r/iOCharts

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?