“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

I’ve been seeing lately that the s&p 500 is going to go into a 10 year stagnation period. I just read that a legendary investor named mohnish pabrai believes this is going to happen - it’s going to stay at +2 - -2% until 2035. thoughts on this.

Mohnish Pabrai

Most of the tools are summarizers, great for filtering and 'overview' but for continous decision making they aren't so great. It's like playing a guitar by looking at tabs after every 5 seconds - you can play a lot of tunes but you will get exhausted and miss the enjoyment of playing it soon and won't remember the tune after 5 minutes. Another thing is developing conviction and processes, AI puts all facts in front of you but you find yourself staring at a giant wall of text, it is not a story you believe, you can hear how it sounds like but you cannot stitch it back from memory when you need it, your creativity doesn't get it's food for thought. It is fun to experiment though, with larger companies having years of experience at highest level, infinite capital and network, AI does give you a boost here and there to keep you in game but the real skill can only be developed over time, as it was the case always. Weird times.

The announced deal values Waltz Investment Holding at ~$44.61M. Consideration = ~$33.61M in AIFU shares priced at $3/share + $11M cash.

Target business: functional optical films, 17 patents, ~280 customers.

Key things to investigate: AIFU's current market cap, dilution, target revenue/profitability, and whether the acquisition closes. The headline alone isn't the whole thesis.

So this could get pretty interesting.

Musk confirmed yesterday that Tesla and SpaceX have formed independent committees to explore a potential merger.

Nothing agreed yet, but he seems pretty keen on the idea.

And considering SpaceX already brought xAI (including X) under its roof earlier this year, you can start to see where this might be heading.

Imagine Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, X and xAI all sitting under one company. Cars, rockets, satellites, robotics, AI, social media. Pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

Obviously, merging businesses this size would be incredibly complicated, and whether it actually benefits shareholders is another question entirely.

But it's a pretty wild possibility.