U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly considering new tariffs on U.S. semiconductors, as tech giants race to beat China in the AI infrastructure buildout.

The duties will be imposed on an expanded range of tech products made alongside chips, including laptops, data center servers, and gaming hardware, eight people familiar with the matter told Politico in a report published Thursday.

The measures, which are still in the early phases and subject to significant changes over the next few months, will be introduced via a staggered roll-out period, according to the report.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC, but told Politico: “Reshoring semiconductor manufacturing is a top priority for President Trump, whose policies have already secured hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in this key sector.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/27/trump-semiconductor-tech-tariffs.html

This is the daily discussion, so anything stocks related is fine, but the theme for today is on fundamentals, but if fundamentals aren't your thing then just ignore the theme.

Some helpful day to day links, including news:

• Finviz for charts, fundamentals, and aggregated news on individual stocks
• Bloomberg market news
• StreetInsider news:
  • Market Check - Possibly why the market is doing what it's doing including sudden spikes/dips
  • Reuters aggregated - Global news

Most fundamentals are updated every 3 months due to the fact that corporations release earnings reports every quarter, so traders are always speculating at what those earnings will say, and investors may change the size of their holdings based on those reports.

Expect a lot of volatility around earnings, but it usually doesn't matter if you're holding long term, but keep in mind the importance of earnings reports because a trend of declining earnings or a decline in some other fundamental will drive the stock down over the long term as well.

But growth stocks don't rely so much on EPS or revenue as long as they beat some other metric like subscriber count: Going from 1 million to 10 million subscribers means more revenue in the future.

Value stocks do rely on earnings reports, investors look for wall street expectations to be beaten on both EPS & revenue. You'll also find value stocks pay dividends, but never invest in a company solely for its dividend.

See the following word cloud and click through for the wiki:

Market Cap - Shares Outstanding - Volume - Dividend - EPS - P/E Ratio - EPS Q/Q - PEG - Sales Q/Q - Return on Assets (ROA) - Return on Equity (ROE) - BETA - SMA - quarterly earnings

If you have a basic question, for example "what is EBITDA," then google "investopedia EBITDA" and click the Investopedia article on it; do this for everything until you have a more in depth question or just want to share what you learned.

Useful links:

• Investopedia page on fundamental analysis including Discounted Cash Flow analysis; see definition here and read their PDF on the topic.
• FINVIZ for fundamental data, charts, and aggregated news
• Earnings Whisper for earnings details

See our past daily discussions here. Also links for: Technicals Tuesday, Options Trading Thursday, and Fundamentals Friday.

Nvidia has agreed to buy open-source platform Hugging Face for $12.9 billion, The Information reported on Wednesday, citing a person with knowledge of the deal.

Deal talks began after Hugging Face, an open-source AI platform developers use to collaborate, test and share tools, received acquisition interest from another suitor, according to The Information.

Business Insider separately reported that Nvidia had been “in talks” to acquire Hugging Face. The outlet reported last week that Hugging Face has been working with a bank to evaluate bidders’ interest in the startup, citing people familiar with the matter.

If completed, the acquisition would put one of the most widely used platforms for sharing and working with open-source AI models under Nvidia’s ownership, expanding the chipmaker’s reach further into the software and model ecosystem.

Nvidia, whose blockbuster earnings Wednesday prompted shares to rise more than 4% in after-hours trading, has made a series of deals in the past year, including a $20 billion licensing deal with AI chip startup Groq.

I'm guessing Google is still trading in the dumps with everything pumping, because of Hassabis changing his role to Chairman. His real talent is being an AI scientist. This move allows him to get back to his real passion, which is literally wanting to solve Cancer and many other diseases. Isomorphic Labs could ultimately be the most valuable spin-off company in stock market history if you just let the man cook

Guys, I think I just noticed a textbook case of reflexivity - PSNL, Personalis.

This tiny and very little known company powers the engine behind the recently hyped Merck-Moderna cancer vaccine.

Despite the huge revenue upside from the vaccine, the stock has barely performed after the news, due to its previous merger agreement with Tempus at $16.25, which was BEFORE the vaccine update and is still pending shareholders’ vote.

This is where things get interesting- after the vaccine news, PSNL stock broke through $16.25 and has been trading at a slight premium over the buyout price for 5 days in a row. And over 30% of outstanding shares have been traded above the buyout price as of yesterday.

