To The Moon

Disclaimer: Nothing I say or post should be considered financial advice. Please do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions.‌ Trump seemed to be determined to force Iran hands by slaming tariffs on countries that trade with Iran, with China the major trade partner. With the meeting with Xi and Trump coming up soon, does Trump really wants to burn the bridge and worsen the ties between both countries even before its mended or built? And the tariff war between US and Canada has officially started, with Mark Carney announcing 50% reciprocal tariffs after negotiations broke down. Canada has always approach this situation with good faith, but I think it has come to a crossroad whereby enough is enough, you will never be able to negotiate with a tyrant like Trump. So with al

I would wait for both Nvidia earnings and Jackson Hole to clear. Nvidia’s fundamentals remain exceptional, with consensus revenue around $92bn and Rubin potentially becoming the next major growth driver, but expectations are already demanding. A routine beat may not be enough, especially after four consecutive negative post-earnings reactions. The reported 15%+ server price increases also show Nvidia retaining pricing power despite soaring memory costs, although that could pressure customers’ AI returns. For me, the better risk/reward is to avoid chasing before two major catalysts. If Nvidia delivers strong guidance and Warsh does not trigger another yield shock, I would add afterwards. Suppliers, especially memory and AI infrastructure names, remain attractive as a secondary way to play t

I would wait for the data rather than chase the oil-driven growth rally. The demining of Hormuz is genuinely positive, and Iran-Oman talks on a temporary shipping corridor could further reduce the geopolitical premium. But actual oil flows remain far below pre-war levels, while attacks on vessels continue. At the same time, Bessent’s expanded sanctions covering shipping, gold, digital assets and other sectors could tighten Iran’s financial pressure substantially. So cheaper oil is bullish for growth and inflation expectations, but I would want confirmation from shipping flows and diplomacy before rotating aggressively. I would keep core growth exposure, avoid chasing energy after geopolitical spikes, and retain some energy as a hedge. The risk premium has compressed, not disappeared.

I would wait for the data. Moderna’s rally shows the market is shifting from a short-covering story towards assigning real value to intismeran, and a potential $9.2bn peak-sales opportunity would clearly transform the company’s outlook. But peak sales are still a model, not realised demand. With LTM revenue around $2.23bn and declining, paying up after another 14% jump leaves little room for disappointing efficacy, regulatory delays or slower commercial adoption. Merck offers the more diversified route to the same oncology opportunity, but with less upside sensitivity if intismeran succeeds spectacularly. For Moderna, I would rather miss the first part of the move and add after stronger clinical data validate the revenue thesis. At $158+, evidence matters more than analyst targets.

If I could only choose one through the end of the year, I’d pick B: Bitcoin. Gold is the safer and more established hedge, but I think Bitcoin has greater upside if rate-cut expectations, a weaker dollar and liquidity conditions continue to support risk assets. I also like Bitcoin because its role is gradually expanding beyond a speculative asset. With concerns around inflation, currency debasement and rising government debt, I see Bitcoin as a higher-risk alternative to traditional stores of value. The volatility is definitely higher, so position sizing matters. Gold would still be my choice for capital preservation, but if the goal is to maximize potential returns through year-end, I’d rather take the higher-risk Bitcoin trade. I’m comfortable with the volatility as long as I keep my po

$Semtech(SMTC)$   ​Core Dynamic:  "Availability currently matters more than pricing." Zero near-term order erosion; cost increases are passing through cleanly. ​CW Lasers (Post-HieFo):  Transceiver revenue targeted for H1 FY28. Capacity is tight and they trail pure laser leaders, but making solid progress toward the 2027 ramp. ​TIA & Drivers (FiberEdge):  Exceptional demand. Deepening hyperscaler integration with a dominant target of 50%+ market share for 1.6T FiberEdge by year's end ("designing to every module provider"). 1.6T qualifications are finishing ahead of schedule. ​Backlog & Visibility:  Current FY is fully booked; next year is already >70% locked in. Management noted current capacity may fall short f

If I had to choose one, I’d go with D: Eaton and Vertiv. I think the AI power bottleneck is becoming a structural theme, but I prefer the “picks and shovels” approach because data centers need power distribution, backup systems and cooling regardless of which generation technology ultimately wins. That said, $Bloom Energy Corp(BE)$ is definitely interesting. The combination of record revenue, improving margins and onsite power generation gives BE a compelling growth story, especially when grid connections can take years. However, its valuation and execution risk make me less comfortable chasing the stock after a strong run. I also like nuclear and gas power producers for the longer term, but I think the infrastructure surrounding electricity could

🌟 $SpaceX(SPCX)$ Louisiana base:  Bubble or Hard Power?  I vote Hard Power.  Why?  SpaceX is commiting USD 100 billion to build Starbase Louisiana.  It is a 125,000 acre industrial spaceport capable of thousands of Starship launches each year. This is not a hype cycle.  It is the physical infrastructure on a scale normally associated with national governments. This is the largest spaceport ever built.  It is a geopolitcal asset, definitely not a bubble. Hard power infrastructure tends to justify premium valuation because it becomes irreplaceable. While SpaceX is like a rocket to the moon, the Louisiana base reminds us that rockets are only half the equation.  The other half is infrastructure that compounds

🌟🌟🌟Jack Ma's confidence vs Michael Burry's caution: which resonates?  Jack Ma bought HKD600 million of stock during a dilution event.  He is backing $BABA-W(09988)$ AI transformation with personal capital.  He has visibility into Alibaba's internal roadmap, cloud traction & Qwen adoption.  His buying aligns with Alibaba's pivot toward full stack AI dominance. Jack Ma is betting on execution, infrastructure & long term AI leadership. Michael Burry's warnings are typically about overextended valuation, excess liquidity, AI hype cycles, fragile consumer demand & macro tightening risks. His caution is macro first, not Alibaba specific. So which one makes more sense for this wave? For me, I believe that Jack Ma's con

🌟🌟🌟The memory sector is experiencing explosive HBM demand driven by AI accelerators like $NVIDIA(NVDA)$ Blackwell & Vera Rubin architecture.  Fully allocated HBM supply through 2026.  This means every chip is sold before it is made. This is not a normal DRAM cycle.  This is a capacity constrained AI driven supercycle. Is the historic boom still cheap? $Micron Technology(MU)$ Q3 revenue guidance is USD33.5 billion, a single quarter exceeding entire prior fiscal years. HBM is no longer a component.  It is the backbone of AI. Supply is locked, demand is high and the supercycle is writing its first chapt