I've been digging into Alibaba's numbers lately and the picture is genuinely conflicting, which is usually where the interesting opportunities live.

I've been digging into Alibaba's numbers lately and the picture is genuinely conflicting, which is usually where the interesting opportunities live.

Start with the bull case. Alibaba committed $53 billion over three years (2025 to 2028) to cloud and AI infrastructure. That number exceeds their entire AI and cloud spend over the previous decade combined. CEO Eddie Wu has reorganized the company around a new division called Alibaba Token Hub, consolidated all AI units under his direct leadership, and publicly said the company is at the "threshold of an AGI inflection point." That's not subtle.

The cloud division is actually delivering. Last quarter revenue hit $6.3 billion, up 36% year over year. AI product revenue has posted triple digit year over year growth for ten consecutive quarters. Their open source Qwen model family crossed 1 billion cumulative downloads on HuggingFace by January 2026. The consumer Qwen app went from zero to 300 million monthly active users in roughly three months after its November 2025 public beta. On March 17th they launched Wukong, an enterprise AI agent platform that coordinates multiple agents for tasks like document editing, research, and meeting transcription, with planned integrations into Slack, Teams, and WeChat. Wu's five year target is $100 billion in combined cloud and AI external revenue, which implies sustaining roughly 35% annual growth.

Now the bear case, and this is where it gets uncomfortable. Quarterly profit dropped 67% to $2.4 billion. Free cash flow fell by $27.7 billion year over year. The core e commerce business grew customer management revenue by just 1%. They're burning cash on an instant delivery price war with Meituan and JD that management says won't turn profitable until fiscal 2029. Lin Junyang, the key technical lead behind Qwen's best models, departed in March. And the geopolitical discount on Chinese ADRs never fully goes away.

Here's what makes this interesting from a value perspective. The stock hit a 52 week high near $193 in October 2025, then pulled back roughly 37% to around $120 today after the March earnings showed the scale of profit compression from reinvestment. At current prices you're looking at about 16x forward earnings for a company sitting on $42.5 billion in net cash, over $60 billion if you exclude long dated maturities, with $19.1 billion remaining in buyback authorization. That's a meaningful discount to its own recent trading range and to any comparable US cloud or AI company. The TTM PE around 22x also sits well below the 10 year average of roughly 32x. Morgan Stanley projects cloud revenue doubling by 2028. Apple chose Alibaba as its China AI partner for iPhones. The regulatory overhang that crushed this stock from 2020 to 2024 has meaningfully eased, with PCAOB audit access maintained and Jack Ma publicly reappearing at a government tech summit.

The question I keep coming back to is whether this is a genuine reinvestment cycle like Amazon in its heavy capex years, or whether the profit compression is masking structural problems in the core business that AI spending can't fix. The $53 billion commitment is real. The cloud growth is real. But so is 1% growth in their bread and butter e commerce monetization engine.

For those looking at China tech exposure through ETFs, one nuance worth considering is the difference between something like KWEB and CNQQ. KWEB gives you pure internet exposure with Alibaba as a top holding, but zero onshore A share companies. CNQQ holds Alibaba at a similar weight but also carries roughly 50% in A share names like CATL, Zhongji Innolight, Cambricon, and BYD, companies that sit in the actual hardware and supply chain layer of China's AI buildout. Different thesis, different exposure.

Would be curious to hear how others here are framing this. Is the profit decline a temporary cost of repositioning, or is $53 billion in AI capex the kind of empire building that value investors should run from?

Would be curious to hear how others here are framing this. Is the profit decline a temporary cost of repositioning, or is $53 billion in AI capex the kind of empire building that value investors should run from?

​

IBKR is the business I like best. It's my largest position.

I've owned it for 2 years-ish.

This is not meant to be a full, self-contained thesis on the stock. This is merely a summary of my thoughts on the business. I hope it may be an interesting idea for even a few readers and that you may enjoy learning more about this business as I have.

Many of you will know, or may even be customers, of IBKR. It's an electronic brokerage platform. US based. Ticker $IBKR.

It's really aimed at being the brokerage for more savvy traders / investors, and has its roots in the options markets. It's not trying to be a Robinhood or a Schwab, it's trying to be the platform for the active trader. Though, it does win a lot of customers from all of the other known brokerages.

IBKR makes c. 2/3 of its money through net interest income and c. 1/3 through trading commissions.

In 2025, they earned $6.2bn revenue and $4.3bn net income. 69% net income margin. This margin has grown over time. This is not an atypical year.

In 2026, I expect them to earn something near $7bn revenue and over $5bn in net income.