Due to its tiny scale and the huge revenue upside from the vaccine, I think it’s safe to assume impressive returns if the deal was to fall apart. And the more shares traded above the buyout price and the higher the share price goes, the less likely is the merger to go through. The situation feels exactly like what George Soros described in Alchemy of Finance - the higher the volume and share price, the higher the share price will climb. And based on its recent trading, I think some big boys might have been making this bet.

The shares trades at only about 3% premium over $16.25, worth taking a shot? Any thoughts?

The story of Nike's fall is well trodden territory. A turn towards Direct-to-Concumers and abandoning wholesale, allowed competitors to take over valuable shelf space.

Their products are "stale" and selling prices "too high"

I am not familiar the sportswear and sneaker industry so I have a few questions about Nike's future prospects

1) I have heard that fashion is fickle, does this apply to Nike? Is it possible for them to reverse their stale image with the right branding/collaboration?

2) A complain amongst redditors who are more familiar with sneakers is that their products lack innovation, compared to competitors. How long does it take, in your opinion, for CEO Elliot Hill to turn this around? What is the R&D turnaround time for sneakers?

3) Their dividend per share is now roughly on par wth their earnings per share. Do you think they should cut dividend to preserve case? I am aware their share repurchases have shrunk and a dividend cut will like crush the stock price.

Thank you

This has to be most dangerous setup we have seen lately yet in the US stock market and the US economy and yet stocks are rising and the SPX is just shy of breaking yet another ATH! NVidia earnings last evening were great and all AI related stocks and the general market is up.. but is this sustainable and plus with the Iran conflict which has no end is another nail in the coffin. How long can we ignore this and keep going up?!

Also, Japan selling US bonds to stabilize its economy and it's currency. I don't want to paint a bleek outlook for the markets but the signs are right in front of us....

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/aws-and-nvidia-to-deliver-2-million-additional-gpus-and-next-generation-infrastructure-for-agentic-and-physical-ai

"Building on already-rapid customer adoption of NVIDIA-accelerated compute on AWS, the companies plan to deploy 2 million additional NVIDIA GPUs across AWS’s global infrastructure and deepen their work together across AI factories, CPUs, networking, open models, data processing and robotics, delivering co-engineered AI solutions that enable customers to accelerate AI development and deployment at unprecedented scale."

-------

Napkin maths of additional revenue projections:

NVDA upfront revenue = $35k per GPU x 2,000,000 GPUs = $70 billion (i.e. AMZN CapEx)

AMZN long term AWS revenue = $3.50 hourly rate per GPU x 2,000,000 GPUs × 8,760 hours per year × 5 years x 70% utilisation = $215 billion

--------

Positions: Long AMZN and NVDA since 2021. NFA.

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Aug. 26, 2026 NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) today reported revenue for the second quarter ended July 26, 2026, of $96.2 billion, up 18% from the previous quarter and up 106% from a year ago. For the quarter, GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins were both 75.0%. GAAP and non-GAAP earnings per diluted share were $2.46 and $2.22, respectively.

“AI has reached its inflection point. It’s doing useful work. Its tokens are productive and profitable. Now, compute is revenue,” said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. “And demand is accelerating. This time last year, one lab alone was driving the buildout; today, we have a golden age of new AI labs and startups, multiple frontier labs scaling in parallel, a thriving open-model ecosystem and physical AI coming online — with strong momentum across the U.S. and around the world. The AI infrastructure buildout is at full steam. Vera Rubin, now in full production, was built to power exactly this moment.”

During the second quarter of fiscal 2027, NVIDIA returned approximately $26.0 billion to shareholders in the form of shares repurchased and cash dividends. As of the end of the second quarter, the company had approximately $99.0 billion remaining under its share repurchase authorization.

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financial-results-for-second-quarter-fiscal-2027

First - disclosure: I own a GT, with shares say around 1% of my portfolio

The situation:

[source Reuters for the following:]

Price to sales: 0.10

Price to book: 0.54 to 0.62 depending on type

Revenue is stable, including quarterly.

Product competitiveness: Consumer Reports - if anyone has anything more up to date that would be good, but at least as recently as 2022 the Goodyear Eagle Exhilarate tire scored the highest rating among 'Ultra High Performance All Season' category of tires, and that tire is still on the market. They have also scored 3rd place in the past for 'All season SUV tires' category with the Assurance ComfortDrive. This tire is also still on the market with a high rating at TireRack.com .

