r/investing_discussion

[removed]

I'm 16 and living in Canada. I want to start learning about investing and personal finance the right way, but I honestly don't know where to begin.

Right now I have about $3,000 CAD in savings. I'm not looking for a "get rich quick" scheme—I want to build good habits early and understand how investing actually works.

A few questions I have:

• What should a 16-year-old focus on learning first?
• Are there any books, YouTube channels, courses, or websites you'd recommend?
• Is it worth investing with only $3,000, or should I keep saving for now?
• What are some common mistakes beginners make that I should avoid?
• If you were 16 again and starting from scratch in Canada, what would you do differently?
• What investing apps or platforms do Canadians typically use, and which ones are beginner-friendly?
• What type of account should I be looking into once I'm old enough (TFSA, FHSA, etc.)?
• What would you personally do with $3,000 if your goal was long-term growth?

Any advice, resources, or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to learn as much as possible before putting money anywhere.

Thanks!

[removed]

Im 41. Just paid off all debt. Student debt, old family bank loans, some cash loans.

I make 80k a year before tax.

My savings are 8k. Plus 2k invested in wealthsimple.

I live alone and have no wife/kids. I know its late. But I want to start building. I did some day trading with Penny stocks and made a few bucks here and there. I think its too risky. Don't want to do it again.

Thanks.

A nice car gets attention today. A strong investment portfolio gives you options years from now.

Personally, I’d rather look average and have my money working in the background.

Ok. What do you guys think about Claude analyzing trending stocks for short-term trading? I am doing it for four weeks right now and I have never seen that much green before..

Prompt (first I share a picture of my portfolio) - I would like you to analyze the attached stocks. Please categorize them and provide a detailed overview of other sectors experiencing high trading volume in recent weeks. I also want a clear overview covering a two-week period that highlights sectors where stock values ​​are declining, as well as a list of sectors showing growth. I am not looking for advice, but rather a clear picture of current market trends. Please also list popular stocks for each sector—select five—and explain the reasons 'people' cite for their rise.

Moderna and Merck announced that their personalized cancer vaccine intismeran, combined with Keytruda, significantly reduced the risk of melanoma returning or spreading in a Phase 3 trial. Moderna shares surged as much as 160% on the news. This is the first positive late-stage trial for an mRNA cancer vaccine, which is a pretty major validation of the technology beyond COVID.

The bigger question now is whether this becomes Moderna’s second act. If this platform starts working across multiple cancers, the company looks very different than a declining COVID-vaccine story.

Full Moderna data and Congressional activity:

https://app.walnutmarkets.com/ticker/MRNA

Do you think today’s move is justified by the Phase 3 result, or did a 100%+ move price in too much too quickly?

[supprimé]

Rare earth stocks ripped higher Friday, with MP Materials up ~8%, USA Rare Earth up ~9%, and NioCorp up ~3%.

The policy backdrop is getting hard to ignore. Trump recently told a defense audience to “do magnets”, while the administration continues pushing to build a domestic rare earth and permanent magnet supply chain. The U.S. is still heavily dependent on China for processing, so every new tariff, defense contract, subsidy or supply chain restriction matters a lot for this group.

This trade is starting to feel less like a commodity bet and more like an industrial-policy bet. Humanoid robots can require dozens of motors/actuators per unit, and S&P Global notes some designs may use 30+ motors, each potentially relying on rare earth magnets.

MP, USAR, or NB.. which one do you think actually becomes the biggest winner if the U.S. keeps throwing money at domestic magnet production?

https://app.walnutmarkets.com/ticker/MP

https://app.walnutmarkets.com/ticker/USAR

https://app.walnutmarkets.com/ticker/NB

Silicon Photonics (SiPho) is next sub-sector for explosive long term directional growth. Potential candidates of directional trade are listed below (in Alphabetical order). Do your own research!!

1. CIEN
2. COHR
3. CRDO
4. GFS
5. LITE
6. MRVL
7. POET

You invest money under your parents tfsa after you max out your own fhsa and tfsa?

FYI parents have nothing contributed meaning they have 100k plus in contribution room

And this is after every year you max out your fhsa and tfsa

My thoughts on crypto are that everyone who invests does so because they hope its value will increase and they will sell it and get rich. I do not think most people invest because they see crypto as a transactional tool capable of replacing money. For anyone who buys crypto, do you see it as the next form of currency, an alt investment worthy of diversifying into or some other reason why do you buy it?

