r/Stock_Market

A lot of the discussion around ARM today centers on its ~18% China revenue exposure (mostly royalty revenue through licensees like Samsung and SK Hynix). Ran the EPS sensitivity instead of just looking at the headline percentage: a 10% cut to that China revenue only moves EPS by about $0.01. The royalty/licensing model has enough operating leverage that revenue shocks don't translate 1:1 into earnings hits.

HPE was up almost identically (+10.0%) the same session, which points more toward broad tech/infra rotation than an ARM-specific catalyst. The AI infrastructure and custom silicon design-win narrative ("physical AI buildout" robotics, edge, data centers) is getting cited as the underlying driver.

Full writeup: https://metricshour.com/briefs/2026-07-10/

Curious if others are seeing the same EPS math or reading the exposure risk differently.

Does anyone else do this without even thinking? Unlock phone -> tap Zerodha or Dhan -> stare at the MTM.

Even when the market is closed, or I have a strict stop-loss in place and no reason to look, I find myself compulsively checking the screen. It is exhausting. I’ve realized that just looking at the fluctuating numbers triggers emotional decisions—I end up exiting good trades early or taking random trades just because I was staring at the chart too long.

I am trying to build a habit of forcing a pause or going through a mental checklist before I even let myself open the app, but the muscle memory is incredibly strong.

Has anyone successfully broken the habit of constantly checking their P&L? What actually worked for you?

**1/** I think Terafab may be the clearest example of the narrative problem inside $SPCX.
SpaceX wants Terafab to eventually produce ONE TERAWATT of compute hardware every year.
Incredible ambition.
But now forget the presentation and read the SEC disclosures.
**2/** The SEC asked SpaceX to disclose:
• Terafab’s development timeline
• major milestones
• anticipated capex
• material terms of Intel’s involvement
SpaceX’s response: those timelines, milestones and capital expenditures are not yet available.
**3/** SpaceX also disclosed its arrangement with Tesla is essentially a general framework.
Specific Terafab projects still require separate negotiation, separate agreements and Board approval.
Neither Tesla nor Intel is obligated to remain involved.
**4/** SpaceX even disclosed it may never enter definitive agreements for the collaboration.
So compare the headline with the underlying reality:
Headline: ONE TERAWATT/YEAR.
Reality: no final scope, disclosed schedule, milestones or total capital requirement.
**5/** That isn’t a semiconductor manufacturing plan yet.
It’s a promise looking for a plan.
Now compare that with TSMC, which plans $165B of U.S. investment across advanced fabs, packaging, R&D and the supplier ecosystem needed to actually manufacture at scale.
**6/** TSMC’s Arizona operation already employs 3,000+ people. Its broader expansion is expected to require 40,000 construction jobs plus tens of thousands of high-tech jobs.
And this is TSMC—a company built around semiconductor manufacturing for decades.
**7/** SpaceX has \~22,000+ employees across the ENTIRE company.
Those people already support Falcon, Dragon, Starship, Starlink, Starshield, launch sites, satellites, ground infrastructure, xAI, Colossus, AI, data centers and telecom.
Who staffs Terafab?
**8/** A leading-edge fab needs process integration, lithography, etch, deposition, yield, metrology, equipment, chemical/gas, ultrapure-water, facilities, electrical, controls, packaging and maintenance talent.
These aren’t generic engineers you move over from Starship.
**9/** A rocket engineer does not become a leading-edge semiconductor yield engineer because management says “vertical integration.”
And even Intel—with decades of fabs, patents, suppliers and process knowledge—still tells investors how brutally difficult the economics are.
**10/** Intel says leading-edge nodes require enormous capital, continuous yield improvement and enough wafer volume to justify the economics.
It has even warned that without a major outside customer, it could pause or stop pursuing its next-generation 14A node.
**11/** Think about that.
INTEL is saying semiconductor economics still matter.
Yet the $SPCX narrative asks investors to jump from:
“We need more AI chips”
to:
“Let’s vertically integrate leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing.”
Those are not remotely the same thing.
**12/** Buying ASML machines doesn’t create TSMC.
Building a cleanroom doesn’t create TSMC.
Hiring a few hundred engineers doesn’t create TSMC.
The moat is institutional knowledge: thousands of process steps executed repeatedly at high yield, utilization and competitive cost.
**13/** Making a chip is not the achievement.
Making MILLIONS of advanced chips economically is.
Yield is the product.
And then you have to improve that process every generation while competitors with decades of experience are doing the exact same thing.
**14/** This is my broader issue with $SPCX.
Every new promise gets treated as another future monopoly instead of another claim on capital, talent and management bandwidth.
Starship. Mars. Starlink. xAI. Orbital compute. Terafab.
Execution risk keeps stacking.
**15/** At some point, “vertical integration” stops explaining the strategy and starts disguising organizational sprawl.
Different industries have different talent pools, supplier networks, learning curves, physics, economics and failure modes.
Rocket excellence doesn’t erase that.
**16/** Could Terafab eventually succeed? Absolutely.
That isn’t the investment question.
Why should investors capitalize Terafab’s future economics TODAY when SpaceX itself says the specific projects, timelines, milestones and capital requirements aren’t determined?
**17/** That’s my problem with a \~$1.8T $SPCX valuation.
The market keeps treating long-term ambitions as if they are already de-risked assets.
Terafab isn’t TSMC.
Today it isn’t even a fully disclosed fab program.
It’s a one-terawatt promise on a framework agreement.
**18/** Eventually someone has to:
build the fabs,
staff them,
achieve yield,
fund the capex,
run them at scale,
and prove the return on capital.
The cult sees the destination.
I want to see the execution plan.
Short $SPCX.

