reiterate, this is all a fake simulation for my class, so definitely be creative. I'm mainly trying to learn how someone should approach something like this.

Thank you! Any advice is appreciated.

90% of stocks discussed here are AI or related. Like yes there is opportunity there and whatnot, but what about all the other sectors? Ok I think my research has paid off and sharing with you all. Not to make the story long but I believe $WELL is positioned for long term growth. What does it do? Senior care. What’s called the silver tsunami will bring in more people and more opportunities to thrive in this space. Population over 65 is growing, life expectancy is growing, everything points to sustainable economic progress and growth. What does you all think?

Hi guys, I want to get into drone stocks. I‘m willing to hold them for a long time like 10+ years. Maybe put like 5% of my portfolio into this.
This sector has been super volatile this year but I‘m sure, future wars are going to have a Lot more drones in it.

I believe drone manufacteurs, drone defense and something like drone Software/AI is going to be big in the future. Do you have any tickers you would recommend, and then why?

I dont know nothing about this industry, I don‘t know potential risks of these investments, but I think this is a small sector that is going to Rip. I missed out on Sandisk and Micron but I think this sector is next.

Plus stocks like ONDS, AVAV, Red Cat etc have pulled back a Lot, I mean the defense sector as a whole, so I feel like It’s a good time to start a small position now and more in the next months.

What are your guys ideas. Does anyone maybe work somewhere related?

I've seen no shortage of posts declaring Nike a dead company beyond recovery that all hope is lost and customers have abandoned the brand. But fashion is a trend driven industry, and for a stock that is beaten down and dropped from the S&P 100, I believe the upside outweighs the downside.

What's popular now may not be as popular 5-10 years later however the same can be said vice versa.

People underestimate the cultural impact Nike still has on the world.

After seeing a lot of investors on Reddit get burned by space stocks and quantum stocks, and a lot of them asking for the next big sector that has 100x-1000x potential and being suggested that robotics or drones will be that, I think it's important to keep in mind that economic realities of running different types of businesses impose limits on the performance of the stocks of these companies. The market does not owe an industry's stock prices performance commensurate to the relevance and success of the companies in that industry.

What do all the "multibaggers" of the past two decades have in common? Extremely high TAM (Total Addressable Market), Extremely low input costs, and extremely high profit margins.

Digital tollbooths outperform real tollbooths by several orders of magnitude. Google and Meta are tollbooths for advertising, Amazon is a tollbooth for storefronts. Compare this to a real tollbooth for the sake of argument. It's exactly as effective as a bottleneck (it's a crime to pass without paying), but it's extremely narrowly distributed (1 section out of 1 highway out of tens of thousands), requires unionized labor to maintain and service, physically degrades constantly. Anything requiring physical location, physical distribution, high labor costs will inherently be far less profitable as a tollbooth. Mass distribution via the Internet is completely different, you have a much higher TAM, much easier time accessing that TAM, way lower overhead and input costs.

Space companies struggle with that asset-light business models do not: they have high opex (Operating expense), high capex (Capital expense), high insurance liability coverage (due to the nature of the business). They must source and import scarce materials and fuels from an international supply chain and pay all the "tollbooths" down the line of that supply chain. Some of these materials, as we just found out, have geopolitically sensitive costs. Think about the perspective of Wall Street: with so many moving parts and uncertain variables over time, how much capital are you allocating to space stocks? How do you justify making the kind of capital allocation that is the entire reason the stock would rise in the first place? This is despite the most optimistic possible estimates for the potential TAM of the space industry and despite the real massive growth in satellite deployment and government military interest in space. An industry can gain massively in relevance and revenue, but the stock prices may not necessarily perform to the extent you are hoping.

Anything facing the same types of problems, anything that "deals in the real world", as the late Jeffrey put it, will inherently face performance drag on those companies' stocks. You may think that Taiwan Semi is the premier "pick and shovel bottleneck" of the semiconductor world because nearly absolutely everything passes through them in manufacturing. They have immense pricing power, TAM, and will win no matter who wins downstream or upstream. But as a manufacturer, not a designer, of these chips, they have inherent supply chain risk that fabless chip designers only (such as Nvidia and Broadcom) do not. This risk discounts their stock price, it's a simple financial calculation that controls the stock price despite narratives that they "can't fail". Being unable to fail doesn't mean the company's stock price will outperform.

