At least in the US, politicians are selling 2:1 bs buying. Something is about to go down or they are getting ready to dump money into the Anthropic IPO. Or maybe to fund mid term campaigns. What are you guys thinking?
Both frontier-lab customers now appear to have Broadcom-linked financing in motion, with $110 billion of reported raises against $48.96 billion of net debt today.
Broadcom is reportedly pursuing a $50 billion debt financing to fund AI chips for a major AI research laboratory. This is a different customer and a different pool of money from the $60 billion raise for Anthropic. Nothing in the report says whether the two overlap, what the instrument is, or whose balance sheet carries it.
Add the two and the reported total is $110 billion, which exceeds the $70 billion to $100 billion debt package reported last month. Either that package was always meant for more than one customer, or these are separate raises. Both readings are worse than the one I originally saw.
The leverage arithmetic follows the earlier signals, net debt is $48.96 billion and EBITDA is about $35 billion. If the $50 billion alone lands on Broadcom's balance sheet, leverage moves from 1.4 times to about 2.8 times. With both raises held in-house, net debt reaches about $159 billion, or 4.5 times. If an off-balance-sheet vehicle carries them, the ratio stays clean while the roughly $29 billion guarantee book, whose ceiling management has refused three times to disclose, gets a larger neighbour.
One major AI laboratory's accelerator program is guided toward 1.3GW of 2027 deployment. At $11 billion to $12 billion of Broadcom content per gigawatt, that is roughly $14 billion to $16 billion of chip revenue. A $50 billion raise is several times that figure. Broadcom would be financing more than its own content, or the facility covers more than 1.3GW. However, from reading the report I am unsure which.
This pushes the counterparty pillar from one lab to two. Both borrowers burn cash, and Broadcom's financing now runs through both.
What do people think about this?
OpenAI and Anthropic are losing money hand over fist. Conversely, Alphabet has almost a quarter of a trillion in cash, plus massive distribution.
Alphabet is expert at monetising free products via ads. OpenAI had to charge $200 per month for dots, whereas if Google ever releases an agent, they can do so for free, à la Muse.
Surely this is Alphabet's game to lose.
Is Alphabet a screaming buy at $340 for a long-term hold?
10 years from now, what company will have the largest market cap?
Netflix is becoming too cheap to ignore. (Its P/E for the next 12 months is 18.2)
Does it have a moat?
I couldn't live without YouTube, so is the rise of YouTube part of the problem?
Is it a great opportunity or a trap?
Muse aside, Meta is nearly everyone's favorite stock right now.
How things have changed: a month ago, nobody would touch it due to the ongoing trial.
Is it too late to get into Meta now? Has the easy money been made, or can it go much higher from here long-term?
Warren Buffett on When To Give Up on a Business
[00:00 - 00:25] Question - Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments:
>Q: How do you know when to throw in the towel on an investment or a business?
[00:00 - 05:44] Answer - Warren Buffett:
>Uh, when to throw in the towel on an investment or business. Or business? Yeah.
>Well, you know you do it too late. I went into the textile business by accident in 1965 and I threw in the towel about 20 years later and that was about 20 years too late.
>There's a great tendency to want to hold on, justify old decisions. I mean it's a human trait.
>But when you really know you've got a bad business is when you have a good manager and you're getting bad results. I mean when you're getting bad results with a bad manager you still have to examine the question of whether you can get better results if you got a better manager. Usually you can't. I've said in the past that when a management with a reputation for excellence encounters a business with a reputation for bad economics, it's the reputation of the business that remains intact. And I've proved that many times.
>There are businesses that are just plain tough, you know, and there may be too many competitors but there's reasons why they don't drop out. We started out in textiles and we made over half of the linings for men's suits in the country and we went through World War II and got awards and Sears Roebuck named us their supplier of the year and all of that sort of thing. And then we'd say, well we'd like to increase the price of these linings a quarter of a cent a yard and Sears would say, you must be out of your mind. There's 10 other guys that'll sell it to us at the old price. And nobody ever went into a Sears store and said I'd like a blue serge suit with a Hathaway lining. You know, it didn't exist. We had no connection to the consumer.