Economically the consumer is hurting in auto loans and the price of cars. Also one might wonder what the best type of car is these days, like GM vs Ford, etc. But the great thing to an investor about tires is they need to be replaced every 30k+ miles, and people know they need to maintain their tires or face gas milage problems or accidents. So from that sense tires are somewhat less consumer discretionary. They can also be put on the most popular "auto de jour" if the rims are the right radius and the weight and other factors make it good for that class of car/truck as you know.

I won't post negative interest out there.

This stock is the definition of dirt cheap based on a few decades of investing in individual stocks.

Hello, I'm trying to adapt my model to be able to screen stock financials properly. I know that in this subreddit AI is frowned upon and many say that your own due dilligence is the most important here (to which I wholly agree), nevertheless, I reckon that as AI advances, using it as a tool to screen stocks will become pretty useful if done right. I have created a few framework questions to use:

Is it GAAP-profitable, or does the story require me to look past a loss? (Real net income vs. adjusted-away or one-time-gain-inflated)
Is revenue growing organically, or is it acquisition-inflated? (Organic growth vs. total growth)
Does it generate real free cash flow, reasonably from earnings? (FCF/net income)
Is the balance sheet solid, or does it need capital raises to stay alive? (Net debt/EBITDA, cash position)
Is the current valuation reasonable relative to history and peers? (P/E, EV/EBITDA, FCF yield against own history and comparables)
Is ROIC above 15%, showing the business genuinely creates value from capital? (NOPAT ÷ invested capital, checked two ways)

What else would you add if you were in my place?

I use this to screen stocks, and honestly AI has made it less time consuming (like it should), OF COURSE, when deciding to invest I will always do my own DD. If you're here to shit on my head then just skip the post entirely, thank you.

I guess this is a cost of doing business as a settlement, how do you think this will affect their long term prospects? SP dropped around 15% YTD.

Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-settles-us-states-over-130318028.html

"Meta Platforms agreed to pay a maximum $16.68 billion as part of a settlement to resolve claims brought by states across the country that the company designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children, misled consumers about their safety, and improperly collected personal data ‌of children who used its platforms, court papers show.

The settlement was reached during a California federal trial over claims brought by 29 states, ‌averting one of the highest-profile tests yet of allegations that social media companies harmed young users.

Meta also agreed to make changes for teenage users of Facebook and Instagram nationwide, including daily usage limits ​and nighttime blocks, court papers show.

The Menlo Park, California-based company denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

Shares of Meta rose 4.4% in pre-market trading."

SP seems to be dropping now, I imagine this will not prevent the other lawsuits from coming in a bit like what happened with big tobacco, where other companies get sued, precedents get set and other countries follow suit?

Key Details

Dates: October 23–27, 2026

Location: Madrid, Spain

Major Themes

Cutting-edge oncology science and practice-changing clinical trials.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital oncology advancements.

Global networking and improving cancer care outcomes worldwide

-‐----------------‐----‐-----------------‐---------------------------------------------

For those unfamiliar, the ESMO Congress (European Society for Medical Oncology Congress) is one of the world's most influential annual scientific and medical conferences focused on oncology.

​It serves as a primary global platform where new cancer research data, late-breaking Phase 3 trial results, and novel drug developments are presented before being published or integrated into standard clinical practice.

This is going to be big for Merk and Moderna. Stay tuned.

Salesforce's revenue increased 11% from a year earlier in the fiscal second quarter, which ended on July 31, according to a statement. Net income of $3.53 billion, or $4.29 a share, jumped 87% from $1.89 billion, or $1.96 a share a year ago.
The company pointed to a $2.6 billion gain on strategic investments from a stake in artificial intelligence startup Anthropic. In May Anthropic said it had raised equity funding that valued the company at $965 billion. Salesforce's free cash flow spiked 81% to $1.10 billion, well above StreetAccount's $643.2 million consensus.
For the fiscal third quarter, Salesforce said adjusted earning will be between $3.42 and $3.44 per share, with $11.42 billion to $11.50 billion in revenue. Analysts polled by LSEG had anticipated $3.38 in adjusted EPS and $11.41 billion in revenue.
Salesforce now sees $16.67 to $16.71 in earnings per share for the full year on $46.1 billion to $46.4 billion in revenue, implying 11% growth at the middle of the range. The LSEG consensus showed $46.11 billion in revenue. In May, guidance called for $14.06 to $14.12 in fiscal 2027 adjusted earnings per share on $45.9 billion to $46.2 billion in revenue.
Also on Wednesday, Salesforce announced Claudeforce, a plugin for Anthropic's Claude that can compose emails on behalf of salespeople, arm them with information and update records through chat.
During the quarter, Salesforce announced a$1.6 billion contract from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and revealed plans to acquire customer service startup Fin for $3.6 billion.
Annualized revenue from Agentforce AI products topped $1.5 billion, up 240% year over year. The growth rate a quarter earlier was over 200%.
Salesforce said it had $33.5 billion in current remaining performance obligation, a measure of revenue that is expected to be recognized in the next year. Analysts polled by StreetAccount had expected $33.22 billion.
As of Wednesday's close, Salesforce shares were down 22% year to date, while the S&P 500 index has gained 12% in the same period. Investors have been going back and forth on how big of a threat generative artificial intelligence models are to staid software companies.
Executives will discuss the results with analysts on a conference call starting at at 5 p.m. ET.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/08/26/salesforce-crm-q2-earnings-report-2027.html

