u/iOCharts_

SpaceX joined the Nasdaq-100 this week, just 15 trading days after its IPO.

Since listing:

IPO price: $135

First trade: $150

High: about $225

Recent close: $160.42

The company still doesn't qualify for the S&P 500, which requires at least 12 months of public trading and four consecutive profitable quarters.

Because many ETFs and retirement funds track the Nasdaq-100, the index addition automatically gives those investors exposure to SpaceX.

Do you think major indexes should add companies this quickly, or is a longer public track record better for long-term investors?

Rivian delivered 12,194 vehicles in the second quarter, above both its own guidance of 9,000-11,000 vehicles and analyst expectations.

The company also increased its full-year 2026 delivery forecast to 65,000-70,000 vehicles, up from 62,000-67,000.

For investors, delivery numbers are one of the most closely watched metrics in the EV industry. They provide a snapshot of production, demand, and whether a company is meeting its own targets.

A quarterly beat can attract attention, but changes to full-year guidance often receive just as much scrutiny because they reflect management's outlook for the rest of the year.

When you're evaluating an automaker, what matters more to you: quarterly results or updated guidance?

That gap between 1.16 and 22.15 is not a data error. It's telling you how fast earnings moved in the last twelve months versus what analysts expect going forward.

The trailing figure reflects an earnings number that already happened, and it was massive. The forward figure reflects where analysts think earnings normalize from here. The spread between those two numbers is the entire debate about $TSM right now. Either the last twelve months were a one-time surge and 22x is the real multiple, or the business keeps compounding and 22x is still cheap.

The 1-year return is 94%. The 3-year CAGR is 62%. EPS growth is running at 27.72%. The dividend grew 17.53% annually and they still only pay out 21% of free cash flow.

Do you trust the trailing number or the forward number, and does that answer change whether you buy $TSM today?

The stock hit $235.74 in April. It's at $188.79 today. That's a $1 trillion in market cap gone in two months while the S&P 500 barely moved.

EPS grew 95% last year and the stock still fell. That's the market telling you the growth was already priced in, and then some. The trailing P/E is 29x. The forward is 24x. On a normal company that's reasonable. On a $4.7 trillion company it means one guidance cut triggers a re-rate that wipes hundreds of billions overnight.

Analysts have a $298 target. Analysts also had $300 targets when it was at $235.

Is $NVDA in a slow bleed back to reality, or is the 20% pullback actually the buying opportunity?

$SPCX closed at $157.54 yesterday, down 7.8% in a single session and about 30% off the $225 peak it hit right after going public.

It's still above the $135 IPO price, so anyone who got in at the offering is fine. Anyone who chased it near $200 is sitting on a loss.

The hype from the listing has worn off. Now the actual questions are coming in. How fast does Starship development move? Can Grok go from 3.1% enterprise adoption to something that justifies the xAI merger? And does the valuation, $2.07 trillion with no P/E on the board yet, make sense before any of that plays out?

One concrete thing happens Monday. Nasdaq 100 inclusion means index funds have to buy $SPCX whether they want to or not. Low float, forced demand, right after a 30% pullback.

What's the biggest factor for $SPCX from here, Starship execution, the AI bet or does the index inclusion just paper over the valuation problem for now?

Lime just raised $167 million in its IPO after pricing shares at $25 each.

What caught my attention wasn't the IPO itself, it was the valuation history.

2019: ~$2.4B
2020: ~$510M
2026 IPO: ~$1.7B

The company generated nearly $887 million in revenue last year but is still reporting net losses.

It also comes at a time when more companies are testing the IPO market again after a quieter stretch.

Do you think investors are becoming more willing to back growth companies again, or is Lime an exception?

AI has become a much larger part of Dell's business as demand for AI servers continues to grow.

Revenue has followed that trend.

Gross margins haven't.

Dell has previously said its AI server business carries lower margins than some of its traditional products, and that shift is becoming more visible as AI accounts for a larger share of sales.

Growth and profitability don't always move together.

Sometimes a company can sell more, generate more revenue, and still face pressure on margins because the business mix has changed.

If you had to choose one metric, would you rather see stronger revenue growth or expanding profit margins?

The U.S. dollar has strengthened against major currencies following the Federal Reserve's latest meeting, as investors reassessed expectations for interest rates.

In a recent report, HSBC said a stronger dollar remains one possible scenario if interest rates stay higher for longer or geopolitical risks increase.

Currency movements can influence more than the foreign exchange market. They can also affect commodities, multinational companies, and emerging markets.

The direction of the dollar will continue to depend on upcoming economic data and future signals from the Federal Reserve.

How much attention do you pay to the U.S. dollar when you're evaluating markets?

U.S. stock futures moved higher after reports that the U.S. and Iran agreed to halt recent attacks and continue peace talks.

At the same time, oil gave up part of its earlier gains as concerns over supply disruptions eased.

The market is now shifting its attention to the June jobs report, one of the week's biggest economic releases.

It's a reminder that market sentiment can change quickly when new developments emerge.

Which has the bigger influence on markets in the short term: economic data or geopolitical headlines?

Over the next few months, several lockup periods are scheduled to expire, meaning insiders will be allowed to sell shares that were previously restricted from trading.

That doesn't mean they will sell.

But it does mean there could be a lot more shares available than there are today.

For a stock that's only been public for a short time, it feels like one of the first real tests of how the market values the company once the share count available for trading starts to expand.

