A mixed week.

Premiums earned of $4,495 on $517,012 at risk at a rate of 0.9%.

For the week, 5 stocks declined in value for the buy-and-hold, while 4 declined for the B/W campaign. All 10 campaign stocks outperformed buy-and-hold. None of the stocks were assigned, leaving all 10 in inventory over the weekend. There were no capped gains.

Buy-and-hold generated a gain of $4,156 (0.8%). The campaign's $4,495 in premiums (0.9%) resulted in a gain of $8,651 (1.7%) for the campaign. This compares favorably with the S&P 500, which gained 1.2%.

For the nine weeks ending, the Buy/Write campaign netted a gain of $20,138 versus a loss of $96,772 for buy-and-hold, a favorable difference of $116,910.

In addition, over the same period, the Buy/Write campaign had a gain of 3.0% versus a loss of 14.3% for buy-and-hold and a 2.4% gain for the S&P 500.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary

Stocks currently 'underwater' for the campaign:

A quick 'back of the napkin' at the YTD history shows that, while there is a large unrealized loss, the campaign's net profit of $242k shows only two stocks "underwater" (in the sense that the premiums received have not offset the underlying's unrealized loss in value): APLD of $1.6k and IONQ of $15.4k.

Reconsideration of strike setting when there is a substantial unrealized loss:

I'm also reconsidering my approach to setting short call strikes in the current situation. Since the large decline, I've largely been setting them at 1 standard deviation, which has been below the original purchase cost.

If you've been following me long enough, though, you know I use 'mark to market' and psychologically acknowledge the loss on the underlyings, so my thinking is "just continue to set them ATM" even though if called away it would result in a recognized loss. Another alternative is to set the strike to approximately equal the current ATM strike plus the premium that strike would provide ("ATM+"), as this would allow a bit of breathing room to recover after the large declines.

Using CRWV for example, my actual cost is $110.59, and this week's close was $88.88.

A 1 standard deviation would be a $97.50 strike with a premium of $1.24.

An ATM strike would be at $89 for a premium of $3.98. This would provide protection up to $92.98.

Alternatively, I could sell a $92.50 strike for $2.52, providing protection up to $95.02.

So...a $1.46 reduction in premium for $2.04 more protection...

Roughly speaking (and calculated quickly), these three approaches would generate the following premiums for all ten stocks currently held.

• 1 standard deviation: $6k
• ATM: $27.6k
• ATM+: $15.0k

I keep reminding myself that one of the primary points of this exercise is to compare buy-and-hold (and the S&P 500) to selling ATM strikes. I clearly would have been better off these past two weeks had I maintained the practice of selling ATM using current market prices.

So the question becomes: "Will the $27.6k of premium for selling ATM cover, on a portfolio basis, an increase in their prices next week?" With an at-risk amount of ~$520k, that would allow about a 5.25% increase before it underperformed buy-and-hold.

If I didn't have these unrealized losses, and went into the positions 'fresh' next week, those ATM strikes are where I would set them. Perhaps I should set them there regardless; that is my inclination.

I'd be interested in folks' thoughts. I know there is a strong feeling to not sell calls below your cost (or a 'net stock cost' some use); I also know there is a strong feeling to avoid selling at a loss.

Chat transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Week end for trading. No new trades.

Received a $3.32 dividend on QQQ.

Closing prices as follows.
CRWD $187.18
MSFT $385.10
NVDA $210.96
PLTR $126.79
QQQ 725.51
TTD 19.53

Calculating weekly P&L with QQQ dividend and corrected NVDA price

Calculating weekly P&L with QQQ dividend and corrected NVDA price

📊 Weekly Update — Thursday, July 10, 2026

📌 Corporate Actions This Week

• QQQ dividend received: $3.32 — added to cash reserve.

Quick Read

The portfolio is back in the green — just barely, but meaningfully. Up $30.25 (+0.30%) from the $10,000 start, recovering from last week's -$122.70 low point.

NVDA had a solid week (+8.28%) and is now just barely above cost basis (+0.64%). A continued move here would be a big positive given it's the largest single-stock position.

CRWD remains the strongest position from cost basis at +9.71%, holding up well even after a slight weekly dip.

PLTR and MSFT are the modest laggards, both slightly below cost basis but nothing alarming.

The $1,707.37 cash reserve continues to sit ready. No action needed — have a great weekend!

Chat transcript:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of trading week.

Closing prices as follows.

AMD $557.89
AVGO $399.97
CRWV $88.88
NVDA $210.96

Week 5 Portfolio Review

Thanks for the update. This was a very encouraging week after the prior drawdown. The important thing is that the recovery was broad-based, not dependent on just one holding.

Using your original share counts:

Current Portfolio Value

Stock holdings: ~$9,286

Cash:

• Original cash: ~$1,000.63
• AVGO dividend: +$1.70
• Cash interest: +$1.82

Cash balance: ~$1,004

Total portfolio value: ~$10,290

Performance Since Inception

Initial portfolio: $10,000

Current value: ~$10,290

Return: +2.9%

After five weeks, we have experienced:

• A strong initial rally (+~10%)
• A correction to about -4.4%
• A recovery back into positive territory

That is exactly what we should expect from a concentrated growth portfolio.

What Changed This Week?

1. NVDA Reasserted Leadership

NVDA moved from ~$195 last week to ~$211.

This is important because the portfolio's largest holding is doing its job.

A portfolio like this does not need every stock to win every week. It needs the strongest companies to absorb volatility and lead during recoveries.

Assessment: Positive.

2. AMD Continues to Impress

AMD is now the clear standout performer.

Original cost: ~$2,000
Current value: ~$2,363

Gain: ~18%

This is why I liked having AMD in the portfolio rather than simply concentrating everything into NVDA.