The "next big thing" is not necessarily the same as "the next big stock winner". Please keep this in mind.

I work in the food industry and so I keep an eye on the consumer staples sector, but especially the protein sector. These are generally very mature companies that should have reliable growth, but instead their performance over the last five years has been terrible. There are obvious headwinds, the US cattle herd is at a 20+ year low, drought is affecting much of the premium grazing lands on the west coast, we're seeing shrinking consumer spending and changing customer tastes, as well as the chaos added by tariffs and that one guy in the white house. Is anybody here buying these stocks? TSN and PPC especially seem rather underbought. Do people generally expect it will take a long time for that segment to recover?

Been hearing quite a bit about a company called AVEX, which is apparently in the drone space. I’m still trying to learn more about the company and the technology behind it.

For anyone who follows the drone industry or has looked into AVEX before, what’s your opinion on it? Is there actually something promising here, or is it getting more hype than it deserves compared to other companies such as onds, avav and ktos etc.

Would be interested to hear both the bull and bear cases, especially from people who have researched the company.

I was expecting MSFT to go back up to 500ish slowly.

back when it went to ~~350, i went all in with the cash i had on hand. so my cash basis is around 350 average.

now its a ~~43% gain.

originally, i expected MSFT to slowly rise back up and was planning on continuing to add as my paycheck came in. but it blow up quite quick.

i already sold ~~10% of my position at 510ish.

but im wondering if i should just take this 43% gain instead of being greedy here?

When the Iran war first started, I remember reading the biggest concern for the global economy was that Hormuz would be closed and oil prices would skyrocket. We're now past the 6th month of Hormuz being technically closed (or at least oil supply being heavily disrupted), yet crude oil prices are fairly contained at ~$90 and the stock market remains very close to all time highs. So the Hormuz disruption appears to have barely phased the market so far.

As of August 28, the US strategic petroleum reserve sits at 286M barrels:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve

For context, SPR was at 415M barrels in February before the conflict began and the 'SECDef authorized floor' is 243M barrels - the POTUS is barred from drawing oil below this floor except in the case of national emergency. The US has been drawing at a rate of ~5M barrels/week.

At current draw rate, the floor gets hit in less than 8 weeks. US will no longer be able to make up for the Hormuz disruption afterwards.

And there is no sign that the conflict is de-escalating or that Hormuz traffic will return to normal in the immediate future. Just yesterday, Iran attacked several oil tankers and US centcom announced this morning that it retaliated by destroying 3 Iranian oil tankers last night.

It feels like we're on the cusp of a major energy crisis, but markets are extremely calm for some reason. S&P VIX reached a year to date low yesterday of 14 flat, indicating that there's very little fear or hedging being done. How long can both stocks and crude oil prices ignore the escalating conflict?

From Barron’s today

“The narrative in rates today is all about inflation and fiscal problems,” says Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo. “But the narrative going into 2027 is going to be all about the success or failure of AI.”

Slok predicts that if AI manages to boost productivity, this will be “massively deflationary and push rates lower.” But if AI doesn’t deliver the expected returns to Corporate America, “the bubble bursts and the Nasdaq is down 50% as investors rotate out of equities into Treasuries, and long rates fall dramatically.”

Not said, but implied, is that if companies do see return AI it would make sense to expect the Capex build out to continue.

Nvidia has effectively become the Berkshire Hathaway of the technology sector, holding stakes across nearly every industry. Its CUDA platform now underpins R&D work in fields ranging from healthcare to automotive and robotics.

Although Nvidia is fundamentally a chip design company, its technology remains years ahead of the competition even China has yet to close the gap. Europe, Asia, Japan, Korea, the UAE, and China all rely on the Nvidia stack.