FUTR Corp recently released preliminary unaudited Q2 2026 results for the quarter ended June 30. The update showed continued growth in its core auto payment processing business, while its AI-powered financial planning platform, launched June 1, began contributing revenue during the quarter.

Revenue increased 16.5% quarter over quarter, with gross margins above 81%. FUTR Planning generated nearly C$300,000 during its first 30 days.

The user activity was also interesting. In June, users completed 6,618 financial plans, with 1,590 identifying auto loan needs and 4,136 identifying mortgage needs. That creates a potential cross-selling path into FUTR Payments rather than relying entirely on acquiring customers separately.

For investors looking at an early-stage platform, how much weight would you put on immediate monetization like this? Would you focus more on the initial revenue, the user conversion potential, or whether the growth can continue over several quarters?

Been investing for about six years. Work in tech. One thing I've gotten better at over time is distinguishing companies that are 'growing fast' from those with 'durable competitive advantages'. Confusing these cost me real money early on, and I know I'm not the only one.

The core question: If a well-funded competitor built the same product tomorrow with zero users, would customers switch? If yes, that's momentum, not a moat.

Four moat types I focus on in tech:

1. Network effects -> Product value increases with each user. Look at: engagement per user rising alongside growth, take rate stability, and whether value accrues to the *network* or just the *product*.
2. Switching costs -> Painful for customers to leave. Look at: NRR above 120%, 6+ month implementation timelines, deep workflow integration.
3. Scale economics -> Size creates unfair cost advantages. Look at: gross margin expansion at scale, capex as % of revenue declining over time.
4. Data advantages -> More usage makes the product better. Look at: retention curves improving over time, accuracy gains correlated with volume.

How I use this? If I can identify at least one with supporting metrics, I'm interested. If I can't identify any, I treat it as a trade, not a hold. No matter how exciting the growth story sounds.

The biggest trap I fell into early on: assuming 'good product + fast growth' equals a MOAT. Products can be replicated. Growth can be bought with marketing spend. What matters is whether something *structural* compounds over time. Once I internalized that, my whole approach changed.

• What do others use as their primary signal?
• Do you weight one moat type more heavily?

My Answers are yes, yes and YES! Expect high volatility though so size wisely and trade around/key core positions. AMD vs MU comparison shown below
Revenue Base: Much Smaller vs ~2.5x larger
Growth Rate: Lower vs High
Margin: Much Lower vs High
PE or PEG: Quite High vs Low
Market Share: a. GPU/CPUShare: Small/~45% vs HBM/DRAM: 22%/ 22%
GPU Competition: AMD vs NVDA vs AVGO/MRVL/GOOG/AMZN…(ASIC/TPU) (GPU will dominate in the foreseeable future for training. Inference & Edge A is a dog fight), extremely competitive, third fiddle player, trying to catch up
CPU Competition: AMD vs INTC vs ARM vs NVDA vs AMZN vs QCOM…(ARM architecture will win over large CPU market share within 2 ~ 3years), extremely competitive, no moat!
HBM/DRAM Competition: Samsung vs SKHY vs MU (Tri-nopoly), super high moat for the BIG THREE
Demand: High vs Super High (through the roof)
Customer Base: Mainly OpenAI & ORCL(some Hyperscalers) vs NVDA, BRCM and other Semiconductor companies, All Hyperscalers
Customer Quality: OpenAI/Meta Need AMD to reach 1T to get “Free AMD Shares” in order to pay for the deal. This significantly dilutes the share value. The investors actually pay for their deal vs All major customers’ long term contracts and pre-paid orders
Cyclicality: CPU (Cyclical)/GPU(less Cyclical) vs same as GPU (most system 1GPU have 4 to 6 HBMs)
Balance Sheet: Good vs Excellent
Share Buy Back and Dividends: None vs ~0% Dividend
Investor Base: Momentum (Pump & Dump) vs Momentum/Long Term Investment
AMD and MU Strategy (Education only, not a recommendation): Trade (Buy ~$500, Trim ~$550, Dump ~$600) vs Long Term Core Holding( Buy ~$800, Trim ~$1100, Trim more ~ $1200, …hold cores)
There are definitely gamblers and pump-and-dump traders for AMD and pumpers for MU. MU fundamentals have definitely changed. As long as AI is alive, MU will thrive. Enjoy the ride!
Both AMD and MU good companies. AMD is a trade at this level and MU is a trade and a core holding.
We don’t want to subsidize OpenAI to pay for AMD deal though. When AMD gets to 1T$ (~$600/share), OpenAI gets “free shares” which severely dilutes investors’ shares. To be very frank, OpenAI doesn’t have the money. And you, the investors need to flip the bill.