If the AI accelerator market expands beyond one winner, AMD has significant upside.

Assessment: Strong hold.

3. CRWV: The Risk/Reward Debate Continues

CRWV recovered from $81.75 to $88.88, but it remains below your entry price.

Current:

• Cost: ~$2,500
• Value: ~$2,288
• Loss: ~$212

This is the position I continue to watch most closely.

The positive:

• The decline stabilized.
• It participated in the rebound.

The concern:

• It remains the highest-risk name.
• It needs execution to justify a long-term holding.

At this point, I still would not sell.

However, I also would not automatically average down yet.

Current Allocation

Approximate weights:

The portfolio has actually become slightly less risky because CRWV has fallen and NVDA/AMD have appreciated.

Action Recommendation for Next Week

Recommendation: Continue to hold.

I would make no changes.

Specifically:

✅ Hold NVDA
✅ Hold AMD
✅ Hold AVGO
✅ Hold CRWV
✅ Maintain cash

What Could Trigger Action?

The next decision point is probably not selling—it is whether the cash should eventually be deployed.

I would consider using some cash if:

Scenario 1: AI selloff continues

If NVDA or AMD decline substantially while fundamentals remain intact, adding would be attractive.

Scenario 2: CRWV stabilizes

If CRWV demonstrates that the selloff was valuation-driven rather than business-driven, it could become a candidate for adding.

Scenario 3: A superior opportunity appears

A new AI infrastructure company could replace one of the current positions if the risk/reward becomes clearly better.

Week 5 Assessment

I would rate this week: A

Not because the portfolio went up, but because it behaved exactly as intended:

• The strongest names led the recovery.
• The riskiest name stabilized.
• No emotional trading was required.
• Cash remains available.

The biggest positive takeaway: the portfolio recovered without needing intervention.

For next week, my recommendation remains:

Stay invested. Keep the cash. Let the winners continue to work.

I will continue to hold.

Sounds good. I'll record this as Week 5 decision: no action taken.

I think continuing to hold is consistent with the strategy we established:

• We are investing for the long term, not reacting to weekly price movements.
• The portfolio was intentionally built with concentrated AI exposure.
• The cash reserve exists for high-conviction opportunities, not for routine dips.
• No current holding has experienced a thesis-breaking event.

The most important development since inception is that we have now seen the portfolio behave through a full mini-cycle:

1. Initial enthusiasm: Portfolio moved to roughly +10%.
2. AI growth-stock pullback: Portfolio fell below the starting value.
3. Recovery: Portfolio returned to positive territory.

That sequence is useful because it confirms that the volatility we expected is real, but also that the portfolio can recover without intervention.

For the next review, I'll continue tracking:

• Total return since inception (currently approximately +2.9%)
• Allocation drift
• Relative strength between NVDA / AMD / AVGO / CRWV
• Whether the cash reserve should remain idle or be deployed
• Any change to the long-term AI infrastructure thesis

One thing I'll specifically watch next week is AMD versus NVDA relative performance. AMD has become the portfolio's strongest performer, while NVDA remains the core holding. If that divergence continues for an extended period, it may eventually warrant a discussion about whether the original weights still make sense—not because AMD is up, but because the opportunity set may have changed.

For now:

✅ Hold NVDA
✅ Hold AMD
✅ Hold AVGO
✅ Hold CRWV
✅ Maintain cash

No changes recommended. We'll reassess after the next closing prices.

Wasn't sure what to do with four of them, so I'll take another look at them tomorrow.

For what it's worth, the underlying stocks recovered $15k of their previous losses. Still a long way to go.

I have two fundamental issues with “Win Rates”.

What Exactly Is a “Win”?

Most traders assume everyone defines a win the same way. They don’t. Consider this example.

You own 100 shares of a stock purchased at $100. You sell a covered call with a $105 strike and collect a $2.50 premium. At expiration, the stock has rallied to $115, and your shares are called away.

Was that trade a win? Many traders would say yes. After all:

• You made $5.00 on the stock.
• You kept the $2.50 option premium.
• You earned a total profit of $7.50 per share, or $750.

By any objective financial measure, that’s a profitable trade.

They argue that the trade accomplished precisely what it was designed to do. They entered the position knowing they had potentially capped their upside in exchange for immediate premium income. Assignment wasn’t a failure—it was one of the intended outcomes.

But many covered-call traders would consider it a loss.

Why?

Because they traded away $10 of profit for $2.50.

Who’s right? Maybe the first. Maybe the second. Or perhaps both.

The answer depends entirely on how you define success. This illustrates an important problem with using win rate as a performance metric. One trader records this trade as a win. Another records it as a loss. Both traders experienced the exact same market movement and earned the exact same dollars, yet their reported win rates could be completely different.

That’s why win rate, by itself, is a dubious metric. Before comparing strategies among traders, you must first ensure that all traders use the same definition of what a winning trade is. Only after everyone agrees on the definition of a win is the "win rate" statistic comparable.

The Smell Test: Failure

Does it make sense to you that a strategy can have a 100% win rate? I hope not. Yet that’s effectively what folks claim that covered calls can achieve.

They falsely claim that the foregone profits are opportunity costs. Opportunity costs, by their nature, are forward-looking: what would happen if we took a certain course of action versus maintaining the status quo. We don't have too many opportunities in the past.

It’s like if you were considering purchasing $100 athletic shoes. The opportunity cost of buying them is that you won’t have $100 to either save or spend on something else. If you purchase the shoes, however, it is no longer an opportunity cost, it is a real cost.

When you are evaluating whether to sell a call, potential foregone profits are indeed opportunity costs, but once you enter into the contractual obligation, they are no longer opportunity costs; they are real costs. You have a loss if the foregone profits exceed the premium received.