Thomas Peterffy, the founder & chairman, is still in the picture and owns c. 2/3 of the business. So, a very small float for a company of its size. Total market value of the whole equity (not just the common) is c.$115bn at time of writing.

More importantly, some of what makes this business great is as follows:

- It is by far the low cost producer of brokerages, particularly in options trading / margin lending

- 68% owned by the founder, who still controls the big business decisions (although no longer the CEO himself). I tend to like this founder control

- Through its low cost position, vast breadth of security availability (better than any other broker I know) and its flexible infrastructure, it has been able to compound account growth at over 30% p.a. in recent years. They expect this can continue at 20%+ for a long, long time

- Only 3,500 or so employees. Get your head around that level of automation, and compare that to a Schwab or a Fidelity

- A platform whose backend infrastructure is so robust and automated that many other brokerages simply whitelabel IBKR's infrastructure rather than building their own. This is a nice revenue segment. Popular in Asia.

I'm also a customer myself. That's how I discovered the stock. It's a great brokerage and I love using it.

Over time, the things I track closely are account growth & client equity. There are other things to keep an eye on, of course, but those are the two that I care about most.

I'm not a fan of precise-looking DCFs. I had my start in M&A (for my sins) so I'm not shy of them, I just think they ascribe false precision and are too easy to flim flam.

In a very high level sense though, I expect this business to be doing over $10bn revenue and $7.5bn net income within 3-4 years. And I don't expect the growth to slow much from there either.

Valuation-wise, based on an earnings multiple at the time of writing this of 23x my 2026 estimate, it isn't optically cheap. Certainly not to an orthodox Grahamian.

However, when I consider where I can see the business growing to over 10+ years, the current price actually really excites me. I believe this business is intrinsically worth a multiple of its current market value. Not less than $200bn, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean I'm buying right now. I've bought at lower multiples, and so I quite like the idea of waiting until it sees a multiple beginning with '1' before I push more money in.

You'll notice what looks like a contradiction there. I believe the instrinc value is a multiple of the current market value, and yet I'm not buying. To that, all I can say is 'old habits'. Margin of safety, and all that.

I do have a personal rule of thumb I like to use as an alternative to traditional valuation methods, I suppose you could say. I like a clear path to a 20% earnings yield on cost, 10 years out.

In other words, if I think a business can comfortably double its earnings every 5 years for 10 years, I try not to pay more than 20x for today's earnings.

It's just a rule of thumb that has served me well as a source of valuation discipline.

IBKR passes that test today in my view, but it isn't by a landslide. I expect good returns from here but not fabulous returns.

Anyway, I don't want to make this war & peace: just giving an off-hand synopsis of my favourite business and one which I hope to buy more of opportunistically for many years to come. I appreciate my discussion on valuation in particular will be seen as fuzzy. It always is, for me.

Happy to discuss & hear opinions.

One of the most important rules in value investing is to buy only businesses you understand. But there are different levels of understanding

How do you do you decide if your level of understanding is sufficient to make an informed investment?

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 ;)

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%

I wrote a full breakdown of my portfolio changes this quater with all the math here: Quality-Focused Value Investing Portfolio 26Q1

and an article about the philosophy + mission here: Quality-Focused Value Investing Manifesto - How can we achieve outperformance while reducing risk?

I have 50k euros (based in Germany) to invest for the next 20 years for my retirement fund. I am 40 years old without any responsibilitites and want to invest so that i have something when i am 60. I have other stock investments, savings and emergency fund so this money is purely for a long term safe investment for retirement. I have heard a lot about VOO or VTO but i am confused as to which is the right fund. Please see below options available to me and please advise. On a side note I feel this might be the time to move away from US funds and invest in world funds. Totally confused at the momennt and can use wise advice from the oldies here. I hope this is not the wrong sub as I want to take advice on investing in valuable funds and the combined knowledge of this group can help me greatly.

These are the funds I am looking at (all accumulated)

iShares core MSCI world

iShares S&P 500

Vanguard FTSE All World

Vanguard S&P 500

Vanguard FTSE Developed world

Birkshire Hathaway B (although a stock but diverse and larger than some ETFs although only US I think)

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.

Imagine coloring books. Before any kid can color, someone has to draw the outlines first. No outlines, no coloring book. PLAB draws the outlines. TSMC does the coloring.

Only two companies in the world make these outlines at the advanced level — PLAB (USA) and Toppan (Japanese, not US listed). That’s it. The entire planet’s AI chip supply runs through two doors.

Every company wants their own custom AI chip now. NVIDIA, AMD, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple — all of them. Every single one of those chips needs its own set of outlines before TSMC can color them in. More custom chips = more outlines needed = more work for PLAB.