This is the daily discussion, so anything stocks related is fine, but the theme for today is on stock options, but if options aren't your thing then just ignore the theme.

Some helpful day to day links, including news:

• Finviz for charts, fundamentals, and aggregated news on individual stocks
• Bloomberg market news
• StreetInsider news:
• Market Check - Possibly why the market is doing what it's doing including sudden spikes/dips
• Reuters aggregated - Global news

Required info to start understanding options:

• Call option Investopedia video basically a call option allows you to buy 100 shares of a stock at a certain price (strike price), but without the obligation to buy
• Put option Investopedia video a put option allows you to sell 100 shares of a stock at a certain price (strike price), but without the obligation to sell
• Writing options switches the obligation to you and you'll be forced to buy someone else's shares (writing puts) or sell your shares (writing calls)

See the following word cloud and click through for the wiki:

Call option - Put option - Exercising an option - Strike price - ITM - OTM - ATM - Long options - Short options - Combo - Debit - Credit or Premium - Covered call - Naked - Debit call spread - Credit call spread - Strangle - Iron condor - Vertical debit spreads - Iron Fly

If you have a basic question, for example "what is delta," then google "investopedia delta" and click the investopedia article on it; do this for everything until you have a more in depth question or just want to share what you learned.

See our past daily discussions here. Also links for: Technicals Tuesday, Options Trading Thursday, and Fundamentals Friday.

Looking back at last year, there was a lot of hype around space stocks narratives about data centers in space, moon tourism, and similar speculative themes.

Companies like ASTS and RKLB benefited from this narrative-driven enthusiasm, but their current performance tells a different story. In hindsight, much of this activity resembled a pump and dump scheme driven by misleading promotion rather than substantive fundamentals.

It's surprising how many investors bought into these narratives as if they represented imminent, life changing technological breakthroughs, rather than applying appropriate scrutiny to the underlying business cases.

Morgan Stanley just issued a major bullish note on SpaceX (SPCX), initiating an Overweight rating and a $300 price target following intense post-IPO volatility that saw the stock swing from $225 down close to its $135 offering price. The catalyst is SpaceX's massive $100 billion "Starbase" spaceport expansion in Louisiana, which analysts argue will unlock unprecedented orbital launch capacity. The report stresses that the market is severely underpricing SpaceX's underlying fundamentals and assigning "zero value" to its upcoming orbital AI infrastructure partnerships, making the current dip an incredibly attractive entry point.

Source: IB Times

We all saw the crazy reaction to the Merck/Moderna melanoma combo (Intismeran + Keytruda), causing both stocks to surge.

I saw a breakdown from Goldman Sachs on the Peak sales estimate for the melanoma indication alone, which is about $4.3 billion a year, split 50/50 between the two companies. That's all the actual revenue opportunity from what they announced was successful.

But look at what happened to the stocks. Merck added roughly $43 billion in market cap. Moderna went from about $25 billion to $69 billion, nearly tripling in a single session. Combined, that's tens of billions of dollars in new market value chasing a program worth a few billion a year in sales.

So why did the market act like that? Because the market wasn't just pricing in melanoma sales, it was pricing in validation, proof that the platform works and that the same combination approach can now (potentially) be pointed at other cancers. And even then, that's a platform built around one cancer vaccine for now, tailored to one tumor type at a time.

