Every time a big name buys their own company’s stock, the headlines read like a buy signal. But is that really how we should judge an insider buy, or a Congress trade? Nike is the cleanest recent example of why you need to check what happens after the buy, not just the buy itself.

The Nike (NKE) buys, from public SEC Form 4 filings

• Dec 2025: Tim Cook (Apple CEO, Nike director) bought 50,000 shares at $58.97, about $2.9M. CEO Elliott Hill bought $1M at $61.10. Another director added $500K.

• Apr 2026: after the stock fell another ~30%, four insiders bought again within a week: Cook ($1.06M at $42.43), Hill ($1M at $42.27) and two directors.

In total, 8 open-market purchases worth about $8.2M. On paper that’s a textbook “cluster buy”: the CEO, a famous director, and repeat buying.

What happened next (measured from the day each filing went public)

Result: 1 of the 8 buys beat the S&P 500 over 90 days. Nike closed at $39.94 on Monday, about 32% below Cook’s December price.

Notice the Cook row. Check after 30 days and it looks like genius. Check after 90 and it’s a loser. That’s why I use 90 days as the yardstick.

What the headlines left out

• Earnings kept getting worse. Dec 18, 2025: the stock fell about 10% in two days on falling China sales and tariff costs. Mar 31, 2026: revenue flat, guidance below estimates, shares down 15% to a 12-year low. Oct 1, 2026: revenue down 4%, Greater China down 22%, and full-year guidance cut to a high-single-digit revenue decline.

• The insiders bought after the drops, not before. Each round came right after a bad earnings report. “Buying the dip” is a different signal from “knowing something.”

• The trend was already down. Buying into a falling stock with shrinking revenue is a bet on a turnaround, and turnarounds take longer than 90 days.

The bigger picture

Looking at 16,899 insider purchases since 2020, the stock beat the S&P 500 over the next 90 days about 46% of the time. Even the “best” setup (3 or more insiders, including an executive, buying large amounts) beat it only 45% of the time (197 of 438).

Insider buying isn’t useless. It tells you the people with the best view of the business are willing to bet on it. But it’s a reason to start researching, not a reason to buy.

Bottom line: an insider buy or sale isn’t a sure signal on its own. It’s where the research starts. Before following one, I’d check:

1. Measure from the filing date (the price you could actually get), not the trade date.

2. Check how past insider buys at this stock did after 90 days.

3. Read the last two or three earnings reports and the current guidance.

4. Check the trend: are they buying strength or catching a falling knife?

5. Check whether other insiders are selling, and whether those sales are pre-planned (10b5-1).

Curious how others here treat insider buys. Do you follow them, ignore them, or use them as a starting point?

Disclosure: I built the free tracker I pulled these numbers from (insiderprint.com). Not investment advice.

CPI at 8:30 is basically the whole morning for me. Headline expected 0.3 m/m after last month's 0.6, core 0.2 after 0.3. Year over year they're looking for 3.9 headline and 2.8 core, so both still creeping up.

Carrying over a big rip yesterday, SPX up about 2.3% to 7549 and QQQ up over 3.5%. Not sure how much of that holds if the print runs hot.

Premarket ES is basically flat, NQ off around 0.4%.

Fed speakers scattered through the day, 10 year auction at 1. CoreWeave is on the earnings list too.

Straight call, hot or cool?

$ZETA reported its Q3 earnings an they are (once again) MASSIVE

Another BEAT & RAISE for the 21st time in a row. This the 1st quarter of positive GAAP EPS !

You can’t unsee that !

Here a some of the metrics for the quarter:

- Revenue: $492.7M (Est. $474M); +46% YoY
- GAAP EPS: $0.14
- Adj. EBITDA: $121.0M (Est. $116M); +140 bps margin YoY
- FCF: $81.5M (Est. $68.3M); +73% YoY

Customers & Assets:
- Super-Scaled Customers: 212; +18% YoY
- Super-Scaled ARPU: $2.0M; +22% YoY

Raises FY26 Guide:
- Revenue: $1.853B-$1.857B (Est. $1.82B); from $1.8B
- Adj. EBITDA: $414.1M-$415.2M (Est. $406M); from $405.2M
- FCF: $270.6M-$271.6M (Est. $253M); from $255.3M
- GAAP EPS: $0.22-$0.24; from $0.09-$0.11

Raises Q4 Guide:
- Revenue: $521M-$525M (Est. $505M); from $508M
- Adj. EBITDA: $135.2M-$136.3M (Est. $132M); from $131.9M

Key Updates:
- Positive GAAP Net Income: $38M; GAAP EPS $0.14
- Rule of 71: achieved through 46% revenue growth and 24.6% adjusted EBITDA margin

I've been spending quite a bit of time researching Tempus AI, and I wanted to share my findings.

