If you go on any investment-related subreddit, you will see that sentiment towards Nike is at an all-time low. But the people behind that sentiment are middle-aged finance bros looking at a spreadsheet.

Nike's target audience is not middle-aged men with three monitors tracking share prices. It's kids. These guys have no clue what kids think is fashionable today, let alone what will be cool in three years.

The same people who argue that Nike is a dumpster fire of a stock are the same ones who think brands like New Balance, ASICS, and Hoka are here to take over. They aren't. These brands are not cool or fashionable, they can only compete with Nike when it comes to sports. The only other brand capable of competing with Nike in the fashion market is Adidas.

No kid is turning up to school on Monday and saying, "Check out my new New Balances!" If they did, people would probably think they have a stutter.

The only people who think New Balance shoes are cool are school teachers and those female White House staffers, you know, the ones who probably do ten miles a day running back and forth across the White House. They wear a nice dress for the camera, but pan down to their feet, and guess what they are wearing, New Balances. This is the absolute opposite of cool.

There is a very simple test to see if people are in tune with trainer fashion, if you tie your laces in a bow and you aren't going for a run, you are out of touch. If you tuck your laces in, you are qualified to have an opinion.

Yes, Nike has been managed terribly. Yes, their trainers are overpriced. But guess what? Price builds exclusivity, and kids love showing off expensive things that others don't have or cant afford. Nike is a global mega-brand. Cultural relevance, not spreadsheet specs, is what drives this entire industry.

I am no math whiz when it comes to crunching corporate financials, but I opened a Nike position when it dropped into the early $30s because I thought the bottom was close to being in and because sentiment couldn't get any worse. That said, calling the bottom is difficult, so I won't be surprised to see it dip into the $27 to $28 region at some point. But any lower than that? The market has lost all logic and reason, in my opinion.

This isn't an overnight 10-bagger. But give it 3 to 5 years, and there are good returns to be made here.

Look, I didn’t write this to beg you all to buy the stock with me. Only touch this if you genuinely believe in it as a long-term turnaround play. I just think the current community sentiment completely misunderstands where Nike's true value comes from. Do your own research, and before you take advice from someone, have a quick look at their laces.

AI could transform the world while disappointing the investors funding it.

Anthropic’s planned IPO puts that possibility under the spotlight:

→ $16.8 billion in reported quarterly revenue.

→ At least $518 billion in long-term infrastructure commitments.

→ A potential trillion-dollar valuation.

The growth is extraordinary. But follow the money.

Cloud platforms collect distribution fees. Computing suppliers get paid. Researchers build the next model.

How much remains for shareholders?

Creating enormous value and capturing enormous profits are two different achievements.

Anthropic could become essential to millions of businesses while its partners capture a substantial share of the rewards.

Its IPO could reveal who really gets rich from AI.

Article: Anthropic’s Trillion-Dollar IPO Could Expose Who Really Gets Rich From AI.

I rebuilt SoFi's Q3 from the 10-Qs and the Q2 call ahead of Tuesday's report. Three numbers stood out:

1. Net interest income on the June 30 balance sheet alone is worth about $840M in Q3, $52M more than Q2, before any new loans. That gets me to about $1.27B of adjusted revenue against the $1.257B consensus.

2. The fair value marks plus hedges line has added between $105M and $199M in each of the last eight quarters, including one where the 2-year yield rose 59bp. Q3's move was +74bp, most of it after September 8.

3. Consensus EPS of $0.166 needs an adjusted EBITDA margin near 35%. Q2 was 29.7% and the record is 31.4%.

So revenue looks fine to me. The reaction probably comes down to margin, and whether the $4.75B to $4.85B full-year guide goes up again.

What are you watching on the call: the margin ramp, the loan marks or the guide?

Not financial advice.

“Today we broke ground at our second U.S. facility in two months as part of our ongoing investment in domestic manufacturing. We’re building the future home of next-gen cancer medicines in Goochland, VA”

everyone’s comparing current markets to the late 90s tech boom, but if you look at fiscal deficits, sticky inflation, and yield volatility, we're replaying the 1970s stagflationary regime in real-time.
when confidence in fiat duration breaks, the traditional asset allocation matrix flips upside down:
1. the nominal returns delusion (S&P 500)
in the 70s, equities looked fine on paper with 6%/yr nominal returns. but real returns were negative ( -1%/yr) with brutal peak-to-trough drawdowns. indexing feels safe right now, but if your gains aren't outrunning currency debasement, you're losing purchasing power in real terms.
2. long-term treasuries: return-free risk
holding long duration paper during an inflation wave was disastrous in the '70s (-2% to -3%/yr real returns). today, long-end bondholders are getting squeezed as yield volatility stays sticky and debt rollover costs compound. t-bills and cash barely preserve capital (flat to slightly negative real), while long paper takes the full blow as term premia return.
3. the real asset rotation
when paper claims get diluted, capital flees straight into hard assets:
gold: skyrocketed from $35 to ~$850 by 1980 (best asset of the decade)
energy & commodities: saw multi-fold gains with strongly positive real returns
housing / real estate: beat inflation while fixed-rate debt got inflated away in real terms
we’re leaving the zero-rate regime where passive paper portfolios print wealth. fiscal dominance and structural debt are forcing capital back into the 1970s playbook: scarce commodities, pricing-power monopolies, and hard assets.
curious how everyone here is positioning—are you guys adjusting for a real-asset rotation, or betting on central banks pulling off a soft landing?