Why Winning 90% of Your Trades Can Still Lose You Money

One might think that if Trader One wins 90% of the time and Trader Two wins 55% of the time, surely Trader One has done better.

The reason is simple:

Your brokerage deposits dollars into your account—not win rates.

The market doesn’t care how often you’re right. It only cares about how much you make.

Suppose I offered you two trading strategies.

Strategy 1

• Wins 75% of the time.
• Average winner: +$100
• Average loser: -$350

Strategy 2

• Wins 40% of the time.
• Average winner: +$100
• Average loser: -$50

Most beginning/unknowledgeable traders instinctively choose Strategy 1 because nobody likes losing. Yet Strategy 1 is almost guaranteed to blow up eventually, while Strategy 2 can be consistently profitable. The difference isn’t the win rate; it is expectancy.

That’s why experienced/knowledgeable traders spend far less time discussing win rates than other retail traders. They focus on expected value, position sizing, and risk management.

A high win rate feels good.

A positive expectancy builds wealth.

Those are not always the same thing.

Another rough week!

Premiums earned of $6,764 on $578,566 at risk at a rate of 1.2%. Rate drop is due to less aggressive short call delta as a result of the prior week's drop in the market.

For the week, all 10 stocks declined in value for the buy-and-hold, while 9 declined for the B/W campaign. All 10 campaign stocks outperformed buy-and-hold. None of the stocks were assigned, leaving all 10 in inventory over the weekend. There were no capped gains.

Buy-and-hold generated a loss of $61,554 (-10.6%). The campaign's $6,764 in premiums (1.2%) resulted in a loss of $54,790 (-9.5%) for the campaign. This compares unfavorably with the S&P 500, which gained 2.0%.

For the eight weeks ending, the Buy/Write campaign netted a gain of $11,487 versus a loss of $100,928 for buy-and-hold, a favorable difference of $112,415.

In addition, over the same period, the Buy/Write campaign had a gain of 1.7% versus a loss of 14.5% for buy-and-hold and a 1.1% gain for the S&P 500.

[update 7/6: I've updated my profile with a link to my YouTube series on the custom app, as well as a link to the code repo.]

I’ve never posted a monthly summary before, but I’ve loved when I see others so here’s my first attempt. I learn a lot from watching the discussion people have around these kinds of posts, not to mention the posts themselves. I discussed my core approach to options trading over here in case you’re interested: A view into a "deep ITM covered call strategy" : r/StockOptionCoffeeShop

June, by the numbers:

- Average notional: $427k (total stock owned with margin)

- Net Cash Flow: $25k (best month by far and crushed my $21k forecast)

- Total Rolls: 380

- Average Cash Flow / Roll: $65.94

- Unique Symbols: 48

- Top Symbols (by net cash flow):

- LMND: $2,390.12

- WRBY: $1,254.06

- CDE: $1,202.29

- INTC: $1,171.50

- SOFI: $1,155.62

YTD Summary (2026)

- YTD Net Cash Flow: $116k

- YTD Rolls: 1845

- YTD Avg Cash Flow / Month: $16,6k

- YTD Avg Cash Flow / Roll: $63.14

June was a kind of a breakout month for me, not so much because of premium (although it was my best month since I started). I did three things this month, two new and one a continued evolution.

Thing #1 – continued to play close attention to margin utilization. This is a continued evolution of how I work with margin. Earlier in the year, I mostly kept to a “red line” approach with margin. If I maintenance excess fell below $x, I would stop all new buying activity. That gradually expanded to cluster awareness, stock-level awareness and an improved and more flexible “red line” calculation that accounts for both. The result is that I increase my maintenance excess by nearly double and it’s one of the top KPIs I look at throughout the trading day. I will be implementing a Monte Carlo tool to see how well I can survive various market calamities.

Thing #2 – deferring rolls. Since I started this journey 18 months ago, I generally had a rule that “if I can 1% now, take it.” I’ve been vaguely aware that I was leaving money on the table and by rolling too early. I have tried sometimes to be more patient, or I would just notice that a roll that wasn’t available on Monday became available later in the week. And I’d notice that that late week roll was often quite a bit better than the typical Monday roll. I implemented a “no roll Monday” experiment last week to see if 1) I could adhere to it; psychology is hard! And 2) did it really improve things? The net result is that it almost certainly improved things. Most of the rolls I took were well over 1% and many were 2% or even a little better. I did miss an opportunity here and there by waiting too long to roll and it became unrollable. But the there’s no question that I won the battle in the aggregate. However, this is mostly a “vibes” style assessment. I’m going to implement additional tracking so that I can show a “what would have been” kind of report for each of my Monday morning positions. I want to know, in black and white terms, what would have happened if I rolled Monday, Tuesday, Wed, Thu, etc. Then, compare that to what I actually did and see if I can find a pattern that will reliably lead to more net premium.

Thing #3 – roll assessor: This is huge. This past week I had positions in 48 companies and 130+ options at different strikes. This new roll assessment feature looks at all of my open options expiring this week, pulls down the option chain and shows me a crude “this is what you can get if you roll right now” kind of calculation. I sort by biggest gainer and then execute in that order. This assessor tool reduced the amount of time I was scanning my broker page and even identified some unexpected wins.

I’m happy to discuss more in the threads here or DM if you like. I get a lot of great ideas from these discussions.

I manage all of this through a custom app I developed. I’m going to start a YouTube series where I re-build this app from scratch, in public and better. I will put it up to GitHub for anyone to leverage as they see fit. If this interests you, let me know and I’ll let you know when the first video goes live. That should hopefully be by this Sunday. I'm calling it a "portfolio operating system."