I had numerous highly educated individuals who were overly zealous of Motley Fool. Living on the coastline of Connecticut my neighbor who is one of the top cardiologists at Yale New Haven Hospital swore by it. My other neighbor a retired Coast Guard officer and ex USCG Academy professor of mechanical engineering endorsed Motley Fool too, several other medical professionals also held it in high regard. When I went on disability (I have a private tax-free Northwestern Mutal 70% of income with cola policy) I was getting bored and decided to start getting more involved in the market besides holding QQQ, VXUS, etc. I decided to give Fool a shot for ideas as the ultimate responsibility is mine by taking a stock and continue with my research. In two weeks, I realized how asinine the dogma was and I asked for a refund which I was ignored. I tried a different approach and was given back my money. If you ask for your subscription fee back after two weeks because you notice the hubris and structural flaws in their approach, they resist you. You must as I did start posting actual data, pointing out the holes in their philosophy, and logically refuting the moderators, the tone changed instantly. They stop arguing, denying your refund and labeled me “difficult.” Motley Fool processed my refund without delay. The moment you threaten the narrative, they fold. It does not teach why are you buying ABC?, risk management: how much you're willing to lose before you sell and profit taking plan. Just a blind buy and hold mandatory no if, ends and buts; just a blind 5-year hold.

Motley Fool has spent decades selling the idea that it teaches people how to invest, but the results tell a different story. What it actually promotes is a lottery‑ticket philosophy — a system built on hope, storytelling, and the belief that one miraculous winner will redeem a portfolio full of disasters. It is not investing. It is not discipline. It is not analysis. It is a scratch‑off strategy wrapped in long‑term rhetoric. I’m using only six stocks as examples, but the pattern runs far deeper. This is what happens when dogma replaces reality — when a one‑sided culture shuts down opposing views instead of examining them.

The failures of FMC and UPST, the blindness to the 6,000% moonshots in RGTI and QBTS, and the complete misreading of GE and Intel’s transformations are not isolated mistakes. They form a single, coherent pattern: Motley Fool’s research philosophy is built on narrative preservation rather than analytical revision, and that philosophy has led investors to miss some of the most extraordinary opportunities of the past decade while holding some of the worst disasters.

FMC was promoted as a stable long‑term compounder, a blue-chip stock at $110, a company supposedly positioned for durable agricultural demand. Today it trades near $11. UPST was celebrated as an AI lending revolution at $320, a generational disruptor. Today it trades near $30. These collapses were not unpredictable; they were inevitable. FMC’s business was tied to commodity cycles and pricing pressure that Motley Fool never analyzed. UPST’s model was hypersensitive to interest rates and credit conditions that Motley Fool again never analyzed. Both were framed as long‑term winners because the narrative demanded it. When the collapse came, the firm did not update the thesis. Fool hid in the corner, stopped talking about the stocks. The silence was avoidance: don't talk about the 90% loss so it never existed.

This same avoidance defined Motley Fool’s treatment of RGTI and QBTS. Both companies sat at the bottom for more than seventy‑five weeks — RGTI near $0.56, QBTS near $0.75 — yet Motley Fool said nothing. No analysis. No updates. No recognition that these companies were not going to zero. No acknowledgment that RGTI had more than five years of cash burn on its books, making the claim that it would “go to zero” not just wrong but absurd. No acknowledgment that QBTS was stabilizing and preparing for a move. The bottoms were visible. The accumulation was visible. The operational progress was visible. But Motley Fool ignored all of it because it contradicted the established narrative.

When the stocks finally took off, Motley Fool did not discuss the bottom, the recovery, or the magnitude of the move. RGTI ran from $0.56 to $65. QBTS ran from $0.75 to $50. These were more than 6,000% moonshots — gains that dwarfed the returns of most “official” Motley Fool recommendations. Yet the firm pretended they never happened. Instead, it reverted to its preferred rhetorical shield: the IPO price. By anchoring commentary to the IPO, Motley Fool could claim that RGTI and QBTS were still failures, even as they delivered returns that would have transformed any portfolio. The IPO became a way to erase the significance of the bottom and hide the fact that the firm missed the entire move. This is not analysis. It is narrative protection.