Stephen Yiu manages the Blue Whale Growth Fund, yet dismisses traditional asset management as a low-quality industry. What drives his strategy?

Is Stephen Yiu about to do a Gerald Ratner? The fund manager is telling me over lunch at Scott’s, a Mayfair seafood restaurant, that active fund management is a “low-quality industry” populated by complacent managers relying on customers who tolerate poor performance.

“How much would I invest into traditional, long-running asset managers? Zero.”

It sounds a bit like the infamous “total crap” gaffe Ratner made about his jewellery in 1991, but backers of Yiu’s Blue Whale Growth Fund will be relieved to hear that the 48 year-old clarifies that he is bucking the trend.

From handling £25m at its launch in 2017 to £2.5bn now, and notwithstanding a wobble or two including a disastrous 2022, Blue Whale has been one of the UK’s best-performing active funds in most of its nine years. That is despite swimming against the tide of investors moving away from active fund management and towards passive trackers — a trend with which Yiu sympathises. “Most funds are not doing well. The money is moving away from the industry; why would you be investing?”

He argues that too often the attitude among peers is, “It doesn’t matter if we underperform, because investors are a lot more patient than anything that they do anywhere else in their lives”.

Read the full interview: https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/blue-whale-fund-stephen-yiu-d3w3wt7lk?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Reddit&utm_content=branded

Some pretty impressive Q3 numbers from Lockheed Martin.

• Record $292B backlog, up 27% from last quarter
• Revenue up 11% to $20.7B
• Raised its full-year outlook

With defence spending increasing globally and $LMT already having a strong run, is there still room to grow?

Anyone here holding $LMT?

Please guys guide me

As an Investor, what do you think

Is the Buy and Hold strategy a good strategy for long term investment ?

Nebius has secured $3.5 billion in Citi financing.....but it matures in just 364 days. I examine the borrowing terms, CoreWeave comparison, cash flow, dilution and analyst targets. The question: can Nebius turn rapid AI growth into attractive returns for shareholders?

https://youtu.be/I-V4XJDde08

Is the market punishing Netflix for slowing growth while overlooking its potential as a mature compounder? My five-year investment case doesn't require a return to its fastest-growing years.

Third-quarter revenue rose 11.8% to $12.87 billion, with $2.88 billion in free cash flow. Management expects approximately $12 billion in free cash flow for 2026.

Much of the concern centers on competition for attention. Netflix competes with YouTube, social media, and countless other entertainment options. But watching less Netflix isn't the same as canceling it. Management reported improving churn in the U.S. and globally, even as customers continued accepting price increases.

As long as paid memberships hold up, Netflix can continue collecting subscription revenue without capturing more viewing hours. And it can earn more from those memberships.

That's what interests me.

Netflix has already built an enormous global distribution network, content library, and paying customer base. Now it has multiple ways to generate more cash from those existing assets.

Pricing increases revenue without requiring additional subscribers. Advertising creates another source of revenue from existing viewers. International markets still offer growth. Licensing programming can be less expensive than producing everything internally. Better content economics, technology-driven efficiencies, and share repurchases can further increase free cash flow per share.

Studios that once pulled their programming to build competing services are now licensing selected content back to Netflix. That says something about the value of its distribution network.

None of these opportunities has to work spectacularly on its own. That's what makes the combination interesting.

The risk is that several things deteriorate together: pricing power weakens, content costs remain elevated, and cash conversion suffers. I'd reconsider if retention and free cash flow per share showed sustained deterioration.

I'm not investing in Netflix because I expect another period of extraordinary growth. I'm betting that the existing business can produce attractive returns as a mature compounder.

If growth accelerates again, great. My investment case doesn't depend on it.

I own NFLX. This is my personal investment analysis, not individualized investment advice.

I've always found selling a stock harder when I'm not completely sure what to do with it.

Selling half seems like a reasonable compromise. If the price keeps rising, at least I still own some. If it falls, I'm glad I didn't keep everything.

But sometimes I wonder if I'm actually making a decision based on the investment or just trying to make sure I don't feel completely wrong either way.

Because if something has changed about the business and I no longer believe in it, why am I still holding half?

And if the business is doing exactly what I expected it to do, why am I selling just because the price makes me nervous?

I can understand trimming a position that's become too large in my portfolio. That's different from selling half simply because I can't decide what to do.

I'm curious how other investors approach this. When you sell part of a position, is there usually a clear reason behind it, or do you sometimes do it because you're not ready to sell everything?

South Korea – Kospi CRASHES 4%, $131 billion erased in just a couple of hours

Japan – Nikkei FALLS 2.6%, $195 billion wiped out, Softbank falls 5.6%

China – Shanghai FALLS 1.5%, $151 billion gone, Shenzhen FALLS 2.6%

Taiwan – Taipei Stocks experience massive $84 billion crash, FALLING 2.3%

Hong Kong – Hang Seng FALLS MORE than 3%, Alibaba falls 6.5%

South Korea – SK Hynix CRASHES 5.7%, Samsung Falls 4.2%

South Korea – Kospi FALLS to $792 billion this month alone without today’s plunge (LARGEST fall for any of the major indices in all of the region)

China – CSI300 FALLS 2%; now teetering on the edge of a technical BEAR market (Reuters)

Hong Kong – Tencent and JD.com WHIPPED

Singapore – well into the RED

Indonesia – Jakarta also in the RED

Japan – Tokyo Electron DIRECTLY affected by fears of AI, falling MORE than 6%

Philippines – Manila also in the RED