>And there are lots of lousy businesses, you know, and there's lots of wonderful businesses. My job over the years has been to try and figure out which is which and I've made plenty of mistakes. I bought a company called Dexter Shoes in the early 90s, I paid $400 plus million dollars for it and it made a lot of money before I bought it but as soon as I bought it, they pulled some switch or something and it immediately started losing money and it was because of foreign competition or it was maybe because I owned it, I don't know. And it went to zero. And the worst thing was that I paid for it in stock, so that $400 million in stock I gave at the time is now worth about 5 billion. So every time Berkshire stock goes down I feel a little bit better because of my opportunity loss on this business.
>But you know when I looked at Dexter Shoe they had a good position in retailers, they turned out good shoes, they had a great workforce, all kinds of things, but I just forgot one thing — that they weren't going to make shoes in the United States anymore. So you make mistakes and it does pay to recognize quickly when you made them. If you got a good person running a business and it isn't making any money, you know, you're in the wrong business and you've got to face up to that.
>Q: And I think the other half of the question was about investments. Do you have any rule of thumb about when you give up on or when you realize it?
>Well, again, I love it when the things we buy go down. I just, I get euphoric. You know, the stocks are down today and I buy more of something I was buying yesterday and buying it cheaper. Now, when you go to the grocery store and you buy something cheaper than you bought it the day before, you think that's terrific. But people with their stocks, they think that the stock knows more than they do. So that when the stock goes down they say the stock is telling them something. And it was telling me I can get more for my money. But they take it as kind of a referendum on themselves, you know, and it's me versus the stock — if it ever gets back to what I paid I'm going to sell it.
>Stock doesn't care what you paid. You have to remember the stock doesn't even care that you own it. You are nothing to the stock, that stock is everything to you. You remember you paid $10.13 and therefore the stock should get to 10.13 before you sell it.
>Stock has no feelings about you. I hate to disillusion you on this but it just doesn't care.
>And so the only question with every stock, every day — and you don't do it this frequently — is: can I get more for my money someplace else? You've got a chance to be in thousands and thousands of great businesses and their prices change all the time, so the realms of valuations change and you can make the exchange at very low cost these days, commissions are nothing, and so you can always shift from one business to another.
>You have a huge advantage over Andrew Carnegie, you know, when he was in the steel business, he was in the steel business. Or Rockefeller was in the oil business. He cannot shift over immediately to retailing or something like that. You can rearrange your business empire which you own through that little portfolio that you have. You can rearrange that at a moment's notice with practically no cost. It's a huge advantage which people turn into a disadvantage.
>There is nothing about the price action of the stock that tells you whether you should keep owning. What tells you whether you should keep owning it is what you expect the company to do in the future versus the price at which it's selling now compared to the other opportunities of businesses that you think you know equally well. Make that same comparison and that's all there is to owning stocks.
I'm sure you guys are aware how much home depot has fell Ytd. If you don't know, they have fell almost 19% this year for absolutely no reason. Yes, at some point the market did fall because of the oil prices but then eventually recovered. But, Home Depot is yet to recover. Not just that, Home Depot's revenue has been growing for the past 3 years and quarter wise it's been growing for the past 3 quarters. It's dividend has been solid and has been growing consistently and it's main competitor, Lowe's has also fell 28% ytd but this one makes sense because, their revenue decelerated for the past few years and only went back up last year and quarter wise it has been growing for the past few quarters. Both of them are amazing dividend stocks. I'm really confused as to why Home Depot has fell so much. If you have an idea why, please share it with me in the comments!
The market is getting more efficient, especially with OpenAI and Claude getting better at stock research, but even with new tools I still go back to my GOATs. Here is my list of tools that provide an edge:
Am I missing any good tools?
Question for the group:
With AI advancing so quickly, how are you using it in your stock investing/research?
Curious to hear what tools and workflows people actually use.
I hold a diversified portfolio comprising defensive, income, and hedge positions, and I am currently building out a compounding growth component. I have been looking at the companies listed above - i don't plan to add all - (MCO, CB, LIN, MKL, BRK.B). Below, I outline my brief take on each; I would appreciate your input on which two of them might be the best choices for capital accumulation over the next 25–30 years, companies capable of withstanding various health and economic crises while maintaining their corporate culture and economic moat.
1) Moody's: An excellent, asset-light company that has demonstrated significant growth potential and operates within a global oligopoly where credibility is paramount. My main questions concern its ability to navigate a prolonged high-interest-rate environment (since debt issuance, and consequently its certification business, declines in such scenarios) and its capacity to preserve both its oligopolistic position and its corporate culture.