The blindness to bottoms and recoveries is the same blindness that caused Motley Fool to misread GE and Intel. GE was dismissed as a disaster, yet a $5,000 investment before the reverse split — roughly 1,000 shares — became 125 shares worth about $45,000, plus 32 shares of GEV worth more than $34,000, plus 73 shares of GEHC worth about $5,000. The total value is roughly $84,000. This was not a fluke. It was one of the most successful large‑cap restructurings of the decade. But Motley Fool did not see it because it was too committed to the narrative of decline.

Intel was dismissed as a value trap, yet a $5,000 investment at $20 — about 250 shares — is now worth roughly $25,000. The five‑year chart that once looked hopeless now shows a dramatic recovery. But Motley Fool did not see it because it was too committed to the narrative of technological stagnation.

The pattern is unmistakable. When a company declines, Motley Fool insists it will stay bad. When a company bottoms, Motley Fool insists the bottom does not matter. When a company recovers, Motley Fool insists the recovery is irrelevant because the IPO price is higher. When a company explodes upward*, Motley Fool* insists the explosion does not count because it contradicts the established narrative. This is not long‑term investing. It is long‑term storytelling.

The FMC collapse, the UPST collapse, the seventy‑five‑week bottoms of RGTI and QBTS, the missed 6,000% rallies, the misuse of IPO benchmarks, the missed GE moonshot, and the missed Intel recovery all point to the same conclusion. Motley Fool’s philosophy is not built on fundamentals, thesis tracking, or risk management. It is built on the belief that one super‑winner — Nvidia, Netflix, Amazon — can redeem a portfolio filled with dead‑money positions, speculative disasters, and missed opportunities. But a portfolio that depends on one stock to carry everything is not a portfolio. It is a lottery. And a research philosophy that cannot recognize bottoms, cannot recognize recoveries, and cannot recognize restructurings is not a philosophy built for growth. It is a philosophy built for narrative preservation.

In a market where bottoms matter, recoveries matter, restructurings matter, and moonshots matter, narrative preservation is not merely inadequate. It is dangerous. It leads investors to hold FMC at $110 until it becomes $11. It leads them to buy UPST at $320 until it becomes $30. It leads them to ignore RGTI at $0.56 until it becomes $65. It leads them to ignore QBTS at $0.75 until it becomes $50. It leads them to dismiss GE until $5,000 becomes $84,000. It leads them to dismiss Intel until $5,000 becomes $25,000. It leads them to miss the very opportunities that define long‑term wealth creation.

The final piece of this pattern is Motley Fool’s rigid five‑year hold doctrine — a rule treated as sacred, repeated endlessly, and enforced even when it contradicts reality. The Fool zombies come out of the corners: "Fool states buy and hold 5 years, don't cry after the turn around. 90% loss needs 1,000% return to get back to even: a ten bagger. This dogma is the glue that holds their entire lottery‑ticket philosophy together. It tells investors to ignore bottoms, ignore recoveries, ignore structural decline, ignore deteriorating fundamentals, and ignore obvious opportunities. As this A.I. has scanned and ChatGPT tells them to hold FMC at $110 until it becomes $11. It tells them to hold UPST at $320 until it becomes $30. It tells them to sit through a 20 percent loss because “five years fixes everything,” even when a weak company to collapse to garbage.

This doctrine is not discipline. It is denial. And it is the reason Motley Fool missed the explosive upside in RGTI and QBTS. Both stocks sat at the bottom for more than seventy‑five weeks — RGTI near $0.56, QBTS near $0.75 — and the five‑year dogma told investors to ignore them. The philosophy said bottoms do not matter, charts do not matter, cash runway does not matter, and operational progress does not matter. Only the narrative matters. Only the story matters. Only the long‑term mantra matters. Remember good companies stay good companies and bad stay bad. "Look at the 5-year graph, look retard look. The 5-year graph will continue"