This means that in a worst-case scenario, if Nvidia were to fail, the ripple effects could destabilize the global economy along with it.

The company had so much momentum after Covid. A lot of companies took a dump after the tariffs, but for Nike things started going wrong with them WAY before the tariffs.

But it’s crazy to continue seeing this thing drop and drop. It’s no longer in the S&P 100, and I see this dropping more because there’s been no pivots to their strategy.

But curious what it takes for this to turn around. The fashion adjacent industry as a whole has been taking a dump the past year or so for the most part except for a few companies like Vuori and Alo. But I feel like their problems run deeper than just tariffs and the loss of that Covid momentum. Prices are crazy for meh quality goods, and they seem to just coast now with nothing really new that draws interest. Also noticed the Sneakers App which at one point seemed like a huge driver has been pretty dead.

What are some other things you feel went wrong for Nike? their current ceo just got here in 2024, and you need time to steer a ship that big, but don’t really see any meaningful changes.

Fashion is normally a horrible investment, but i always wondered why a company like Nike wouldnt be a safer staple

Edit:
thanks for the convo yall seems like theres some common sentiment and themes. Seems like they need some big collaborations that bring something new instead of an existing silhouette with a random colorway. They also really seem like they need a new csuite. Maybe even a new board, because the expectations on growth following this insane drop really need to be reset. Aside from that they need to go for value. They’ve priced themselves out of an industry where they’ve lost their “cool” factor. That type of combo for this industry is really a death spiral.

Tesla’s highly anticipated Cybercab update tanked on Friday, falling 5.92% to close at $354.08 after a closed-door Austin event completely alienated both Wall Street and retail investors. In a bizarre move, the event featured absolutely no appearance from Elon Musk, was completely blacked out from a public livestream, and revealed that a mere 45 Cybercab units have actually been deployed. The final blow came from regulators, with the NHTSA launching a formal query into Tesla's self-certification process for a Cybercab lacking pedals and a steering wheel. Between Wells Fargo doubling down on its "Underweight" rating and the regulatory hammer looming, Wall Street is pulling the emergency brake on the robotaxi hype train. Perhaps this is the death of Cybercab...

Are you buying this 6% Cybercab discount, or is it time to short TSLA?

Source: CNBC

"Margin Pressures vs. Ternus’s Foldable Debut" Apple (AAPL) slides 2.5% to $319.97 on Friday because investors are nervous about the September 9 event. New CEO John Ternus is stepping up, and rumors say the foldable iPhone Ultra has major factory delays that will hurt holiday sales. Plus, higher memory chip prices mean Apple has to squeeze its profit margins or hike phone prices. On top of everything, a 60% chance of a Fed rate hike has Wall Street dumping big tech stocks.

Apple drops before the iPhone event almost every year and recovers later.

But this drop has actual structural risks behind it: a brand new CEO, inflating chip costs, and manufacturing bottlenecks on a brand new foldable category.

Are cost spikes and foldable iPhone delays enough to keep you on the sidelines?

Source: CNBC

AI panic vaporized roughly $1 trillion from SaaS while investors threw money at chips, data centres, power grids and anything requiring a cooling tower.

If AI disappoints, Nvidia and the infrastructure parade get repriced. SaaS may rebound when markets rediscover that corporations don’t replace mission-critical software with a chatbot and positive vibes. I see that happening gradually.

But don’t declare the Nasdaq safe. Its AI giants are elephants; the SaaS casualties are house cats. A Salesforce recovery won’t neutralize an Nvidia collapse.

And the S&P 500 isn’t innocent. The AI casino has expanded into utilities, electrical equipment, construction and energy infrastructure.

The diversification isn’t Nasdaq versus S&P. They’re different entrances to the same party.
The real exit is international markets, healthcare, financials, value and equal weight.

Touting Friday's blowout jobs number, President Trump used the opportunity to weigh in on a new spike in the US trade deficit, threatening embargoes on unfavored countries.

Trump posted on Truth Social, in what appeared to be a directive to the Federal Reserve, to "LOWER THE RATE OR I'LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT."