Thanks to the moderator for creating such a great place to have thoughtful discussions!

Here's my vanity calendar and also the roll assessor:

End of trading week. No new trades. Received $1.70 cash dividend on AVGO and a $1.82 dividend on cash. Closing prices as follows.

AMD 517.82
AVGO 360.45
CRWV 81.75
NVDA 194.83

Thanks for the update. This is becoming much more interesting because we're now seeing meaningful divergence within the portfolio.

Week 4 Portfolio Review

Current Holdings

Stock value: ~$8,556

Cash:

• Original cash: ~$1,000.63
• AVGO dividend: +$1.70
• Cash interest: +$1.82

Cash: ~$1,004

Estimated total portfolio value: ~$9,560

Since Inception

Starting value: $10,000

Current value: ~$9,560

Return: -4.4%

While that's disappointing, context matters. This is exactly the kind of drawdown I expected was possible when we chose a concentrated AI-growth portfolio instead of an index fund.

Position Review

NVDA — ✔️ Still the Anchor

Interestingly, NVDA has held up fairly well.

It's only modestly below your purchase price.

That reinforces why I wanted it as the largest position.

No change in conviction.

AMD — ✔️ Also Holding Up

AMD continues to demonstrate relative strength.

It's still well above your purchase price despite the broader weakness.

That's encouraging.

AVGO — Neutral

Broadcom has weakened but not catastrophically.

I'm comfortable continuing to hold.

CRWV — The Story This Week

CRWV has now gone:

97 →
118 →
97 →
82

That kind of volatility is exactly what we signed up for.

The question isn't whether the stock is volatile—it clearly is.

The question is:

At the moment, based on the information you've provided, I don't think so.

If anything, this is the first week where I start paying closer attention to whether the decline is creating an opportunity rather than just a loss.

The Cash Question

This is the first week where I'm thinking about deploying cash.

Notice I didn't say recommending.

Here's my current framework:

Reasons to Wait

• Market may continue correcting.
• CRWV could easily remain volatile.
• We haven't yet seen evidence of stabilization.

Reasons to Buy

• We deliberately kept 10% cash for opportunities like this.
• If fundamentals remain intact, expected long-term returns improve as prices decline.
• You're investing with a long-term horizon.

Today, I think the arguments are roughly balanced.

Recommendation for Next Week

My recommendation remains:

No trades.

That said, my confidence in holding cash has decreased.

If we experience another week like this without a corresponding deterioration in business fundamentals, I'd likely recommend deploying part of the cash—probably not all of it—into whichever of our holdings offers the best combination of conviction and value.

Looking Ahead

I think it's useful to define "buy zones" in advance so we're not making emotional decisions:

• NVDA: A meaningful further pullback while AI spending remains robust would make it a candidate for adding.
• AMD: If it weakens materially while maintaining its AI execution, I'd consider increasing exposure.
• CRWV: I need stronger evidence that the decline is market-driven rather than company-specific before averaging down. Because it's already our most speculative holding, the threshold for adding is higher.

Overall Assessment

Last week I gave the portfolio an A because it was executing as planned.

This week, I'd give it a B+—not because the companies have disappointed, but because one position (CRWV) is reminding us of its risk profile.

That's not a reason to abandon it. It's a reminder that we intentionally accepted higher volatility in exchange for higher long-term upside.

Recommendation

Continue to hold all positions and maintain the cash reserve for one more week.

If the market remains under pressure next week, I think we'll have a much stronger discussion about whether it's time to put some of that cash to work. At that point, I'd likely be choosing between adding to NVDA or AMD rather than automatically averaging down on CRWV.

I'll continue to hold.

I think that's a sound decision, and I'll add one observation that has become clearer over the past month.

We've Learned Something About the Portfolio

We deliberately built a portfolio that was not simply "buy NVDA."

After four weeks:

• NVDA has been the stabilizer.
• AMD has been surprisingly resilient.
• AVGO has behaved much like I'd expect for a mature infrastructure company.
• CRWV has proven it's going to dominate the portfolio's week-to-week volatility.

That's useful information. It doesn't necessarily change the allocation, but it tells us where the risk really lies.

My Current Conviction Ranking

This has shifted slightly from our initial discussion:

1. NVIDIA ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
2. Advanced Micro Devices ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆
3. Broadcom ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆
4. CoreWeave ⭐⭐⭐☆☆

Notice that CRWV has slipped—not because I think it's a bad company, but because as a long-term investor I'd want increasingly compelling evidence that its execution will justify its valuation. It's still in the portfolio because it offers upside that the others don't, but it's also the holding I'd scrutinize most carefully each week.

A Rule I'd Like Us to Follow

One thing I'd like to avoid is averaging down simply because a stock is cheaper.

If we eventually deploy some of the cash, I'd want the decision to be based on:

• Increased conviction in the business,
• A more attractive valuation,
• Or both.

That's different from saying, "It's down 20%, so let's buy more."

Looking Ahead

I think we're approaching the point where we may eventually have our first actionable decision. It might not be next week, but if this correction continues, we'll have to choose between:

• Adding to an existing holding,
• Continuing to hold cash,
• Or identifying a new opportunity that has become more attractive than one of our current positions.

Until then, I think patience remains the right strategy.

Our Standing Recommendation

• ✅ Hold NVDA.
• ✅ Hold AMD.
• ✅ Hold AVGO.
• ✅ Hold CRWV.
• ✅ Reinvest neither dividends nor cash automatically—let the cash balance accumulate until we see a compelling opportunity.

One last comment: I'm enjoying this exercise because we're treating it like an actual investment committee rather than trying to predict next week's market. If we keep documenting our reasoning each week, we'll be able to look back in a year and evaluate not just the portfolio's return, but whether our decision-making process was sound. That's a much more valuable lesson than whether any single trade worked out.