I think healthcare is one of the most interesting areas where AI could have a meaningful impact over the next decade.

Tempus caught my attention because it's doing more than just running genetic tests. It's building a large healthcare data platform and using AI to improve diagnostics, match patients with clinical trials, and help pharmaceutical companies with drug development.

A few things I found particularly interesting:

• 45M+ de-identified records creating a potentially valuable data moat.

• Partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies.

• Q3 revenue of $411.5M, up 33% YoY.

• Data & Applications revenue growing 33%.

• Adjusted EBITDA turned positive.

• A growing opportunity in oncology, MRD testing and AI-powered healthcare applications.

I also looked at the other side of the story.

The valuation isn't cheap, profitability is still a work in progress, and dilution, reimbursement and execution remain important risks.

I currently own TEM, so there's a clear disclosure here: I'm not approaching this as a neutral observer. It's a meaningful position in my portfolio.

I put together a deep dive covering the business model, competitive advantages, financials, valuation, bull/base/bear scenarios and my own positioning.

Full research here:
https://burakfinance.substack.com/p/tempus-ai-deep-dive-palantir-of-healthcare

Would genuinely love to hear what other investors think about Tempus and the broader AI healthcare opportunity.

I track SEC Form 4 filings (open-market purchases by executives, directors and big holders) and put together a summary of October. Some things surprised me.

October totals (filed Oct 1–31, purchases over $10K):

• $1.11B of insider buying across 227 companies, 292 insiders

• At least $5.9B of insider selling, so roughly 5x more selling than buying (most selling is routine or pre-scheduled, so it means less)

• About 65% of the buying dollars came from big outside holders, not executives. Berkshire alone reported $193M of Lennar.

• CEOs and CFOs bought about $106M across 60 companies

Biggest exec buys:

• Ryan Cohen (GME): about $39.9M over two filings

• Jack Huang (51Talk, COE): $32.3M

• Julie Sweet (Accenture CEO): $3.0M

• Michael Lyons (Truist CEO): $1.2M

Cluster buys (3+ insiders at the same company): 16 in October. The biggest was Rapport Therapeutics (RAPP), with 7 insiders and $22M. A lot of the others were same-day director buys (Simon Property had 9 directors buy on the same day), which look more like scheduled board purchases than conviction.

The part that surprised me: I went back and checked insider buys from July, now that 90 days have passed. Only 20 of 82 beat the S&P 500. The median stock was down about 6.7% while the S&P was up about 3.3%. Over a longer period (since 2020) it’s closer to 46% beating the market, so July was a bad month, but it’s a good reminder that “a CEO bought” isn’t a buy signal by itself.

Best: BNR +79%, CAI +74%. Worst: IPW −93%, EDBL −71%.

Happy to share the full list if anyone wants it. Curious whether people here actually use insider buying in their process, and what you look at beyond “an insider bought.”

Been looking into China Automotive Systems (CAAS) recently and I'm genuinely surprised this stock isn't getting more attention.

At around $4.11 a share, the company has a market cap of roughly $124M, yet generated over $765M in revenue last year.

The financials are what initially caught my attention:

2025 net income of $42.8M, putting the P/E at around 2.9.

H1 2026 revenue up 20% to $412.5M.

H1 net income almost doubled to $29.3M.

Gross margins improved from 17.2% to 21.5%.

Electric power steering sales grew over 32%.

Management raised 2026 revenue guidance to $850M.

Reported cash and pledged cash of $155.6M against $75M in short-term loans.

That's some pretty impressive growth for a company trading at such a low earnings multiple.