2) Chubb: The world's largest insurer; it has consistently maintained a combined ratio of 83–85% over extended periods. Its management team has demonstrated underwriting excellence (even when policy pricing was lower) and has effectively managed its bond investment portfolio. My question regarding Chubb concerns its ability to sustain growth and manage market cycles. I don't have much else to add here, as I have few doubts about the company.
3) Linde: An excellent industrial company with predictable revenues and inflation-indexed contracts. It is highly diversified, both geographically and across end-markets (chemicals and energy; healthcare; electronics; manufacturing, metals, and mining; food and beverages). This diversification ensures resilience and provides growth catalysts linked to the energy transition and the modernization of AI and data centers. My question is whether it has the capacity to compound capital, even with a business model that is more capital-intensive compared to the other companies I listed above.
4) Markel: a holding company with operations in insurance, an investment portfolio, and majority-owned subsidiaries (across industrial, consumer, and financial sectors). It has demonstrated consistency in compounding capital over the long term, growing its book value and generating impressive returns on its investment portfolio. My question concerns whether the company possesses the deeply ingrained culture needed to maintain excellence and continue growing over the next 30 years, even through leadership succession; whether the investment portfolio manager (I believe it is Tom Gayner) remains outstanding; and how one evaluates their capital allocation decisions.
5) Berkshire Hathaway: we all know what it is; it needs no introduction. My question concerns the quality of Greg Abel’s capital allocation, specifically, whether this can be assessed based on the years he has held key decision-making roles while Buffett is still at the helm. Given the company's massive size, growth is challenging; I am interested in the possibility of a shift in the allocation profile, and its quality, toward higher-growth assets, while still preserving the company's fundamental focus on quality.
I would appreciate your insights.
Bending Spoons $BSP started trading in july.
They basically buy startups at a fraction of their valuation
So far they have acquired
Wetransfer
Airtable
AOL
Vimeo
Eventbrite
Meetup
Evernote
Miro (last month)
Once they acquire it they fire most of the people.
Do you think this would be value investing at its current price?
Guys,
I have posted here before about charter communications so posting this to start some discussion on it. I’m long with 200 shares at 130 cost basis.
It’s trading at 110 apiece rn. I think it got repriced because of the rising interest rates so market is worried about their debt. The numbers are looking absolutely ridiculous though at almost 30% if not more fcf yield. Also I think charters debt is structured pretty good with no problem at least until 2035.
What are yall thinking with your CHTR thesis? I don’t mind cutting my losses but I can also keep selling calls on it because the OTM call options have pretty elevated IV so I am confident I can break even on it by selling calls. A march 2027 150-strike which is almost 35% OTM call is selling for 800 bucks.
However I strongly believe it’s a 200 bucks stock. Discuss!
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315090/000119312526414744/xslF345X06/ownership.xml
Berkshire Hathaway now holds 28,438,045 class A shares and 568,028 class B shares of Lennar. It'll be interesting to see if BRK (my opinion, Ted Weschler) keeps buying when shares hit these price levels.
🚨 $LAKE — THIS ONE IS WORTH WATCHING 🚨
My biggest reason for watching Lakeland Industries ($LAKE) right now:
☣️ PNEUMONIC PLAGUE FEARS + PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT DEMAND
If concerns around pneumonic plague or other highly contagious respiratory pathogens increase, governments, hospitals, first responders and industrial organizations could increase preparedness spending on protective clothing, respirators and other PPE.
That puts companies like $LAKE in an interesting position.
And this isn't just a speculative "plague stock."
🔥 Fire & Safety is becoming the growth engine
Fire Services grew 49% in FY2026 and now represents roughly half of the company's business.
📈 Revenue is moving in the right direction
FY2026 revenue reached $192.6M, up 15% YoY.
💰 Turnaround potential
Management is targeting high-single-digit revenue growth + positive operating cash flow in FY2027.
🚒 Real-world demand
LAKE makes protective equipment for firefighters, first responders, industrial workers and other high-risk environments.
This isn't some company selling an AI concept — there's an actual product and growing demand behind it.
📉 And here's what gets interesting...
The stock has been beaten down after disappointing earnings, despite meaningful growth in parts of the underlying business.
That's exactly the type of setup I like:
Small market cap + depressed valuation + improving business + potential catalyst = asymmetric upside.
If infectious-disease preparedness becomes a bigger issue, $LAKE could potentially benefit from increased PPE demand at exactly the same time the company is trying to execute its broader turnaround.