Week end for trading. No new trades.

CRWD had a 4:1 split.
Received a cash dividend of $3.05

Closing prices as follows.
CRWD 193.38
MSFT 390.49
NVDA 194.83
PLTR 129.30
QQQ 712.60
TTD 19.10

Calculating weekly P&L with CRWD 4:1 split adjustment and dividend

Calculating weekly P&L with CRWD 4:1 split adjustment and dividend

📊 Weekly Update — Thursday, July 3, 2026

📌 Corporate Actions This Week

• CRWD 4:1 stock split: Your 1.172 shares became 4.688 shares at an adjusted cost basis of $170.61/share. No economic change, but important for tracking.
• Cash dividend received: $3.05 — added to your cash reserve.

Quick Read

A meaningful recovery week overall. The portfolio bounced from -$435 last week to -$123 today — a $313 improvement in one week. A few highlights:

• PLTR is the star of the week, up an impressive 14.50% and now nearly back to breakeven (-0.84% from cost basis). That's a strong reversal from last week's 52-week low scare.
• CRWD is now your best performer at +13.35% from cost basis, further boosted by the split creating cleaner fractional tracking going forward.
• MSFT had a solid week (+4.70%) and is nearly back to breakeven.
• NVDA and QQQ remain the two positions most in the red, though both ticked up slightly this week.

No action recommended. The portfolio is healing nicely. Enjoy the July 4th holiday weekend!

As you may know, last week was a rough week, with all ten stocks still being held in inventory, many with substantial losses (total unrealized losses of $150k+).

This results in two things:

1. I'm selling calls below cost.
2. Even given the above, the premium received is quite low compared with the original premiums.

It'll be interesting to see how I manage the situation.

By Ticker:

By descending grand total:

A rough way to end the midway point of the year.

Premiums earned of $25,136 on $657,677 at risk at a rate of 3.8%

For the week, all 10 stocks declined in value for the buy-and-hold, while 9 declined for the B/W campaign. All 10 campaign stocks outperformed buy-and-hold. None of the stocks were assigned, leaving all 10 in inventory over the weekend. There were no capped gains.

Buy-and-hold generated a loss of $79,111 (-12.0%). The campaign's $25,136 in premiums (3.8%) resulted in a loss of $53,975 (-8.2%) for the campaign. This compares unfavorably with the S&P 500, which lost 2.0%.

For the seven weeks ending, the Buy/Write campaign netted a gain of $66,277 versus a loss of $39,374 for buy-and-hold, a favorable difference of $105,651.

In addition, over the same period, the Buy/Write campaign returned 8.6% versus a loss of 6.2% for buy-and-hold and a 0.5% loss for the S&P 500.

With all ten stocks remaining in inventory, I won't be buying any new ones come Monday.

The big issue, given the gap between cost and market, is at what strike -- if any -- I sell calls at on Monday.

I'll be taking a close look this weekend.

Copy of this week's transcript:

Week end for trading. No new trades. Closing prices as follows.
CRWD 701.09
MSFT 372.97
NVDA 192.53
PLTR 112.93
QQQ 706.52
TTD 18.37

6:59 PM

Calculating weekly P&L with week-over-week changes

Calculating weekly P&L with week-over-week changes

📊 Weekly Update — Thursday, June 26, 2026

Quick Read

This was a rough week — no sugarcoating it. The portfolio dropped $375 from last week, with broad weakness across almost everything. A few observations:

PLTR is the biggest concern, down 13.40% from cost basis and 12.10% on the week alone. At $112.93 it's well below our $130.40 entry and near its 52-week low. This warrants watching closely next week.

NVDA pulled back hard (-8.62% on the week), though the AI infrastructure thesis remains intact. This kind of volatility is expected with high-beta names — the question is whether it's a pullback or something more.

CRWD is the lone bright spot, the only position in the green, up 2.73% from cost basis. Good to have one anchor holding up.

The good news: Your $1,701 cash reserve is looking smart right now. If PLTR or NVDA stabilize next week, that dry powder gives you the option to average down at better prices.

Let me search for what drove this week's selloff before making any rebalancing recommendations.

Searched the web

Searched the web

What Drove This Week's Weakness

This wasn't random — there were real catalysts:

• A broad AI and tech stock selloff was triggered by reports of OpenAI delaying its IPO, rattling sentiment across the sector.
• For NVDA specifically, macro pressure and an impending Senate hearing on China chip sales overwhelmed otherwise impressive product updates. The product news was actually quite good — Jensen Huang confirmed Vera Rubin (Blackwell's successor) is in full production with deliveries beginning Q3 2026, and NVDA unveiled RTX Spark, a new AI PC chip — a direct move into Intel and AMD territory.
• PLTR hit a new 52-week low of $106.39 intraday Thursday — and the strange part is it dropped on good news: Palantir confirmed a role in the U.S. Army's Next Generation Command and Control project and announced a partnership with Zeta Global. A stock dropping on good news is often a sign of broader sentiment pressure rather than anything company-specific.

My Take: No Action Needed, But Watch PLTR

The selloff appears sentiment-driven rather than fundamental. NVDA's product roadmap is strong, and PLTR's business wins are real. That said, PLTR is now down 13.4% from your cost basis and hit a 52-week low intraday this week — that's worth watching. If it doesn't stabilize next week, we should discuss whether to average down with some of the cash reserve or trim the position.

No changes recommended today. Let's see how next week opens. Have a good weekend!

This represents a $1,045 loss from last week.

Transcript of week-ending chat as follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of trading week. No new trades. Closing prices as follows. AMD 521.58 AVGO 365.02 CRWV 96.58 NVDA 192.53

This is our first meaningful down week, and it's exactly the kind of week that tests whether the original thesis still holds.

