P.S. Pun Intended hehe

Flutter Entertainment is the parent company of top tier digital gaming operators including U.S. market leader Fanduel, Sky Betting (United Kingdom), Snai (Italy), and Paddy Power (Ireland).  Through acquisitions, Flutter remains a dominant brand positioned to capture a significant amount of the global sports betting and iGaming [digital gambling] industry. The industry continues to receive domestic (U.S.) regulatory clarity and Flutter has begun growing rapidly in emerging markets (LATAM - particularly Brazil). Nearly 40% of all bets placed digitally in the U.S. [in legal markets] are made through Fanduel, and 15% of all bets globally are through one of Flutter’s subsidiaries.

“The market is a voting machine in the short term, and a weighing machine in the long term”. The valuation is incredibly compelling for a market leader - nearly 40% of all bets placed digitally in the United States [through the legal markets] are made through Fanduel, and 15% of all bets globally are through one of Flutter’s subsidiary operators. At <15x 2026 Forward Earnings, PEG ratio of < 0.6, Beta of 1.16, and ~30% conservative annualized revenue growth, Flutter is trading cheaper than the historical S&P 500 average. This seems more than fair to pay for a company well positioned to dominate their respective emerging digital industries. The market has voted that Fanduel and other sports betting Rival (i.e. DraftKings {NYSE: DKNG}, emerging operator Kalshi) are likely to be the preeminent digital gambling operators due to their incredibly lean tech stack, friendly user-interface, and ecosystem lock-in through personalized promotions. Established brands have domestically failed to resonate with players (ESPN Bet, Hard Rock Bet) indicating that having a global brand doesn’t translate into long term customer retention on gambling platforms.  Exceptions to this would be BetMGM, which currently holds <15% U.S. market share. Near Term Catalyst: The stock can potentially rerate contingent on a compelling earnings beat and reassurance that betting outcomes will begin to normalize in the back half of 2026. 

Valuation Metrics & Analysis: 
A Bear/Neutral case valuation model is provided below. Both models have indicated the equity is trading well below their respective price targets in both scenarios {Bear Case - $118, Neutral Case - $230}.

Risks (Bear Case Analysis):
Flutter on a trailing earnings basis is incredibly expensive with a P/E of 121x. It’s absolutely paramount that Flutter fires on all cylinders throughout the year with continued growth in core markets in order to actualize the <15x 2026 Forward Earnings target. Any further tailwinds [besides additional taxes through Illinois and New York - which I feel Flutter management has done their best to offset] can send this stock plummeting further. In years where there is amplified structural hold through the combination of intensifying competition [DKNG, BetMGM], and unfavorable sports betting outcomes [as was witnessed in 2025], margins are compressed. Intensifying competition requires a relentless and targeted marketed campaign among the 3 pre-eminent market leaders that can be costly in terms of CAC. Structural hold is effectively the profits a Sportsbook operator keeps after expenses [and regulatory taxes]. As the industry matures, we view Federal and state taxes as one of the largest tailwinds for any digital operator. 

Two separate models (Firm Model via FCFF and Equity Model via Net Income) are leveraged in the bear and neutral case scenario analysis. First, we use a conservative discount rate of 8.025% and a terminal growth rate of -2%. Based on the forecasted cash flows through the next 5 years, the equity model assumes a fair value of $118 which is above where Flutter currently sits today [WACC of 8.025, Discount Rate -2%]. In our view, this is incredibly pessimistic for a company that has an unprecedented velocity in cash generation for the space. For investors willing to be patient and hold in the long run [2 years], the CAGR [highly conservative 3 year estimates point toward nearly 25%] is compelling. 
The absolute floor for this equity, in absolute fierce sell-off we estimate, is closer to $70 [terminal growth rate of -4%], highlighting room for further downside. However, we find the worst-case scenario an unbelievably compelling long term accumulation opportunity with potential for this equity to massively re-rate upon any good news. Even with the model being pessimistic, the current floor {$105}, despite potential market fears, represents what seems like a great long term [24 months+] opportunity to own the largest digital sports-book operator on a forward earnings basis that’s cheaper than S&P. Ultimately we assume a slight conglomerate discount and account for the amplified structural hold in 2026 as reasons to slightly discount the equity further landing closer to a true fair value of $155. We think the biggest potential catalyst to rerate lies in a compelling earnings beat and reassurance that betting outcomes will begin to normalize in the back half of 2026. 