I'm NOT saying a pneumonic plague outbreak is coming.
I'm NOT saying $LAKE is guaranteed to explode.
I'm saying the combination of disease-preparedness potential + Fire/Safety growth + a depressed small-cap valuation makes this one worth having on the radar.
👀 $LAKE is officially on my watchlist.
Do your own DD. Small caps can move violently in BOTH directions.
#LAKE #Stocks #SmallCaps #Investing #PPE #FireSafety #Plague #Turnaround
I’ve been buying CMCSA pretty aggressively and I’m curious what people here think, especially those who have followed the company for a long time.
My thesis is basically this:
Comcast seems extremely cheap relative to the amount of cash it generates. In Q2 2026 alone, the company generated $4.6B in free cash flow, while returning $2.1B to shareholders. (Comcast)
What interests me is the diversification. It’s not just a cable company anymore:
Broadband & connectivity
Business services
Wireless
Peacock
NBCUniversal
Universal Studios/theme parks
Film & television production
Sports/media
And now the planned separation of NBCUniversal and Sky from the connectivity business
The debt is obviously the biggest concern. Comcast had about $90.4B of debt at the end of Q2 2026, so I don’t want to dismiss that. (SEC)
But my question is whether the debt looks as scary when you compare it with the company’s recurring cash generation. If the businesses continue producing substantial FCF, it seems to me that Comcast should have considerable ability to service and refinance that debt while continuing to invest in the business.
There are also some interesting developments: Peacock became profitable for the first time in Q2, reaching 48M paid subscribers, while Business Services EBITDA grew 5%. (Comcast)
The obvious bear case: broadband competition from fiber/5G, declining residential broadband subscribers, high debt, and the possibility that Comcast’s traditional connectivity business is structurally declining. Comcast lost 167,000 residential broadband customers in Q2. (Reuters)
So I’m curious:
For those who follow CMCSA closely, what am I missing?
Do you think Comcast’s current valuation adequately reflects the risks, or does the market underestimate the company’s ability to generate FCF and manage its debt?
I’m not looking for confirmation of my thesis. I’d especially like to hear the strongest bear arguments.
If you’re bullish, what’s your thesis for the next 5–10 years?
If you’re bearish, what specifically breaks the investment case?
I’m fairly new to investing and I’ve noticed VWRP gets recommended a lot on here.
I’ve gone with the State Street SPDR MSCI All Country World (ACWI) instead. It seems to give me pretty similar global exposure, including developed and emerging markets, but the fee is slightly lower at 0.12% vs 0.14% for VWRP.
My plan is just to keep adding to it every month and hold long term.
Is there anything I’m missing? Why does VWRP seem to be so much more popular?
Usually I think that brand is one of the weaker types of moats (looking at you nike). But UL Solutions has one of the more uniquely powerful brands I’ve ever seen. Let me explain.
I work at some industrial manufacturing company. I learned through this job that every potentially dangerous product or component is required to be tested and certified to a set of standards. This includes pretty much everything that uses electricity. UL solutions is the largest testing and certification company in the US, and they have the most recognizable ‘mark of conformity’.
Consumers don’t care about the mark of conformity, but when Bob the lazy engineer is selecting a component for his new/updated product design, he knows that if the component is ‘UL certified’ it is a safe component, and the compliance department won’t give him any troubles.
Since the industry is highly fragmented (ULS is the market leader with only 7% market share) no other company has a certification marking that is widely recognizable. I see this first hand. Engineers are biased to pick ‘UL certified’ parts.
It goes deeper though. Not only do we select certified components, but we ourselves get our products certified. We have certified our products with various companies and we always get a certification report. This report lists all of the critical components in our product, and the requirements for those components. These certification companies make our lives so much easier when we use UL certified components. If we need to update a design, or qualify an alternative for a component, it is cheap and easy if the components are UL Certified because we can find a near-direct replacement. If not, we are often forced to jump through time-consuming and expensive hoops such as sending the updated product to the testing company for re-certification.
In conclusion:
Electrical components that are UL Certified are immediately respected and favored by engineers, compliance departments, and even ULs competitors.
Electrical component manufacturers are incentivized to test with UL because product engineers prefer selecting UL certified components because the other certification company that tests the end product respects UL and will make it easy for the product engineer to make changes to the product without requiring re-testing.
That was harder to explain than I thought
I’m building a ULS position.