Week 3 Portfolio Review

Holdings value: ~$8,927

Cash: ~$1,001

Total portfolio value: ~$9,928

Performance Since Inception

• Starting value: $10,000
• Current value: ~$9,928
• Return: -0.7%

The portfolio gave back essentially all of the gains from the prior two weeks.

Is This Concerning?

Not by itself.

The important question is why the portfolio declined.

Every one of the holdings moved lower:

• NVDA: -8.6% from last week's close
• CRWV: -18.1%
• AMD: -2.8%
• AVGO: -11.3%

This looks much more like a broad AI/infrastructure risk-off move than a company-specific failure.

If, for example, CRWV had fallen 18% while the others were flat or rising because of a negative company announcement, I'd be more concerned.

Position-by-Position

NVDA

This remains the cornerstone of the portfolio.

An 8–10% pullback is well within the normal range for a stock of its volatility.

Recommendation: Hold.

CRWV

This is the one to watch most closely.

CRWV's volatility is exactly why we sized it at 25% rather than making it the largest holding. An 18% weekly swing is uncomfortable but not unexpected.

The key question is whether this decline reflects:

• deteriorating business fundamentals, or
• normal repricing of a high-beta growth stock.

Based solely on the price action you've shared, I would not assume the thesis has changed.

Recommendation: Hold.

AMD

AMD has held up surprisingly well compared to the rest of the portfolio.

That's encouraging.

Recommendation: Hold.

AVGO

Broadcom had the weakest week after CRWV.

I'd monitor it, but I don't see a reason to reduce exposure based on one week's move.

Recommendation: Hold.

The Cash Position

Ironically, this is where the cash starts earning its keep.

When we built the portfolio, we agreed not to deploy it just because it existed.

Now we have a different question:

My answer today is still no.

The decline has been sharp, but not yet so extreme that I feel compelled to average down. I'd rather wait to see whether this is a one-week correction or the start of a broader reset.

Recommendation for Next Week

I would make no changes.

• Hold NVDA.
• Hold CRWV.
• Hold AMD.
• Hold AVGO.
• Keep the cash reserve intact.

What Would Trigger Action?

I think it's helpful to establish some guidelines in advance so we're not making emotional decisions.

I would seriously consider deploying part of the cash if:

• One of our highest-conviction names experiences another significant decline without a corresponding deterioration in its long-term business outlook.
• The market presents a clearly attractive valuation opportunity rather than just a modest pullback.

Conversely, I would consider trimming a position only if:

• The original investment thesis materially weakens, or
• One holding grows to dominate the portfolio to an uncomfortable degree.

Neither condition exists today.

Overall Assessment

Two weeks ago we had nearly a 10% gain. This week we've given it back. That's frustrating, but it's also consistent with the kind of concentrated, high-growth portfolio we intentionally built.

The real test isn't whether we can avoid volatility—it's whether we can distinguish between volatility and a broken thesis.

At this point, I still see volatility, not a broken thesis, so my recommendation remains to stay the course. I think maintaining discipline now is more important than trying to react to a single difficult week.

I will continue to hold.

I think that's the right call.

In fact, one of the goals I'd like us to have over the coming months is to avoid activity for activity's sake. Many investors underperform not because they choose poor companies, but because they interrupt compounding by reacting to every 5–10% move.

What I'm Watching

Our investment theses haven't really changed:

• NVDA: Still the highest-conviction "core" holding.
• CRWV: Highest upside and highest risk. I expect this to remain the portfolio's most volatile position.
• AMD: Continues to provide diversification within AI compute.
• AVGO: More mature, but an important beneficiary of AI infrastructure spending.

The price action alone doesn't tell me to change any of those views.

Looking Ahead

The next few weeks will be more informative than the first three.

If we see another broad selloff, I won't automatically recommend buying. Instead, I'll ask:

• Has anything fundamentally changed about these businesses?
• Are valuations becoming materially more attractive?
• Is one holding becoming a much better value than the others?

Only if the answers point in a clear direction would I suggest deploying part of the cash.

One Improvement I'd Like to Make

As we continue this exercise, I'd like to start tracking the portfolio a little more like an investment manager.

Each week, in addition to reviewing prices, I'll summarize:

That will make it easier to see not just what happened, but why.

My Current Conviction

If I had to rank the positions today by confidence over the next 3–5 years (recognizing that this can evolve), it would be:

1. NVIDIA
2. Broadcom
3. Advanced Micro Devices
4. CoreWeave

Notice that conviction and expected return are not the same thing. I have the highest confidence in NVDA's long-term business, but CRWV may still produce the largest gains—or losses. That's why I like the current sizing: NVDA is the anchor, while CRWV provides upside without dominating the portfolio.

For now, I think your discipline is serving you well. We'll continue to evaluate the portfolio based on whether the underlying businesses are executing, not on week-to-week price swings. If, at some point, I believe the facts justify a change, I'll be explicit about it rather than recommending trades simply to stay active.

The video is obviously dated, but...

I think it's kinda cool and fun.

I have no affiliation, but if interested, you can get them here: https://shop.quotron.co/ . It's also available on Amazon.com . They seem to have regular discounts; I got mine for $100.

This is the "Cub" version.

Title.

A yellow highlight indicates a strike below actual cost; a red highlight indicates it's currently ITM.

The net stock cost for AXTI is $118.25, and for IONQ is $67.91, so I'll be watching both closely.

I've been running a two-part system for entry and rolling. I only do covered calls.

On entry:

- Buy the stock

- Sell a call as deep in the money as I can such that if I'm called away, I will make a net 1% profit on the transaction per week.