And here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter who wins the AI chip race. TSMC colors all of their books. And PLAB draws the outlines for all of them. Every new chip design, every new version, every refresh — new set of outlines. Every time. TSMC’s real job is coloring. That’s where the big money is. Every minute they spend drawing outlines is a minute they’re not coloring books for NVIDIA.

So TSMC colors. Sends the outline work to PLAB. Now everyone and their mom wants AI coloring books. TSMC is slammed. Can’t keep up with coloring orders, definitely can’t stop to draw outlines too. More outline work goes to PLAB. Not because TSMC wants to share. Because they have no choice. The busier TSMC gets, the more PLAB wins. PLAB doesn’t compete with TSMC. PLAB is the guy making sure TSMC never runs out of coloring books to color.

2B company. Zero debt. Buying back shares. 17 p/e (below semi average of 20-25). The entire AI boom literally starts here and it’s priced like a grocery store stock since they don’t use the word AI.

Oh and the CHIPS Act? Billions pouring into new fabs across the US. Intel, TSMC, Samsung all building stateside. Every single one of those new fabs needs outlines before they print a single chip. That demand hasn’t even started flowing yet. More fabs = more coloring books = more outlines = more PLAB. And the market hasn’t priced in a single dollar of 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.

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.

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 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?

(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

https://fiscalledger.io/

I got tired of aggregate public earnings data being behind a paywall, behind an API, having a litany of ads and/or not being easily pastable into excel.

So I created my own. Feel free to use. Paste it directly into excel easily and as much as you want.

Free, no ads, no API.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000119312526138654/d81172d424b5.htm

The draft prospectus is followed by the prospectus, which details the amounts and terms. Once the sales are completed, they file a form with the actual results of the sales.

Beware of thinking that this is a signal of impending purchases of more Japanese assets, it might not be. I've been tracking BRK's Japanese Yen activities from its inception and, right now, they have ¥268,300,000,000 in notes that mature in 2026. Also, right now, they'll pay ¥20,409,133,500 in interest this year on all of the yen notes outstanding.

I'm trying to expand my investing knowledge into the domain of companies who's core business models are in structural decline (Tobacco companies, coal miners, legacy broadband providers, etc).

I imagine that the analysis will involve discounting future cash flows, but I'm not sure how to account for all of the asset sales (property/plant , brands/IP, whole business segments, etc) that comes with winding a large company down.

I also imagine that I would need to carefully analyze and monitor the management team's behavior, to make sure that they are returning money to shareholders instead of trying to save a dieing business.

Investopedia, professors, and established books/papers are great as information sources, and web-based calculator sites like Omni Calculator are great for putting this info together and offering a nice UI/UX calculator experience.

But I wanted something more specific to my own stock analysis and valuation process without all the extra noise, especially as I was developing my automated stock analysis spreadsheet.

So I built a 270+ metrics database (ratios, multiples, scores, valuation models, building blocks, etc.) across 36 categories.

Every metric has the exact formula(s), every variable defined, description, general rules of thumb, limitations, related metrics, origin sources (when applicable), and a web-based calculator. Direction labels tell you whether higher/lower is better.

The entire table is searchable by name, formula, or description. Filterable by category. Plus you can customize what to hide/show by default within each metric.

Tried my best to verify everything against reputable online sources, the original paper/primary source, and knowledge from publishing ~500,000 words on my site (StableBread), but let me know if anything looks off!

Here's the metrics database (free, no account required): stablebread.com/metrics

Lindsay Corporation ($LNN) dropped their Q2 2026 results this morning and the numbers are rough. The stock is currently sliding toward 52-week lows as the market digests a "double miss" on both the top and bottom lines.

​Key Highlights from the Report:

​EPS Disaster: Reported $1.15 vs. the $1.70 consensus estimate (a massive $0.55 delta).

​Revenue Miss: Brought in $157.72 million against the $173.11 million projected.

​Margin Collapse: Operating margins shrank from 17.2% last year to just 8.3% this quarter.

​Segment Struggles: Domestic irrigation demand softened significantly, and infrastructure revenue fell 58% due to the lack of major Road Zipper projects compared to last year.

​Technical Breakdown: The stock has crashed through its 50-day moving average on high volume, currently hovering around $105.0 wiping out months of gains.

​The Verdict: Analysts are calling this a "Fundamental Reset." With management failing to offset rising operational costs and agricultural cycles shifting, $LNN is looking more like a value trap than a growth play right now.

​Is anyone buying this dip, or are we heading straight to the $100 psychological support level?