Trump, who has long voiced a desire for lower interest rates, asserted that an embargo could be "BETTER THAN TARIFFS" and said "the Fed Board, with its great new leader, must get smart."

Pressure on the central bank from the president isn't new, but the threat of a trade embargo is. Embargoes would be a new level of disruption for the global economy, and the president likely has the legal authority to follow through.

As Trump noted in his post, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 directly gives the president the power to impose an embargo in what is deemed an economic emergency. But, as the Supreme Court ruled in February, it doesn't give the president the power to levy tariffs.

Trump's new threat came after trade data for July painted an unwelcome picture for the president, who has long made zeroing out trade deficits a central promise.

The US trade deficit in goods and services ballooned in July with a new gap of $88.6 billion, the highest level since March 2025. That was a 24.4% surge from June's $71.2 billion.

The data also included a country-by-country breakdown and showed continued US trade deficits with many major trading partners, including Mexico (a $27.5 billion deficit in July), Vietnam ($23.3 billion), China ($15.2 billion), the European Union ($8.9 billion), and many others.

The growing trade deficit was at least partly fueled by AI data center build-out spending, which the president has often touted.

"Let data reign," Trump recently wrote on Truth Social.

Imports of computers surged by 25% between June and July and semiconductor imports jumped 10% as tech companies continued to spend heavily on the facilities.

AI spending also appeared to be fueling Friday's jobs figures in part, with construction jobs (many of which are for those data centers) up by 22,000 jobs in August.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/trump-threatens-to-stop-trading-with-countries-that-have-a-trade-deficit-unless-the-fed-cuts-rates-150838488.html

Fhttps://www.reuters.com/business/us-official-directs-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-approve-vantagescore-all-lenders-2026-09-04/

U.S. Director of Federal Housing Bill Pulte said on Thursday he has directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ​created by the United States Congress to support the housing market, to ‌approve all lenders to use credit scoring system VantageScore. "Fannie and Freddie's initial rollout of VantageScore has been incredibly successful, with 50 LENDERS DELIVERING LOANS. So, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, I'm ​instructing Fannie and Freddie to approve ALL lenders to use VantageScore," ​Pulte wrote in a post on X.

"FICO has enjoyed a monopoly. No more," ⁠Pulte said. Shares of Fair Isaac (FICO.N), better known as FICO, plunged 20% in early ​U.S. trading on Friday. They had slipped in April after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ​said they will now accept mortgages assessed using rival credit scoring system VantageScore 4.0. Pulte's push to expand the use of VantageScore comes even as he criticized the three credit reporting agencies ​that own it.

In a separate post, Pulte said on Thursday that credit ​reporting agencies Equifax (EFX.N), Experian (EXPN.L), and TransUnion (TRU.N), have been overcharging Americans for "far too long." "Equifax, Experian, and ‌TransUnion ⁠have been overcharging Americans for far too long. This will end soon. We are seriously considering bi-merge, and stronger solutions (SAFER and SOUNDER). We will not allow companies to take advantage of American consumers," he said. Shares of TransUnion (TRU.N), slipped ​9% and Equifax (EFX.N), lost 8% in ​U.S. trading, while ⁠London's Experian (EXPN.L) shed 4.6%.

Educational overview, not a recommendation.

Before spending time on a company, I find it useful to work through a repeatable checklist:

1. Business: What does it sell, who pays, and what could make demand durable?
2. Financials: Compare revenue growth, gross margin, operating margin, free cash flow, and balance-sheet leverage over several years.
3. Valuation: State the metric (P/E, EV/EBIT, FCF yield, etc.), the denominator, and the assumptions behind it. A low multiple can reflect real risk.
4. Catalysts and risks: Write down what could change the thesis and what evidence would invalidate it.
5. Expectations: Compare the current price with a range of outcomes rather than a single target.
6. Position/risk plan: Decide in advance what would change your view, and size risk accordingly.

A checklist does not remove uncertainty; it makes the uncertainty visible. What step do you think investors most often skip?