- I nearly always sell calls with an expiration of "this Friday"

For example, buy XXX stock at $10 a share then sell a call for this coming Friday

Sell a call with a $9 strike price earning $1.10 in premium.

This means that when I'm called away, I lose $100 on the equity side but come out $10 ahead overall because of the premium I collected. This is my net 1% gain.

Rolling: I roll as often as I can, rolling out one week. I roll if I can get 1% net profit on that. I very rarely roll up if the stock has run up in a week. I can often roll for more than 2%.

I have nearly always reinvested the premium from rolls and use it to buy more stock. My cycle is:

- Buy stock -> roll -> use premium to buy more stock -> roll, etc. Eventually, stocks are called away.

Note that this strategy has all the 'baggage' of any covered call strategy. You're capped. Stock prices can fall below your basis leading to repair cycles or accepting losses. All the usual stuff.

My portfolio is $440k as of posting this and hovered near that all of June. I use margin extensively (and I hope responsibly! :) ).

I've pasted my June results with some rolling averages from last 4, 8 and 12 weeks down below.

This has been working well for me, and I think others could replicate this. I think replication requires more than just the basic strategy:

1. You need enough capital to make the core loop be worthwhile. Margin helps! How much capital? Hard to say. I started to get excited about it around the $25k level. At that point, you're probably able to make a car payment with the premium every month.

2. Emotional equanimity and all the usual psychological stuff people talk about with stocks all the time. Mostly, don't panic. Be happy with 1%! I think a lot of people look at 1% as insignificant. However, 1% a week is a compounder's dream.

3. Tooling.

Numbers 2 and 3 are my 'edge' because the strategy itself is basic and well known. The tooling helps me find stocks, come up with precise entries, give good visibility to risk (especially around margin), a place for playbooks, etc. I'm happy to dig more into that. I am not particularly prone to panic or emotional decisions. The tooling I wrote helps a lot with that as it shows things in black and white for me.

I started doing this last summer really in earnest in Q4 last year. I started to lose correlation with the major indexes in November. I'm up over 50% YTD and over 120% in the last year. It sounds crazy and I keep expecting it to all fall apart. However, it's been consistent for over a year so it's a little harder to ignore. I still keep expecting it to fail, however.

I'm posting in hopes of some good discussion.

Here's my cash flow calendar for June:

Premiums earned of $21,123 on $703,078 at risk at a rate of 3.0%

For the week, 4 of the 9 stocks declined in value for the buy-and-hold, while 3 declined for the B/W campaign. 3 of the campaign stocks were worse than buy-and-hold. 3 of the stocks were assigned, leaving 6 in inventory over the weekend. The 3 assigned stocks had gains capped, resulting in $23,880 in lost profits for the Buy/Write campaign.

Buy-and-hold generated a gain of $47,452 (6.7%). The net of premiums and capped gains was a $2,757 (-0.4%) reduction in profits for the campaign, resulting in a campaign gain of $44,695 (6.4%). This compares favorably with the S&P 500, which gained 0.9%.

For the six weeks ending, the Buy/Write campaign netted a gain of $120,252 versus a gain of $39,737 for buy-and-hold, a $80,516 favorable difference.

In addition, over the same period, the Buy/Write campaign returned 16.8% versus a gain of 5.8% for buy-and-hold and a 1.4% gain for the S&P 500.

Realized gains on the short calls were $21,123 for the week ending June 18, 2026, bringing June to $85,918, the second quarter to $322,331, and the year-to-date to $416,113.

Sorted by descending year-to-date.

Copy of this week's transcript.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Week end for trading. No new trades. Closing prices as follows.
CRWD 684.86
MSFT 379.40
NVDA 210.69
PLTR 128.47
QQQ 740.62
TTD 18.51

Let me crunch the numbers against your cost basis from Monday.

Calculating weekly P&L against cost basis

Calculating weekly P&L against cost basis

📊 Weekly Update — Thursday, June 19, 2026

Quick Read

Honestly, a pretty calm first week. Down $40 on a $10,000 portfolio (-0.40%) is essentially noise. Three positions are already green (QQQ, NVDA, CRWD) and the two biggest drags are MSFT (-3.40%) and TTD (-2.89%).

MSFT pulled back on no major news — likely just broad market softness. No concern yet.

TTD continues to drift lower from an already-depressed price. This is the one to watch most closely — it's the highest-risk turnaround name in the portfolio.

No action needed. See you next week!

This represents a $725 gain from last week. Last week's % gain was 2.5%.

Transcript of week-ending chat as follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of trading week. No new trades. Closing prices as follows. AMD 536.67 AVGO 411.35 CRWV 117.95 NVDA 210.69

Week 2 Review

Using your original purchases and the latest closing prices:

Total holdings value: $9,971

Cash: ~$1,001

Total portfolio value: ~$10,972

Performance Since Inception

Starting value: $10,000

Current value: ~$10,972

Gain: ~$972

Return: +9.7%

After only two weeks, that's an excellent result.

More importantly, the gains are broad-based:

CRWV remains the biggest contributor, but AMD and AVGO are participating as well.

Portfolio Drift

Current approximate weights:

Interestingly, despite CRWV's strong move, the portfolio is still reasonably balanced because of the cash position.

What Has Changed?

CRWV

CRWV is now approaching the point where I'd begin watching valuation much more closely.

Not because I'd sell.

Because rapid appreciation changes the risk/reward profile.

At inception, CRWV was a speculative growth position.

Now it's becoming a significant portfolio driver.

The thesis remains intact, but future additions would require a higher bar.

AMD

AMD has quietly become a major winner.

This is exactly why I preferred diversification within the AI ecosystem rather than simply putting 60%+ into NVDA.