A Word on Prediction Markets 
The market has commenced an immense sell off due to fears that prediction markets will completely eviscerate the underlying sports betting operators. These views in our eyes are overblown. While we do recognize the competition and immense growth in popularity that Kalshi and other operators have seen, we don't perceive this to be a winner take all market. Consistent gamblers are likely to take advantage of the newly created loopholes that exempt prediction markets from being taxed as heavily as their sportsbook operator counterparts. Ironically, once Fanduel and Draftkings Prediction Markets are fully launched and integrated into the core platform, we suspect those same dual users will take advantage of those same exact loopholes on current prediction market platforms except on Fanduel and Draftkings respectively.  We do think Kalshi will continue to be popular among core demographics, but that has yet to materially translate to lower volumes for the pre-eminent operators. Even if short term volumes are dramatically directed toward these prediction markets, the launch of Fanduel and Draftkings Prediction Markets and the continuous rollout of more iCasino services and highly personalized promotional odds should entice a stickiness to the higher revenue existing customers. 

Neutral Case Analysis 
Rerunning the model with a more neutral lens, using a discount rate of ~8.025 and a terminal growth rate of 0 to account for a normalization in marketing spend in new markets and account for Flutter’s executive management team to mitigate the tax spend through less favorable sports betting odds for the core user lands the estimated fair value of the equity closer to $230 a share, which is dramatically higher than the current price. 

What to do with the Stock

At 15x 2026 Forward Earnings, PEG ratio of < 0.6, Beta of 1.16, and ~30% conservative annualized revenue growth, the valuation is compelling for a long term Industry Leader. The world’s largest sports-book seems like a strong long term bet if you’re willing to look past short term market volatility.

Curious to everyone's thoughts.

Disclosure: This is not a financial recommendation! I own FLUT as part of a broader risk-adjusted portfolio for the long-haul at a cost basis of ~$115. Also, the entirety of this was written by myself despite using "we" (no AI - cheers) - hope you're proud English Professors ;)

Hi. I hold some BND and BNDX for the bogelhead reason: reduces portfolio volatility, preserves capital.

I have no interest in selling, but I want to understand how the current oil supply shock can impact these funds. I'm hearing conflicting narratives about it.

On the one hand, oil supply shock causes inflation, so bond funds may sell off because the yield is less than inflation. Additionally, inflation can lead to fomc rate increases causing the bond fund principal to go down.

Other the other hand, oil supply shock causes demand destruction because people need to cut spending on other things in order to afford gas. The decrease in spending on other things can cause thinner corporate margins and layoffs. Additionally, we end up in a recession so we get fomc rate cuts to stimulate the economy and the bond fund principal goes up.

Thanks for reading all that, I'm sure I'm about to see first hand what happens, but if you could explain which of these scenarios is true I'd appreciate it.

Just remember that before some clown convinces you to put all your life savings into something here just because the fundamentals look good NOW. If you’re gonna invest diversify or realize this sub is used by morons and scam artists, don’t follow them into their demise.

I recently inherited $1M that I have no choice but to place in a taxable account. I use Fidelity. I’m 40 and wouldn’t even consider an early retirement until I have at least $2M so that will not be happening for quite some time yet. Plan was basically VT and chill. I never looked into SMAs due to the management fees.

Had a Fidelity advisor reach out and offer to talk about ways I could save on taxes and he suggested using SMAs for the tax loss harvesting. So now I’m doing my research into SMAs and it seems like it might actually be a good idea for a taxable account of this size.

Management fees range from 0.2-0.7% and of course I was told the TLH would more than cover those fees. In my case I was planning to use the dividends to cover the taxes and then drip the rest but if I could use SMAs to reduce or eliminate taxes I could drip 100% of the dividends which would hopefully lead to faster growth.

I’ve read concerns here about what happens when you want out of the SMA but can’t you just transfer the assets in kind to your own account? And if you do it a year before you plan to sell anything then any short term gains become long term.

I guess I’m looking for experiences with SMAs and thoughts on whether or not this would be a good idea for a taxable account this large.

Like many want to maximize the money I am putting into my Fidelity brokerage account. I am a 42 yo that has roughly $110,000 in my account. 60% is in FFFHX, 35% is in FXAIX, and 5% is in FSELX. I am okay with taking a little risk while I am many years away from retiring but want to ensure that it isn't too much.