Energy data showing how American citizens are paying for billionaire oligarchs and they’re industrial complex. You are footing the bill for their electricity.
Website:utilitypricefinder.org

Been fairly bullish on CORD lately (the T-REX 2x inverse ETF for CoreWeave) and curious what everyone else is thinking.

My thesis is basically that CRWV is due for a pullback, and CORD gives leveraged exposure to that move. I know the daily-reset decay is brutal if CRWV chops sideways, so timing matters a lot — this is more of a short-term play than a hold.

Anyone else positioned bearish on CRWV right now? Or does everyone think the AI infrastructure run still has legs? Would love to hear the bull case against me.

...Meant CORD in the title.

WHAT IF THE “S” IS SAMSUNG… OR SONY? 👀 At the end of the Schwab interview, the host tried one last time to get Keyvan to reveal the name of SoundHound’s mystery multinational electronics customer: “Does it start with an S?” Keyvan didn’t give her the name in respect to their partners which I was happy to hear. So just for fun, let’s play the WHAT IF game. Samsung starts with an S. Sony starts with an S. What if it’s Samsung? What if it’s Sony? And here’s the crazy one — what if SoundHound eventually lands BOTH? SoundHound has already confirmed that a multinational electronics manufacturer will deploy its technology in TVs, enabling consumers to make purchases and other agentic transactions directly through the television. Imagine SoundHound AI inside millions of smart TVs, where you don’t just ask the TV questions you can actually transact through it.

If the mystery company turns out to be a household name the size of Samsung or Sony, Wall Street would look at SOUNDHOUND very differently. A deal of that magnitude would change the narrative overnight and validate SoundHound’s technology on a massive global scale. One of them would be huge. Both would completely change the conversation. Would that immediately make SOUN a $30, $40 or $50 stock? Nobody can honestly know. But confirmation of a global consumer-electronics giant would be exactly the type of announcement that could finally make investors rethink what SoundHound is becoming. Again — Samsung and Sony are NOT confirmed. This is speculation based on that very interesting “Does it start with an S?” question. But you have to admit… Samsung starts with S and so does Sony 😏

ADX collect that 8% plus growth.

This app can help you save on gasoline and groceries