Some investors are watching potential index inclusions.

Others are watching the lockup dates.

I'm curious which matters more.

When you're looking at newly public companies, how much attention do you pay to lockup expirations?

Brent crude moved back toward $79 a barrel, while WTI traded near $75.

What stood out is that the move wasn't driven by a sudden change in demand.

The focus was on the possibility of improved oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz and the potential for higher exports from the region.

Oil often seems to move on expectations before the actual supply picture changes.

One day it's inventories.

The next it's production cuts.

Then it's a geopolitical headline.

When you're looking at oil, what do you pay more attention to: supply and demand data or geopolitical developments?

The move itself wasn't huge but it raised a question worth discussing.

When an index rises or falls it's easy to focus on the headline number. What's harder is figuring out whether anything meaningful has actually changed for the individual companies sitting inside it.

Some investors watch index movements closely and use them as a signal for positioning. Others ignore the broader market almost entirely and focus on company-specific fundamentals regardless of what the index does on any given day.

How much does the overall market direction actually influence your investment decisions compared to what's happening at the individual company level?

The latest PCE report showed annual inflation at 4.1%, the highest reading in three years.

Core PCE, which excludes food and energy, also moved higher.

The report has kept the focus on what the Federal Reserve does next, with markets continuing to weigh the possibility of interest rates remaining higher for longer or moving higher if inflation stays elevated.

Interest-rate expectations can influence everything from stock valuations to borrowing costs, which is why inflation data remains one of the most closely watched economic releases.

Has the current inflation environment changed the way you invest, or has your long-term approach stayed the same?

Not just in terms of stock performance.

For the first time since 2022, companies in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index are reporting earnings above the expectations analysts had set a year earlier.

A lot of the attention has gone to SK Hynix, Samsung, and TSMC.

But the earnings improvements aren't limited to technology. Bloomberg also highlighted strength in parts of the energy, financial, and industrial sectors.

The stock market has already noticed.

The earnings story seems to be catching up now.

When you look at emerging markets today, do you think the gains are becoming more broad-based, or is technology still doing most of the work?

AbbVie announced plans to acquire Apogee Therapeutics for $10.9 billion in cash, offering approximately $135.11 per share, a premium of about 49% to Apogee's recent closing price.

The deal gives AbbVie access to Apogee's lead drug candidate, zumilokibart, which is being developed for inflammatory diseases including atopic dermatitis and asthma.

What stood out to me is that this acquisition is focused on future drug development rather than adding an established revenue-generating product.

Pharmaceutical companies regularly use acquisitions to strengthen their pipelines, especially as older products face increasing competition or eventually lose patent protection.

The long-term outcome of these deals often depends on whether the acquired treatments successfully complete development, receive regulatory approval, and achieve commercial adoption.

For AbbVie investors, it's another example of a company choosing to deploy capital through acquisition rather than keeping that capital on the balance sheet or returning it directly to shareholders.

How do you evaluate deals like this? Do you view pipeline acquisitions as an important part of long-term growth, or do you prefer companies to focus more on dividends, buybacks, and internal development?

The move came during a broader sell-off across technology and semiconductor stocks.

What stands out is how often Bitcoin and growth stocks have been moving together lately.

Bitcoin is now down roughly 28% this year and remains well below its previous high.

At the same time, many investors still view it very differently from traditional assets.

Some see it as a long-term store of value.

Others see it as another risk asset that tends to rise and fall with market sentiment.

Has the way you think about Bitcoin changed over the last few years, or is your investment still the same?

The stock is down.

The dividend keeps growing.

Valuation multiples have come down.

Cash generation hasn't disappeared.

Yet sentiment feels much worse than the fundamentals suggest.

I kept waiting to find the chart that made me say, "Ah, that's the problem."

I never really found it.

Instead, I found a business with:

* A 19-year dividend growth record

* A yield above its historical average

* A P/E that's no longer stretched

* Valuation metrics sitting well below recent highs

So maybe the market is right and Microsoft's best growth days are behind it.

Or maybe investors have become so focused on the cost of the AI race that they're overlooking everything else.

What's your take? What risk do you think the market is pricing in today?

Yesterday, the Fed reminded everyone that another rate hike is still on the table.

Today, futures moved higher anyway.

What changed?

Oil.

After the US and Iran signed an interim peace agreement, crude prices dropped more than 2% as traders started pricing in lower geopolitical risk and the possibility of additional oil supply returning to the market.

The market's reaction is telling.

For weeks, investors have been focused on rates. But today's move suggests oil may be the bigger variable.

A sustained decline in energy prices could ease inflation pressures without the Fed having to do anything.

That's why stocks rallied despite a hawkish Fed message less than 24 hours earlier.

The question now is whether this is the start of a broader trend or just a short-term reaction to a headline.

What do you think the market is pricing in here: lower inflation, lower risk, or both?

A federal judge dismissed xAI's trade secret lawsuit, ruling that the company failed to show OpenAI improperly obtained confidential information from a former xAI engineer.

The case was dismissed without leave to amend.

What's interesting is the timing.

Just days after SpaceX's blockbuster IPO and Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire on paper, xAI has now suffered its second major legal setback against OpenAI.

The AI race is usually framed around models, chips, and compute.

But the people building those systems may be just as important.

Do you think talent is becoming the biggest competitive advantage in AI, or is access to compute still what matters most?