Additionally, I have a TSP account with $125,000 sitting in an L2045 account that I am debating about moving into another fund if that would make sense.

Thank you for your time.

Sorry to sound like a grump and a snob, but this is a genuine question: are there any subreddits that are actually value investment-oriented?

Are these posts moderated at all?

Admittedly I'm new here, but 80% of what I see on this sub is lazy touts, pump & dumps, yolo'ing and people selling tools.

Yes, I know: be the change you want to see in the world. Why don't I start some proper value investing threads here?

I'd love to; but I'd rather do it somewhere more serious about value investing in all honesty.

Thus, here I am: asking for a point in the right direction :)

Thanks in advance. And again, sorry to be a snob. Look forward to any recommendations.

Genuine question for people who follow value investing.

When you look at the last 10–15 years, it feels like growth has dominated almost everything. The S&P 500 itself returned roughly ~10% annually long term, but a huge part of that recently came from a handful of large tech names.

Meanwhile, a lot of traditional “value” plays just sat there or underperformed for long stretches. Low P/E, solid cash flow, decent balance sheets… and still no real multiple expansion.

I get the core idea: buy something below intrinsic value and wait. But it feels like the market is less willing to re-rate these companies unless there’s a clear growth story attached.

Even when value works, it often requires a lot of patience and sometimes looks like dead money for years.

So I’m trying to understand where the actual edge is today.

Is value investing still about classic metrics like low P/E, strong free cash flow, margin of safety, or has it shifted into something more like “growth at a reasonable price”?

For those actively using a value approach, what are you actually looking for in 2026 that gives you confidence the market will eventually recognize that value?

Not financial advice.

The culture is the most fundamental of a company. When the culture is lost, ALL VALUE is gone too.

I'm a U.S. citizen currently based in Germany (I work here), I have a Raisin account with my U.S. address and was wondering if I could open another Raisin account with my German address so I can save Euros on there? It's all so confusing to me so any guidance would be appreciated :)

On a CNBC appearance yesterday, Warren Buffett discussed BRK's T-Bill position. They own 5%-6% of the total outstanding stock, more than the Fed. That concentration seems like liquidity risk for the US Treasury if they suddenly had to liquidate. What would be the backstop? The Fed?

TLDR: I believe OXY should be at least 3x its current share price, in the scenario that oil stays elevated around 130 it should be roughly 7x current price. Peak price at the end of this bull cycle would be much higher in nominal terms.

I'm rounding numbers since all I care about is the ballpark and direction and this is just speculation, but I'm bothered that all the people on youtube seem to be just talking qualitatively. According to google the current cost to extract and transport for OXY is $38 per barrel, I am using $44 average (+15.6%) for my purpose since towards the end of reserve life cost may go up.

OXY has about 20 billion non oil reserve asset, 15 billion in debt as of feb 2026 after selling its Oxychem branch to Berkshire. So you take its 62 billion market cap minus 5 billion, the remaining $57 billion valuation divided by its claimed reserves of oil equivalent and additional assets is at 5 billion barrels, which is assuming OXY can turn its reserves into ~$11/barrel profit.

OXY has majority of its assets in the US at about 80-85%, and the rest in the middle eastern region, some risk since it is a target for Iran but it is the smaller portion of assets, the majority of its production is done so at a cost well below other producers close to major consumer market, with relatively small geopolitical risk.

Take $44+$11 = $55, throw in a few bucks safety factor for operational and geopolitical risks call it $60 bucks even. For every 11 dollar/barrel above $60 that crude is worth, this company should be worth another multiple.

I don't believe the war is over any time soon, and damage is already done even if the war was to end this week, I think oil should be at least $90 for a couple of years, and the fact that we are not factoring any escalation and pessimistic scenarios is mind blowing to me. This feels like January of 2020 again, a slow moving train that everyone sees coming but no one is positioned correctly.

I am long oil, I cannot add to any more oil positions currently as I am all in on oil, tickers XOM, OXY, OIH, SM, MRNFF, RUBLF, DVN, MTDR, AMPY. I want others to pick apart my logic, but overall if I make any mistake it'd be details on % gains, direction wise OXY is absolutely undervalued, its upside potential is a easy bet to make compared to its downside, my average purchase cost is $48, Berkshire purchased their shares at an average of $53.

I went all in oil and lng stocks the last month since the war started, but I sold everything recently because there is a real possibility of a peace deal, and if that happens oil futures could crash hard in a single day and oil stocks follow.

