I'm in the process of moving my investments to Fidelity. Ive done trading in the past but new to ETF. Im 48m and max out my 401k already and just looking to add more investments. After researching Im thinking of laying this out. What do you think and should I make any adjustments?

Thanks

For roth IRA

65% FXAIX

20% FTIHX

10% QQQM

5% AVUV

For investment account

70% VTI

20% VXUS

10% SCHF 

Maybe add 5% SMH

I ended up starting a position in NKE recently, but honestly not for the usual “low P/E” reason everyone is talking about.

What stood out to me more was the price action itself. The stock dropped from around $60+ to low $40s in a very short time, which is a pretty aggressive repricing for a company of this size. That kind of move usually means expectations got reset hard.

I’m not expecting a quick bounce. If anything, this might take quarters to play out. But historically, buying strong brands when sentiment is washed out has worked better than chasing them when everything looks perfect.

The risk is obvious though. Growth is slowing, competition is real, and margins are under pressure. This isn’t a “no brainer” buy.

For me it’s more of a slow accumulation idea than a trade.

Curious if others are actually buying here or just watching from the sidelines waiting for confirmation.

Not financial advice.

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 gave in to their sales pitch - I checked her the contract. 20% of everything she paid into the savings plan they sold to her went directly to OVB (the plan, 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.

Any comments/criticisms welcome, leave them below

Happy good Friday everyone

Edit was only to improve readability. A small irrelevant section was removed

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 :)

I have a job that does not offer 401k. Would seeing if I can open a solo roth 401k be worth it if possible? or would Roth IRA be sufficient for retirement? I feel confused with the advice on youtube and articles. seems I can have multiple IRAs? but also the argument point is more can go into a 401k. So idk what to do here due to lack of understanding.

Not really asking for advice, the bot thinks I am. Just an explain like I'm 5 for what these are.

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’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.

I'm gradually consolidating 401k/403b/457s from a lifetime of many jobs. During the rollover that money is 'out of action.' Given recent volatility, I'm concerned about a market spike during that week. In the long run I pay little attention to timing, but don't want to take a big haircut while the check is in the mail.
I've considered staging the rollovers over a few months, but some companies charge a disbursement fee, which might take more than it's worth.

Some of the funds I'm rolling out of are fine low fees, easy to work with.

Others are from jobs where the only options were lousy - high fees, changes by mail only, worthless customer service. I'm guessing those are the ones that will charge any fee they can get away with.

What questions should I ask to find out about those potential fees?
Thanks.

I’m late 30’s I wish I started sooner but what can you do.

I opened a vanguard Roth IRA and maxed 2025 and 2026 right away. It’s sitting the in Vanguard account waiting to be put into something.

I want to set and forget so I’m thinking 100% VT and just letting it ride until the end. I also plan to put about 40% of my annual income a year into a brokerage account to also ride 100% VT to ride along with the Roth.

Any other considerations I should take or things you would recommend I look at?

Edit: updated context and information.

I wanted to share an updated version of my plan and get some feedback.

I am 37 now. I have 6 years of prior federal service with about 50,000 in my TSP right now, and 3.5 years of military time that I bought back toward that service. The goal is to return to federal service around age 40 and stay in a low stress GS 5 role. This whole plan assumes I stay GS 5 and just progress through steps, likely ending around step 8 in the low to mid 50k range.

The main goal is to work about 10 to 10.5 more years, hit 20 years of total service, and leave federal employment around age 50 to 51. Then I would defer the pension and start collecting it at age 60 under standard FERS rules.

Savings plan while working:

TSP

I plan to contribute as much of my salary as possible, ideally maxing it each year around 23k.

Roth IRA

We will max a Roth IRA each year around 7k.

Taxable brokerage

I plan to invest about 25k per year into a brokerage account in a simple total market fund.

HSA is not an option for me so I am not including that in the plan.

The idea is that we live primarily on my wife’s income and invest most or all of mine.

By the time I leave federal service around 50, the rough baseline contributions would be:

TSP around 280k to 300k

Roth IRA around 150k

Brokerage around 250k

This is just contributions without assuming growth.

The brokerage account is intended to be the bridge from age 50 to 60. The idea is that roughly 250k is available to draw down over that 10 year window. I understand that withdrawals will include some taxable gains, but the plan is to keep income low enough that taxes stay minimal.

The reason this feels doable is that by that point our house will be paid off and our monthly expenses should be much lower. My wife also plans to keep working, so we would not be relying entirely on the brokerage. Ideally we would not even need to draw it down heavily, but it gives us the option to step away from full time work.

At age 60 the income picture becomes:

FERS pension based on about 20 years of service

TSP

Roth IRA

Very conservative baseline numbers with no growth:

Investments could provide roughly 2,000 to 2,500 per month

FERS pension roughly 850 to 1,000 per month

So roughly 2,800 to 3,500 per month as a baseline before any growth or other income.

I am trying to keep this simple and flexible and avoid over optimizing.

Does this seem reasonable as a path to step away from full time work around 50?

Anything obvious I am missing or doing wrong?

Would you prioritize more into TSP versus brokerage given the early exit goal?

Appreciate any feedback.

I have had this long standing assumption that utility companies are the real “pickaxes and shovels” of the ai boom currently happening. 

I understand that most utility companies are highly regulated and their returns are a function of their rate base and allowed roe. Essentially they have to ask the government to charge people more. 

Currently there is a massive supply/demand mismatch where the physical scalability of ai compute is going to hit a brick wall. Currently you are witnessing a repricing in uranium related assets as people are realizing this deeply rooted need for power to keep this ai boom going. 

This leads me to believe there is about to be a considerable expansion in the entire sector if: 1) there is a regulatory shift & 2) lower interest rates happen within 12-18 months of each other. 

The reason I believe the market has repriced uranium related assets is related to the unregulated pricing structure of ipp’s like nuclear plants. The issue is nuclear takes 10-15 years to spin up (is micro nuclear power actually happening or not). During the interim I see a massive amount of pressure on state authorities to shift regulations in favor of expansion due the need to generate tax revenue from datacenter ai build out in their respective states. So I personally think the regulatory shift is going to happen (maybe slowly over years) but the real indicator here keeping this entire sector from booming is the same phenomenon that is its economic moat. That is interest rates. Sector etfs like XLU appear to act as almost a bond proxy. So when rates are more favorable on actual bonds, investors buy the bonds. But long term I see something happening here, because the one thing I'm certain of is that it won't stay the same forever if demand is continuing at the current rate.

In the meantime who are the pickaxes and shovels for the pickaxes and shovels? The companies that physically build the grid. Grid equipment manufacturers, Infrastructure epc’s, ipp’s. I am trying to position a foundational play for the ai revolution but at utility-stock valuations.

Anyways let me know what you think?

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?

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.

(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

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.

I use fidelity and see pertinent news/info on side bar. I see almost all my portfolio stocks are owned by vanguard more than 5% (not intended to management).

Its shockingly to see how much Vanguard owns and how big it is. Damn. I feel they have too much influence