RGTI ran from $0.56 to $65. QBTS ran from $0.75 to $50. These were more than 6,000 percent moonshots — the kind of gains that define entire careers — and Motley Fool missed every inch of them because its doctrine forbids acknowledging bottoms. The firm did not update its view. It did not recognize the accumulation. It did not recognize the stabilization. It did not recognize the runway. It did not recognize the breakout. It simply waited, clinging to the five‑year rule, and then used the IPO price as a shield to pretend the rally did not matter. Instead of using a profit taking exit plan which would have sold into the upside as example 2000 shares of RGTI and 1500 shares of QBTS sell 50 shares at $5 another at 10 another 50 at $20 and so forth would missed 50k of profit as RGTI is at $19 now. I accumulated this in 2022, scaled out last winter but still hold 750 shares RGTI and 500 QBTS. ChatGPT and A.I. owned RGTI & QBTS paid for my daughter's wedding, a family trip to Iceland last winter to see aurora borealis, a trip to Ireland, UK (wife's family visit) and France this summer (going to Louve, Normandy WW2, Muesse Argonne WW1, Lafayettes and Jim Morrison graves, etc,), paying for my sister-in-law foot surgery in UK because the National Health Service had her scheduled for 2031 so she went private (look into socialized health it sucks the White Plains, NY to Stamford, CT 20 mile I-287 / I-95 corridor has more MRI machines then all of England, Scotland, Wales & N Ireland combined and Yale New Haven Hospitals has more orthopedics then the NHS has in London, Canada euthanizes 4x more than all other countries combined: cheaper to kill then pay, euthanatize homeless, depressed people, etc.) and buying my wife a sapphire ring and a diamond necklace and myself some US coins as I'm a life member to ANA (American Numismatic Association). This is what investing is for: life experiences, family experiences, expanding your horizon, unseen medical and just a luxury for yourself. Not just sitting and blindly holding 5 years.

The same dogma blinded them to GE’s transformation. A $5,000 position before the reverse split — roughly 1,000 shares — became 125 shares worth about $45,000, plus 32 shares of GEV special dividend worth more than $34,000, plus 73 shares of GEHC another special dividend worth about $5,000. The total value is roughly $84,000. The five‑year chart looked bad only to those who refused to see what was happening beneath the surface. The doctrine said GE was dead money, so the recovery was invisible. 10 five-year graphs will be posted and say "you must be retarded, look at the graph. The graph always continues as good corporations stay good and bad will continue to do crap."

Intel followed the same pattern. A $5,000 investment at $20 — about 250 shares — is now worth roughly $25,000. The five‑year chart looked terrible until it didn’t. The doctrine said Intel was a value trap, so the resurgence was ignored. "you must be retarded, look at the graph. The graph always continues as good corporations stay good and bad will continue to do crap and Intel is crap."

This is the danger of dogma. It tells investors to hold losers until they become disasters and ignore winners until they become legends. It tells them to sit through FMC’s collapse and UPST’s collapse because “five years fixes everything,” even when five years is exactly how long it takes a weak company to fail. It tells them to ignore RGTI and QBTS at the bottom because “IPO prices matter,” even when the bottom is where wealth is created. It tells them GE is finished and Intel is stagnant because “the chart looks bad,” even when both companies were preparing for massive recovery.

The five‑year rule is not a strategy. It is a shield — a way to avoid admitting mistakes and avoid confronting reality. It keeps investors locked into dead‑money positions while the market moves without them. It turns portfolios into lottery pools and protects Fool dogma instead of capital.

Motley Fool is not teaching investing. It is teaching blind obedience.

Motley Fool does not miss opportunities because the market is unpredictable. It misses opportunities because its methodology is incapable of seeing them. A portfolio built on one super‑winner and a long list of losers is not a portfolio. It is a lottery. A research philosophy that cannot see GE’s transformation, cannot see Intel’s resurgence, cannot see RGTI’s runway, cannot see QBTS’s recovery, and cannot see FMC’s and UPST’s structural decline is not a philosophy built for long‑term wealth. It is a philosophy built for selling hope. and practicing its dogma. It is not identifying opportunities. It is identifying stories. It is not updating theses. It is protecting them. And in a market where bottoms matter, recoveries matter, restructurings matter, and moonshots matter, a research philosophy built on hindsight and storytelling is inadequate and dangerous to your money.

Again if Fool refuses your refund request start busting holes in its dogma. Post well documented stocks that bust their ignorance. Show them GE, FMC, Disney a perpetual do nothing. Holding AT&T after a dividend cut going from $38 to $12 and holding because "Fool states buy and hold five years no matter what so be retarded and blindly follow to the necropolis of stocks"