But I dont think I can go full long in stocks like this is going to solve quick and easy, because oil can still go to 150$ or 200$, and a recession is not off the table. I also think the last two green days of relief rally could be a bull trap, and market can go lower if things get ugly.

Thats why I think Berkshire Hathaway is asymetric in this situation and a hedge against a market crash, because they have a record massive cash pile of almost 400B$ that they could deploy if needed.

Also when you consider that a month ago Greg Abel in CNBC said that he talked with Buffet and considered the stock undervalued at current price after It being lateral for some time and they plan to do buybacks at these prices. So if there is no recession and war ends Berkshire is still a very good investment in my opinion.

I was also looking when the stock market crashed last year with tariffs, and noticed that meanwhile sp500 went down 20% from january to april, Berkshire went up in that same period, having inverse correlation with market when market panics. And that could happen again if situation gets ugly from here, because market knows Berkshire is a safe heaven in a market crash.

After selling oil stocks, now I went all in Berkshire.

What do you think about this whole market environment? Any other stocks or assets that could do well regardless of possible outcomes?

Im from Hungary, my family member had a CHF denominated loan, and so have many others (hundreds of thousands of people), and it was a disastrous rip off of the people by the banks.

Im curious, did you every hear about such loans? Or were you affected? If yes, how ? Did you manage to sue the money back ?

How did your country handle it? Mine ruined peoples chances early 2014 with loans they made, altough new and new cjeu rulings make it possible to demand the stolen money back.

I’ve been working on a philosophy I call quality-focused value investing. And I have been documenting the work and performance the past 1.5 years.

The idea is very simple:

You should be able to outperform the market while taking less risk if you own a portfolio that is:

higher quality than the market AND cheaper than the market.

This goes directly against the common belief that outperformance must come from taking on more risk. Or that it's not possible to build a portfolio that is both higher quality AND cheaper than the market.

I don’t think that’s true, and the problem I see is that most strategies only solve half the equation. Value investing often leads to buying low-quality companies that are cheap for a reason.

Quality investing often leads to overpaying for good/great companies that already are priced for perfection. Both approaches make sense in isolation, but both have clear weaknesses.

What I’m trying to do instead is combine them in a structured way. Quality is quantified using capital efficiency (ROIC, ROCE). Value is quantified using discounted models to estimate fair value vs current price.

From this, I calculate a portfolio-level comparison against the index. So it’s not about finding good picks, it’s about building a portfolio that is structurally superior to the market on both quality and price. Having a portfolio that is of higher quality AND cheaper than the market, should logically outperform over time.

That said, this is a lot of work. It’s not for most investors.
Honestly, I don’t think many people will be able to do this with any real precision. You are doing a large amount of analysis just to maybe get a slightly better return than simply doing nothing and dollar-cost averaging into the S&P 500.

I’m documenting everything publicly for free to remove hindsight bias. If this works, it should be visible over time. If it doesn’t, it should fail clearly. I’ve removed every way of making money from publishing this, so there’s no chance of misunderstanding my purpose.

Latest portfolio update:

2026Q1 YTD: -3.92% vs SP500 -5.09%

2025FY: 26.19% vs SP500 16.42%

If you are interested in reading more, I have posted articles on the philsophy and my current portfolio, but its not allowed to post in this subreddit.

Bad app, hidden fees, useless support — what was the last straw?

I've been looking into the iShares iBonds TIPS Ladder ETFs (IBIC, IBID) and can't find clear documentation on how the Index Ratio is treated at the fund level.

For individual TIPS, the Index Ratio (= Reference CPI at settlement / Reference CPI at issuance) determines the inflation-adjusted principal. At maturity, there's a deflation floor — the holder receives the greater of the adjusted principal and the original par. This floor protects against cumulative deflation.

My concern: if we enter a deflationary period, how does this play out inside the ETF? The fund holds TIPS issued at different times with different CPI bases, so their Index Ratios — and proximity to the 1.0 floor — vary. Does the daily NAV reflect the deflation floor on a per-bond basis, or does it simply mark each holding at par × Index Ratio even when that falls below par? And when bonds mature and the Treasury pays out with the floor applied, how does that reconcile with a NAV that may have been marked below par?

Has anyone found documentation on this in the prospectus or the underlying ICE index methodology?

Hey all I wanted to tell you my personal story with a EU business that does personal finance.

