Feels like the market sometimes ignores companies until a major catalyst forces everyone to pay attention. Been watching Troops, Inc. because it seems like one of those names quietly developing in the background.
I randomly came across Troops, Inc. while looking through smaller financial companies and the structure surprised me a bit. Usually you see companies focused on one lane, but this seems more layered than expected.
I currently hold a large portion of my TFSA in VFV (Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF) and have been investing in it consistently for a while. Recently I've been looking into XEQT as a long-term, set-and-forget ETF with automatic dividend reinvestment.
My concern is the overlap since XEQT allocates roughly 44% to US equities (via XTOT and ITOT), there's significant crossover with VFV's S&P 500 holdings. That said, XEQT also adds Canadian (~26%), international developed ( ~25%), and emerging market (~5%) exposure, which VFV completely lacks.
I'm not looking to sell my VFV position since it's in a TFSA and has been performing well. But going forward, I'm weighing two options:
Keep adding to VFV for simplicity and consistency as well as XEQT
Direct all new contributions to XEQT for broader diversification, letting VFV compound on its own
For those who have been in a similar position- is holding both long-term a reasonable strategy, or would you consolidate into one? Any experience with switching to XEQT as your primary going-forward ETF while keeping an existing VFV position? Any other ETFs to consider from good experience?
Cheers!
Been researching smaller-cap companies lately and I noticed Troops, Inc. seems to be trying a more layered approach instead of staying just a basic lending company. Between the fintech angle, asset side, and expansion plans, it feels different from the average microcap narrative. Curious if anyone here has looked deeper into it or if I’m overthinking the setup.
Not asking for targets or hype.
Just wondering if anyone here actually views Troops as a longer-term watch/hold rather than purely a short-term speculative name.
Would be interested in hearing the reasoning either way.
Some companies aren’t dependent on a single outcome. They can grow through lending, asset expansion, or digital development.
That optionality is what makes TROO at least worth watching closely.
That’s probably my biggest hesitation. I generally like focused businesses, but some evolving companies naturally look messy during transition.
Troops seems to fall into that category.
Do you see multiple verticals as opportunity or distraction?
Initially ignored it because I assumed it was a straightforward small financial company. After reading more, the structure looks more complex than that.
Still deciding whether that complexity is interesting or unnecessary.
Has anyone done deeper DD here?
While looking through smaller fintech companies recently, I came across TROO (Troops Inc.), and it stood out mainly because of the recent revenue growth figures being reported.
For a micro-cap company, seeing growth above 100% naturally draws attention. At the same time, micro-caps often start from a very small base, so the real question is whether that growth reflects meaningful business expansion or just scale effects from a low starting point.
What also stood out is that TROO doesn’t seem like a single-focus fintech play. It appears to operate across financial services, advisory activities, and some asset-backed investment areas, which makes the business model a bit more layered than a typical niche fintech name.
I’m curious if anyone here has dug into TROO’s financials or structure and what your take is so far.
Low float setups and multi-narrative companies tend to behave differently too — they can move quickly when attention comes in, but they’re often harder to read when sentiment starts driving more than fundamentals.
Do you treat low float names differently in your process compared to standard small caps, or is it basically the same framework with stricter risk management?
Been reading about $TROO recently and found the business structure interesting.
It seems to combine lending operations with digital platform ambitions and some asset exposure, which is a bit more layered than many small-cap finance names.
Still obviously a higher-risk play, but interesting to research.
Genuine question for experienced investors here.
How do you approach valuation when dealing with highly speculative “story stocks” where:
Revenue may still be limited
Catalysts are pending
Most excitement comes from future plans
Do you:
Ignore traditional valuation entirely?
Compare them to sector peers?
Treat them as sentiment trades only?
Interested because I’ve been reading through a few smaller fintech-related names and it feels difficult to apply normal frameworks.