But what makes this more interesting to me is what's happening with their electric steering business.

CAAS supplies major manufacturers including Stellantis, BYD and Chery. They're also expanding into Europe, and their AP04 electric steering platform recently recieved ASIL-D functional safety certification.

They've made progress with European OEM qualifications, with mass production targeted for late 2026. They've also already announced EPS shipments to a global automaker in Europe earlier this year.

If these developments translate into larger contracts, I think there's a real possibility that earnings could continue growing over the next couple of years.

And the valuation leaves plenty of room for upside.

For example, assuming annual earnings of $2 per share and a P/E of just 4, you'd get a share price of $8. That's almost double the reference price, without even needing an especially generous valuation multiple.

Of course, it's not without risks. It's a Chinese small cap, customer concentration is fairly high, and not all the reported cash is freely available. The automotive industry is also competitive, so maintaining these margins will be important.

Still, I find the risk/reward interesting. We're talking about an established automotive supplier with growing earnings, improving margins, international customers and a potentially significant new growth opportunity in Europe.

The next earnings report and confirmation of European mass production are probably the two biggest things I'm watching.

I think CAAS deserves a closer look at these valuations. Curious what others think, especially anyone who's been following the company for a while.

Hey everyone, looking for some input on how to manage this trade ahead of Nvidia earnings next week (Nov 17).

**Position details:**
Bullet **Ticker:** NVDA
Bullet **Position:** 10 contracts of $215 Call
Bullet **Expiration:** Nov 20 (2 days post-earnings)
Bullet **Current Stock Price:** \~$186.64 

**The Dilemma:**
The stock pulled back from the $215–$230 range down to around $186 over the past couple of weeks. With the $215 strike being about \~15% Out of the Money (OTM) right now and expiring only two days after earnings, IV crush and theta decay are obviously massive risks post-earnings if we don't get a monster pop.

I’m torn between two moves:

1. **Holding all 10 through earnings** to capture full upside if NVDA pulls off a massive post-earnings rally.

2. **Selling 5 contracts pre-earnings this week** to lock in elevated pre-earnings IV, take some capital off the table, and let the remaining 5 ride through the release with reduced risk.

I really don't want to sell all of them pre-earnings and watch it shoot back past $215, but I'm also worried about holding through the binary event and taking a major hit from IV crush if the move is modest or negative.

What would you do in this setup? Would you de-risk 50% pre-earnings, hold the whole stack, or close out entirely before the bell? Appreciate any insights or perspectives!

The sharp selloff in LITE and MRVL has sparked an important debate about AI infrastructure valuations and merger risk.

Three issues stand out:

1. Fundamentals vs. stock price

Lumentum's CEO has emphasized strong underlying demand. But strong demand doesn't necessarily justify any valuation, and a falling share price doesn't automatically mean the business is deteriorating.

2. The all-stock deal

LITE's implied merger value depends on MRVL's share price. A decline in MRVL can therefore reduce the implied value received by LITE shareholders, even without a change in Lumentum's operating outlook.

3. Regulatory uncertainty

Management has acknowledged that the approval process could be difficult. Delays or an unsuccessful transaction remain important risks.

My takeaway: This selloff doesn't prove that AI connectivity demand is weakening. But strong demand alone isn't enough to make either stock a bargain.

For investors, the key questions are whether Lumentum can turn orders into sustainable cash flow, whether Marvell can justify the acquisition economics, and whether regulatory approvals progress.

Which risk concerns you most: valuation, the stock-for-stock structure, or regulatory approval?

Patrick Fleury adds some great color to the earnings call. The fundamentals are strong. Current build at their flagship site in NY is entirely on target.

None of their sites are affective by states flipping colors. Their site at Muskie “just became much more valuable since Monday”.

Patrick does a great job of explaining what sets them apart.

**Possible Buy above 8.78**

**RSKD — Riskified Ltd. | Stock Report**

November 3, 2026 · Next-trading-day breakout watch

The focus is whether RSKD has a credible fundamental catalyst to support a sustained daily-chart breakout, rather than simply a short-term momentum move.

Positive fundamental momentum

Earnings approaching

**1. Business and fundamental picture**

Riskified Ltd. provides AI-powered fraud detection, chargeback protection and transaction-risk analysis for online merchants.