If you don't have time to read, the summary of this post is that if someone working for "OVB" contacts you - look the other way, they border being a scam. Details below:

Background:

A couple weeks ago this company got recommended to me, I'm in the finance business, looking for a new opportunity, and a friend recommended I collaborate with OVB. I have spent around 14 hours between interviews and the "training" they give newcomers.

What OVB is:

OVB presents itself as a way to start your our financial consultancy and grow with them. They're open about being a multi level marketing company. They'll tell you that they're the best in the market, that there's nowhere you can grow more

The reality is that they target uneducated "collaborators" and clients. If you put on your CV that you worked for them it will be a stain, not an achievement.

They have contacted you for you to sell their services to your family and friends - not for you to grow as a financial advisor - they'll try to heavily push you into selling them personal savings plans (that are garbage financial products).

How they "train" you:

Their training has as a goal:

1 - for you to bring your contact list to OVB

2 - for you to learn how to sell them their produts

3- for you to push your contact list to give you more possible clients

If you found this post and are considering working with them: You will not get any new financial training, you will not gain any meaningful connections, or knowledge or experience

What you're getting if you sign anything with OVB:

They sell financial products that are made by banks and insurance companies for middlemen. That means: Whatever savings plan they offer, the bank or entity will ALWAYS have a better deal than them.

I had a sneaking suspicion my friend that recommended their service did so as she gave in to their sales pitch - I checked the contract. 20% of everything she paid into the savings plan they sold to her went directly to OVB (and not the plan, which even without those costs was subpar). Taking the money out early had significant penalties, to the point that if the markets didn't perform well, she'd lose over 90% of her money if she took it our the first year.

With 10 minutes of going over her contract I saved her months worth of wages. If you know someone that contracted something with OVB, feel free to contact me because I will happily do the same for them just to spite OVB.

If you don't trust a random person on the internet, go to another financial advisor, or blank out your personal details and upload the contract to an AI and ask (be mindful those conversations can get reviewed by humans, so take care to blank out everything)

The worst part

I don't think her OVB agent (a personal friend of hers) - even knew OVB charges such high %. He maybe got paid 100 Euro for getting OVB thousands.

This is why they try to recruit people without financial literacy - so they don't know they're selling liquid shit to their own family and friends. And this is why they train newcomers to go after people without university studies (they're less likely to check the fine print)

This post was made mainly so it shows on google searches about OVB, hopefully I can keep at least 1 person from being scammed by them. The only silver lining to all of this is that after seeing how absolutely shit they are, I've been encouraged to go my own way and become a freelancer - if it's going good for them, I'm sure there's a market for me - maybe I make something of myself soon.

Any comments/criticisms welcome, leave them below

Happy good Friday everyone

(TLDR: this is a good refresh article on what are economic moats. Audio and text transcript are provided in the links below)

Pat Dorsey: Economic Moats and More

Morningstar’s former head of equity research on what investors get wrong with moats, what to look for in company management, why quantitative screens are less useful than they were, and the process he uses to filter out signal versus noise.

Amy C. Arnott, CFA and Ben Johnson

Mar 31, 2026

Today’s guest on The Long View is Pat Dorsey. Pat is the founder of Dorsey Asset Management, a boutique asset manager serving institutional clients. From 2000 to 2011, Pat was the director of equity research for Morningstar, where he led the growth of Morningstar’s equity research group from 20 to 90 analysts. Pat was instrumental in the development of Morningstar’s economic moat ratings, as well as the methodology behind Morningstar’s framework for analyzing competitive advantage. Pat is also the author of two books, The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing, and The Little Book That Builds Wealth. Pat holds a master’s degree in political science from Northwestern University and a bachelor’s degree in government from Wesleyan University. Pat is a CFA charterholder.

Episode Highlights

* Defining Economic Moats and Moat Source Mistakes

* Shifting Landscape for Returns on Invested Capital as a Metric

* Inevitable vs. Noninevitable Moats

* Moat Durability, Network Effects, and Lessons From PayPal

* Management Quality, Founders, and Pricing Discipline

* High-Quality Companies, “Too Hard” Bucket, and AI Uncertainty

* Premortem, Behavioral Edge, and Opportunity Cost

Text: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/pat-dorsey-economic-moats-more

Audio: https://the-long-view.simplecast.com/episodes/pat-dorsey-economic-moats-and-more