In this post, I had this section for the overall P&L.
Here is the current P&L by ticker. I had mentioned that only APLD and IONQ were at a net loss at the moment.
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
| Ticker | Shares | Adj. Cost | Cost Basis | Mkt Value | G/L $ | G/L % | Wk Chg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QQQ | 4.077 | $735.75 | $2,999.65 | $2,957.90 | -$41.75 | -1.39% | +1.81% |
| NVDA | 8.587 | $209.61 | $1,799.92 | $1,811.51 | +$11.59 | +0.64% | +8.28% |
| MSFT | 2.800 | $392.75 | $1,099.70 | $1,078.28 | -$21.42 | -1.95% | -1.38% |
| CRWD | 4.688 | $170.61 | $799.82 | $877.50 | +$77.68 | +9.71% | -3.21% |
| PLTR | 6.135 | $130.40 | $800.00 | $777.86 | -$22.15 | -2.77% | -1.94% |
| TTD | 41.978 | $19.06 | $800.10 | $819.83 | +$19.73 | +2.47% | +2.25% |
| TOTAL | $8,299.20 | $8,322.88 | +$23.69 | +0.29% | |||
| Cash | $1,707.37 | ||||||
| Portfolio Total | $10,030.25 | +$30.25 | +0.30% |
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
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:
| Holding | Shares | Closing Price | Market Value | Gain/Loss vs. Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA | 17.026 | $210.96 | ~$3,591 | +~$91 |
| CoreWeave | 25.745 | $88.88 | ~$2,288 | -~$212 |
| Advanced Micro Devices | 4.237 | $557.89 | ~$2,363 | +~$363 |
| Broadcom | 2.609 | $399.97 | ~$1,044 | +~$44 |
Stock holdings: ~$9,286
Cash:
Cash balance: ~$1,004
Total portfolio value: ~$10,290
Initial portfolio: $10,000
Current value: ~$10,290
Return: +2.9%
After five weeks, we have experienced:
That is exactly what we should expect from a concentrated growth portfolio.
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.
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.
CRWV recovered from $81.75 to $88.88, but it remains below your entry price.
Current:
This is the position I continue to watch most closely.
The positive:
The concern:
At this point, I still would not sell.
However, I also would not automatically average down yet.
Approximate weights:
| Position | Weight |
|---|---|
| NVDA | 34.9% |
| CRWV | 22.2% |
| AMD | 23.0% |
| AVGO | 10.1% |
| Cash | 9.8% |
The portfolio has actually become slightly less risky because CRWV has fallen and NVDA/AMD have appreciated.
I would make no changes.
Specifically:
✅ Hold NVDA
✅ Hold AMD
✅ Hold AVGO
✅ Hold CRWV
✅ Maintain cash
The next decision point is probably not selling—it is whether the cash should eventually be deployed.
I would consider using some cash if:
If NVDA or AMD decline substantially while fundamentals remain intact, adding would be attractive.
If CRWV demonstrates that the selloff was valuation-driven rather than business-driven, it could become a candidate for adding.
A new AI infrastructure company could replace one of the current positions if the risk/reward becomes clearly better.
I would rate this week: A
Not because the portfolio went up, but because it behaved exactly as intended:
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:
The most important development since inception is that we have now seen the portfolio behave through a full mini-cycle:
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:
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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”.
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:
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.
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.
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
Strategy 2
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.
I have two fundamental issues with “Win Rates”.
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:
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.
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.
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
Strategy 2
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 loss of 1.7% versus a loss of 14.5% for buy-and-hold and a 1.1% gain for the S&P 500.
>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.
| Holding | Shares | Price | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA | 17.026 | $194.83 | ~$3,317 |
| CoreWeave | 25.745 | $81.75 | ~$2,105 |
| Advanced Micro Devices | 4.237 | $517.82 | ~$2,194 |
| Broadcom | 2.609 | $360.45 | ~$940 |
Stock value: ~$8,556
Cash:
Cash: ~$1,004
Estimated total portfolio value: ~$9,560
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.
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 continues to demonstrate relative strength.
It's still well above your purchase price despite the broader weakness.
That's encouraging.
Broadcom has weakened but not catastrophically.
I'm comfortable continuing to hold.
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:
Today, I think the arguments are roughly balanced.
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.
I think it's useful to define "buy zones" in advance so we're not making emotional decisions:
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.
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 deliberately built a portfolio that was not simply "buy NVDA."
