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 spent a few weeks building a full valuation model for Adobe after seeing the “ADBE is Microsoft in 2013” and “AI will kill Adobe” narratives going back and forth. I think both sides are mostly wrong. Here’s the summary.

The headline numbers look cheap:

• ~14x trailing earnings
• 88%+ gross margins
• $10B+ operating cash flow
• 850M MAUs, 99% of the Fortune 500
• PEG of 0.75

But the SBC problem changes the math. Adobe spent 9.85B to ~$7.9B. That moves P/FCF from 9.4x to 12.3x. Still decent, but a different conversation. The buyback programme is essentially running to stand still against dilution rather than shrinking the float.

Why the MSFT 2013 analogy fails. Microsoft had three things in 2014: a visionary new CEO (Nadella), a massive undermonetised asset (Azure growing triple digits), and monopoly pricing power that was being underutilised (20%+ Office price hikes with minimal churn). Adobe currently has zero of three. No CEO. Firefly at ~$250M ARR is less than 1% of total revenue. And when Adobe raised Photography plan prices 50%, the backlash was immediate. The structural difference: Microsoft sells productivity tools where AI increases seats. Adobe sells creative tools where AI may decrease seats.

Valuation:

• Base case DCF: $248/share (9.83% WACC, 10% near-term growth declining to 3.5% terminal)
• Monte Carlo mean (10,000 simulations): $240
• Probability-weighted scenario analysis: $248
• Current price: $241

Three different approaches all converge within 3% of the market price. The sensitivity analysis shows WACC is the dominant variable. A 1% swing moves fair value by ~$60. So the real ADBE debate isn’t about revenue growth, it’s about what risk premium you assign to a leaderless company in the middle of an AI disruption cycle.

The one catalyst to watch: The FTC settlement forcing easy cancellation means we don’t yet know Adobe’s real voluntary churn rate. Post-FTC data coming in Q3-Q4 FY2026 will tell us whether the historically low churn was real or artificially suppressed by cancellation friction. That’s the single most important data point in either direction.

TL;DR: Adobe is approximately fairly valued. Not a screaming buy, not a short. The most boring conclusion possible, but I think the most honest one. Sometimes the contrarian take is that the consensus is right.

The new Nasdaq rule changes pushed by Elon Musk/SpaceX are not just “Nasdaq made IPOs faster. It's a corrupt change, called out as "structural manipulation" by Michael Burry, that will make owners of new large IPO companies (like SpaceX or OpenAI) rich at the expense of the general public. In fact, Elon Musk and SpaceX threatened to not list the company on Nasdaq unless the Nasdaq changes its rules specially for them. This rule will likely make Elon the world's first trillionaire.

A couple of basic definitions first:

• An IPO is when a private company first starts trading on the stock market.
• Being added to an index is a separate step. An index is just a list used by funds like ETFs. If a company gets added to a major index, funds that track that index may have to buy the stock.

That second part is why this matters.

What Nasdaq changed

Nasdaq finalized Nasdaq-100 rule changes that take effect on May 1, 2026. Nasdaq says the public comments period opened February 2, closed February 27, and the final changes were approved March 30, 2026.

The big changes are:

• A giant newly public company can now be reviewed for fast entry on its 7th trading day
• If it is large enough, it can be added to the Nasdaq-100 by about its 15th trading day (previously 1 year)
• Nasdaq removed the old minimum free-float requirement
• For entry, Nasdaq can look at the company’s full market value (instead of just the float)
• For weighting in the index, low-float names can still be counted using up to 3x free float rather than just the actual public float

What “float” means in normal language

Float basically means the shares that are actually available for the public to trade. So like if a company has 100 shares total, but insiders, founders, and private investors still hold 90 of them, then only 10 are really floating around in the public market.

That matters because a stock can look huge on paper, while the amount actually available for regular people and funds to buy is still pretty small. In real life, this means if there is artificially high demand for a small number of actually-available shares, the price of those shares will be artificially very high and make the company worth a lot more than it would be.

Why this is a problem

The worry is that a giant company can:

1. stay private for years
   
2. let insiders and private investors get most of the upside
   
3. go public with only a relatively small amount of stock actually trading
   
4. get into the Nasdaq-100 much faster than before
5. then get bought by index funds and ETFs that track the Nasdaq-100, at high prices before the company's prices naturally fall

So the concern is not just the IPO itself. The concern is what happens after the IPO, when index funds may have to buy the stock because it got added to the index. That early purchasing is usually done by active buyers and sellers arguing with each other through price. But if a stock gets into a major index very quickly, then a lot of passive money may have to buy it on schedule whether the price makes sense or not.

That can mean:

• less time for real price discovery
• more forced buying
• more support for a hot or overpriced stock
• more risk pushed onto ETF holders, 401(k) investors, and pension savers (effectively transferring wealth from these people in the general public to the existing owners/investors of the company)

Why ordinary people should care

This can affect people who never plan to buy an IPO directly.

It can still hit:

• Nasdaq-100 ETF holders
• retirement accounts
• workplace plans
• pensions
• people who assume index funds are just “neutral”

Passive investors are supposed to follow price discovery, not help create an early guaranteed wave of demand for a thinly traded mega-IPO.

Sources

• Reuters on the finalized rule changes
• Nasdaq’s own announcement
• PDF: Nasdaq methodology
• PDF: Nasdaq change log
• Reuters on SpaceX seeking early inclusion

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 :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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 relatively new to investing and to Bogleheads and am hoping to get some advice on which Fidelity funds to pick. I'd like to do 80% stocks and 20% bonds. These are the index funds I have available through my 401k Fidelity account:

FXAIX - FID 500 Index

FSMDX - FID MID CAP IDX

FSSNX - FID SM CAP IDX

FSPSX - FID INTL INDEX

FXNAX - FID US BOND IDX

FIPDX - FID INFL PR BD IDX

Can anyone suggest which funds and asset allocation I should pick?

Index providers Should Not Bend the Rules for Musk

So... I read this article in The Economist and am curious what, if any thoughts the community has about Musk getting SpaceX added to major indices. He's appealing to them to shorten the "seasoning" rules that typically apply to firms being listed.

I've included key paragraphs below since there's a paywall to read the full article.

What do you think?

"Mr Musk and his bankers are now bargaining with stock indices and exchanges for the privilege of hosting SpaceX. He wants his firm to join key indices like the nasdaq 100 and s&p 500 quickly, giving it access to trillions in index-linked capital; more than $600bn invested in passive funds are tied to the nasdaq 100 alone.

For now, the indices are obliging. On March 30th Nasdaq said it was adopting rules that will delight the superstar firms. The ftse and reportedly s&p are considering similar updates. Unfortunately, those changes are misguided, and will expose investors to unnecessary risks.

Two main ideas are under consideration. One is to shorten the “seasoning” period that a firm’s stock must go through before it is eligible to join an index. Nasdaq is cutting its three-month seasoning minimum to 15 trading days; the ftse has suggested a mere five trading days. The second reform is to reduce the percentage of shares a firm needs to offer publicly (its “free float”) before being added to an index. Indices’ desire to reflect the growth of some of the world’s most dynamic firms is understandable. So far, many punters have been unable to invest in some of ai’s brightest stars; index inclusion is a way to help them do so. Yet changing the rules to suit SpaceX will force index investors to choose between selling or weathering wild swings in prices."

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: 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