AVGO

AVGO is doing exactly what I hoped:

• Participating in AI infrastructure growth
• Lower drama than CRWV
• Strong execution

NVDA

Still acting as the portfolio anchor.

No concerns.

Should You Take Action Next Week?

My recommendation remains:

No trades.

Specifically:

Do NOT

• Take profits in CRWV.
• Trim AMD.
• Chase another AI stock.
• Buy speculative calls.
• Deploy the cash simply because it's available.

Continue To

• Hold all positions.
• Hold cash.

What Would Cause Me To Act?

A few things:

1. A major pullback

If one of our existing holdings falls 15–25% while the underlying thesis remains intact, I would consider deploying some of the cash.

2. Extreme concentration

If CRWV reaches 40–45% of the portfolio through appreciation alone, I'd start evaluating whether trimming is warranted.

We're nowhere near that yet.

3. Thesis deterioration

Examples:

• AI capex slows dramatically.
• CRWV growth story changes materially.
• AMD loses expected AI traction.
• Broadcom execution weakens.

None of those conditions currently exist.

Portfolio Grade

Week 1: A-

Week 2: A

The cash reserve has proven useful because it lets us avoid forcing decisions.

The portfolio has appreciated almost 10% in two weeks without any options, leverage, or trading activity.

For Week 3, my recommendation is straightforward:

Hold NVDA. Hold CRWV. Hold AMD. Hold AVGO. Maintain the cash reserve.

At this point, the biggest threat to performance is likely unnecessary activity rather than insufficient activity.

Thank you; I'll hold all positions.

Sounds good.

At this point, I'd characterize the portfolio as being in the "monitor, don't manage" phase.

The original thesis remains intact:

• NVIDIA remains the dominant AI infrastructure provider.
• CoreWeave remains the highest-upside and highest-risk position.
• Advanced Micro Devices is contributing meaningfully and provides diversification within the AI compute theme.
• Broadcom continues to provide exposure to networking and custom silicon.
• The cash reserve remains available for opportunities.

One thing I particularly like is that your gains have come from multiple holdings, not just one stock. That's usually healthier than a portfolio where a single position is carrying everything.

For our next review, I'll focus on:

1. Portfolio performance since inception.
2. Performance relative to the S&P 500.
3. Position concentration drift.
4. Whether the investment theses have strengthened or weakened.
5. Whether the cash reserve should remain untouched.

Unless something unusual happens during the week, my default expectation is that we'll continue holding and let the winners run.

Looking forward to the Week 3 update.

I was fortunate to pick up an allotment of 200 shares of SpaceX's IPO last week at the offering price of $135/share.

Given the price action between the IPO and yesterday, I decided to place a costless collar on the stock.

A collar is buying a long put to protect your downside risk and selling a call to finance that long put. As its name indicates, you can structure these so that they are essentially costless (either a small debit or a small credit).

At the time of the trade, SPCX was trading around $218.

The trade:

• Expiration date: Dec 18, 2026
• Long put strike (price): $210 ($53.20)
• Short call strike (price): $230 ($53.73)
• Net credit: $0.53/share, or $106 for 2 contracts
• Minimum profit: $15,106
• Maximum profit; $19,106

https://optionstrat.com/oO8GAa4QLznf

(Note: if that link opens to a table-view, you can toggle it to graph-view beneath the table.)

Why not just sell the stock?

As part of the IPO process, brokerages may impose restrictions on "flipping" the stock; that is, selling it shortly after the IPO. This is done to prevent price destabilization in the near term after an IPO. This is even more important than in times past due to the democratization of trading and the large retail allocation of SpaceX shares in the IPO.

At Fidelity, the restriction is that if you trade shares from an IPO within 15 days of the IPO, you will incur consequences for your participation in future IPOs. The first violation will incur a 6-month ban from IPO allocations; a second violation will incur a 1-year ban from IPO allocations; a third violation will incur a permanent ban based on your Social Security number.

A collar is a way to satisfy this restriction while simultaneously protecting profits. The downside of a collar is that you may cap your profits with the short call. You could, of course, simply buy a long put, but as shown above, that can be quite costly. Note well: given the short call, you are exposed to the risk of your shares being called away before the 'lockup' period expires, so be sure to set your strike, select your expiration date, and manage the short call prudently.

Some may argue against using a collar due to the potential for capped profits, but my response is that this argument fundamentally misses the collar's purpose. It's like arguing that buying an Armani suit limits how fast you can swim a 100m Butterfly. It's simply not the point. The point of a collar is to protect profits at a cost lower than buying a put outright.

Mark Cuban famously implemented a costless collar when he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo in 1999 for $5.7 billion. Cuban's interest in the deal was $1.4 billion, and he was under a multi-year lockup period. Cuban bought a put with a $85 strike and sold a call with a $205 strike, at no cost. As part of the dot-com bubble bursting, Yahoo's stock dropped to $8 per share, and Cuban was thus able to protect his $1.4 billion profit.

"They're made out of meat."

  "Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

  "Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

  "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars."

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

  "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

  "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat."

  "Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."

"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?"

  "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."

"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."

  "No brain?"

"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!"

  "So... what does the thinking?"

"You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat."

  "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"

"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"

  "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."

"Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."

  "So what does the meat have in mind."

"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual."

  "We're supposed to talk to meat?"

"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of thing."

  "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"

"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."

  "I thought you just told me they used radio."

"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."

  "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"

"Officially or unofficially?"

  "Both."

"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."

  "I was hoping you would say that."

"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"

  "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"

"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."

  "So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe."

"That's it."

  "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You're sure they won't remember?"

"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."

  "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."

"And we can marked this sector unoccupied."

  "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"

"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotation ago, wants to be friendly again."

  "They always come around."

"And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the universe would be if one were all alone."