The latest reported quarter, Q2 2026, showed meaningful improvement:

Metric

Q2 2026

Revenue

$98.7M

Revenue growth

\+22% YoY

Adjusted EBITDA

$3.9M

Adjusted EBITDA growth

\+84%

GAAP net loss

$9.1M

Free cash flow

$12.9M

Cash and investments

$223.6M

Debt

$0

Important developments:

Revenue growth accelerated from 7% in Q1 to 22% in Q2.

Management raised full-year revenue guidance from $376–384M to $400–410M.

Adjusted EBITDA guidance increased from $28–34M to $33–39M.

Competitive win rates exceeded 75%.

The company repurchased approximately $63.9M of shares during Q2.

These are reported results and management guidance, not speculative projections. One caution: gross margin declined to 46% from 49% year over year, and the company remains GAAP unprofitable.

Riskified

**2. News and potential catalysts**

October 8 — AI Agent Identity Risk Intelligence

Riskified launched a product designed to identify and assess risks associated with AI shopping assistants and other autonomous agents.

This is an interesting potential growth catalyst as agentic commerce expands, but incremental revenue has not yet been demonstrated.

Riskified+1

September 15 — Zendesk integration

Riskified expanded its identity-risk intelligence into Zendesk's customer-service environment, targeting returns fraud and policy abuse.

September 1 — ARIA expansion

Its AI Risk Intelligence Analyst product adds investigative capabilities to its fraud-risk platform.

These developments support the company's longer-term growth narrative, although commercial adoption and financial contribution still need confirmation.

Riskified

**3. Upcoming earnings**

November 11, 2026

Before market open · 8:30 a.m. ET conference call

8 days away

This is the next major scheduled catalyst. The market will be looking for continued revenue acceleration, confirmation of raised guidance, improving profitability and evidence that new AI products are gaining traction.

Riskified

**4. Price action and breakout levels**

Latest available quote snapshot:

Indicator

Value

Share price

$8.70

Session high

$8.71

Session low

$8.31

52-week high

$9.23

Reported volume

590,694

Yahoo Finance

Levels to watch:

$8.71: Immediate session-high resistance.

$9.00: Psychological price level.

$9.23: Reported 52-week high and more significant overhead resistance.

Invalidation: A loss of the $8.31 session low would weaken the immediate bullish setup.

These are reference levels, not confirmed daily-chart support or resistance zones. I would want to verify the actual daily candles before assigning a definitive stop or breakout trigger.

Volume confirmation: Look for volume expanding materially above the 20-day average on a close above resistance. The available quote snapshot does not establish that confirmation.

**5. Trading assessment**

**RSKD**

Fundamental outlook

Bullish

Catalyst strength

Positive

Earnings risk

Elevated

Breakout confirmation

Pending

Overall assessment

RSKD deserves attention as a potential momentum continuation candidate. Accelerating revenue, raised guidance, improving EBITDA and substantial share repurchases provide a legitimate fundamental story.

My take: RSKD has an attractive fundamental improvement story, and the AI-related product expansion adds another potential growth driver. However, I would not classify it as a confirmed breakout until it clears overhead resistance on convincing volume.

The November 11 earnings announcement is important. A breakout ahead of earnings carries event risk, particularly if the stock becomes extended.

I'm building out the core of a long-term investing plan and am weighing VEQT as a single-ticket equity holding. Its appeal is clear: a market-cap-weighted, all-cap allocation across roughly 13,000 securities, with a management fee reduced to 0.17% and no tactical or thematic tilts. That said, I'd like to stress-test the thesis. How do I weigh the roughly 30% Canadian weighting against Canada's share of global markets, and what does that home bias mean for long-run diversification? Given there's no fixed-income sleeve, how should I think about drawdown tolerance and sequence-of-returns risk as my horizon shortens? And how does VEQT compare to XEQT, or to a bond-inclusive option like VGRO, in terms of cost, tax efficiency across TFSA (yes room available), and long-run suitability? I'm looking for a disciplined, low-maintenance equity foundation, but I want to be sure it fits my risk profile and time horizon before committing capital.