After four weeks:
That's useful information. It doesn't necessarily change the allocation, but it tells us where the risk really lies.
This has shifted slightly from our initial discussion:
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.
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:
That's different from saying, "It's down 20%, so let's buy more."
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:
Until then, I think patience remains the right strategy.
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
| Ticker | Shares | Adj. Cost | Cost Basis | Mkt Value | G/L $ | G/L % | Wk Chg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QQQ | 4.077 | $735.75 | $2,999.65 | $2,905.27 | -$94.38 | -3.15% | +0.86% |
| NVDA | 8.587 | $209.61 | $1,799.92 | $1,673.01 | -$126.92 | -7.05% | +1.19% |
| MSFT | 2.800 | $392.75 | $1,099.70 | $1,093.37 | -$6.33 | -0.58% | +4.70% |
| CRWD | 4.688 | $170.61 | $799.82 | $906.57 | +$106.75 | +13.35% | +10.33% |
| PLTR | 6.135 | $130.40 | $800.00 | $793.26 | -$6.75 | -0.84% | +14.50% |
| TTD | 41.978 | $19.06 | $800.10 | $801.78 | +$1.68 | +0.21% | +3.97% |
| TOTAL | $8,299.20 | $8,173.25 | -$125.95 | -1.52% | |||
| Cash | $1,704.05 | ||||||
| Portfolio Total | $9,877.30 | -$122.70 | -1.23% |
A meaningful recovery week overall. The portfolio bounced from -$435 last week to -$123 today — a $313 improvement in one week. A few highlights:
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:
It'll be interesting to see how I manage the situation.
Just for fun! 😁 What do you think the year-end P&L will be for the campaign?
Currently, at week 26, it is $288k, but that reflects a $155k unrealized loss on the stock holdings. This poll is for what you think the P&L will be at the end of week 52.
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
| Ticker | Shares | Cost Basis | Mkt Value | G/L $ | G/L % | Wk Chg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QQQ | 4.077 | $2,999.65 | $2,880.48 | -$119.17 | -3.97% | -4.60% |
| NVDA | 8.587 | $1,799.92 | $1,653.26 | -$146.67 | -8.15% | -8.62% |
| MSFT | 2.800 | $1,099.70 | $1,044.32 | -$55.38 | -5.04% | -1.69% |
| CRWD | 1.172 | $799.82 | $821.68 | +$21.86 | +2.73% | +2.37% |
| PLTR | 6.135 | $800.00 | $692.83 | -$107.18 | -13.40% | -12.10% |
| TTD | 41.978 | $800.10 | $771.14 | -$28.96 | -3.62% | -0.76% |
| TOTAL | $8,299.20 | $7,863.69 | -$435.51 | -5.25% | ||
| Cash | $1,701.00 | |||||
| Portfolio Total | $9,564.69 | -$435.31 | -4.35% |
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
This wasn't random — there were real catalysts:
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.
| Holding | Shares | Closing Price | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA | 17.026 | $192.53 | ~$3,278 |
| CoreWeave | 25.745 | $96.58 | ~$2,487 |
| Advanced Micro Devices | 4.237 | $521.58 | ~$2,210 |
| Broadcom | 2.609 | $365.02 | ~$952 |
Holdings value: ~$8,927
Cash: ~$1,001
Total portfolio value: ~$9,928
The portfolio gave back essentially all of the gains from the prior two weeks.
Not by itself.
The important question is why the portfolio declined.
Every one of the holdings moved lower:
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.
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.
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:
Based solely on the price action you've shared, I would not assume the thesis has changed.
Recommendation: Hold.
AMD has held up surprisingly well compared to the rest of the portfolio.
That's encouraging.
Recommendation: Hold.
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.
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.
I would make no changes.
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:
Conversely, I would consider trimming a position only if:
Neither condition exists today.
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.
Our investment theses haven't really changed:
The price action alone doesn't tell me to change any of those views.
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:
Only if the answers point in a clear direction would I suggest deploying part of the cash.
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:
| Metric | Status |
|---|---|
| Total return since inception | ✓ |
| Performance vs. the S&P 500 | ✓ |
| Biggest contributor | ✓ |
| Biggest detractor | ✓ |
| Current allocation | ✓ |
| Cash percentage | ✓ |
| Thesis changes | ✓ |
| Recommended actions | ✓ |
That will make it easier to see not just what happened, but why.
If I had to rank the positions today by confidence over the next 3–5 years (recognizing that this can evolve), it would be:
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.
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.
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
Title