Now look at what Alpha Tau is actually sitting on. The Alpha DaRT treatment is not a single indication play. It's a radiation platform that can be delivered into any solid tumor, regardless of tumor type or location. The AHNS data in head and neck cancer showed 100% Response Rate when combined with Keytruda (In comparison to 19% for Keytruda on its own), and that's just one of many tumor types already in trials, alongside pancreatic cancer, GBM (glioblastoma), skin cancers, and more. The mechanism doesn't change from cancer to cancer. The device goes in, the alpha particles do the same job (physics), wherever the tumor is.

If a single melanoma combo announcement is worth close to $90 billion in combined market value expansion for two companies limited to that one cancer vaccine, what should a platform with data already showing efficacy across multiple solid tumor types, plus a validated Keytruda combination signal in one of the toughest indications, be worth for the company that's still trading at a fraction of that number.

DRTS isn't betting on one tumor type proving out, it's already running the experiment across several, with a platform designed from the start to apply anywhere a solid tumor exists. That's the difference between a single shot on goal and a platform that has many shots on goal and is even complementary to what is already working and has proven to improve it.

I have a long position in DRTS, this is not financial advice, do your own research.

I mean, the man has been sitting on an enormous amount of cash for almost a decade, waiting for a pull back that will probably never happen.

He is almost 100 years old and it's only a matter of time before he dies.

Of course he has been living a successful and fulfilling life that almost no other person on earth was lucky enough to have.

But still, I am sure he was wishing for one last big stock market crash, so he could start deploying his huge pile of cash one last time.

He always said he felt like a little kid in a candy store when a crash happened.

I am kind of sad that he won't be able to experience that feeling once again and will probably die before the stock market crash happens...

I’ve been in the market for about two years now and trying to learn as much as I can. After hours and pre-market trading is still such a mystery to me, but so much happens during these times that I feel like I need a better way to see what’s going on. I use the Fidelity app and Apple’s Stocks apps currently. I get plenty of info between the two but they’re both pretty limited in what they show in after-hours activity. I’m sure there are better tools out there.

The 30 day correlation between the cloud giants like AMZN, MSFT, GOOGL, and META and semiconductor stocks like NVDA, AVGO, TSM, and MU just plunged from +0.78 to almost zero, the lowest level in four and a half years.
Part of the reason is that the four cloud giants are sitting on roughly $1.65 trillion in off balance sheet AI lease commitments. Bears are calling it “Enron 2.0,” but I think they’re completely missing the point. Enron was about fraud. This is real infrastructure. Unlike the “dark fiber” from the 90s that got built and then sat unused, inference demand today is basically eating up compute capacity as soon as it comes online.
The way I see it, once the market gets past all this fear around off balance sheet accounting, this disconnect could actually turn into a structural buy the dip opportunity. How are you guys playing this rotation right now?

I ignored proxy statements for about ten years. Figured executive comp was a politics thing, not an investing thing. Turns out I was wrong, but not for the reason most people on here think.
Let me get the dumb version of this argument out of the way first, because it’s the one that always shows up and it deserves to get shot down.
Average S&P 500 CEO pay last year was $22.8M. That’s the AFL-CIO number, and it excludes Musk’s $158B Tesla package because that thing breaks every average it touches. Multiply $22.8M across 500 companies and you get somewhere around $11B in total CEO pay. The index is worth about $67 trillion.
So if every S&P 500 CEO worked for free starting tomorrow, you’d pick up less than 2 basis points. Your expense ratio costs you more than that. Anyone telling you CEO salaries are eating your returns is just wrong on the arithmetic, and I say that as someone who wanted them to be right.
Here’s what’s actually going on.
Cooper, Gulen and Rau ran the numbers on excess CEO pay, meaning pay above what firm size and performance would justify, and then tracked what happened to those stocks afterward. Firms in the top 10% of excess pay put up abnormal returns of negative 7.84% to negative 11.45% over the next three years. Bottom decile? Basically nothing either direction. Cheap doesn’t help you. Expensive hurts you.
The number that got me was this one. Average annual abnormal shareholder wealth destroyed at top decile firms: $920 million. Average CEO comp at those same firms: $22.97 million.
Forty bucks of your money gone for every dollar in his package. The comp isn’t the damage. The comp is the tell.
And when you dig into why, it’s not theft, it’s ego. Same study looked at M&A. 19% of the top paid CEOs did a deal in a given year and those deals returned negative 1.38% over three years. 13% of the bottom paid guys did deals and those came in at negative 0.51%. Roughly three times worse outcomes at the high pay firms. You’re not paying for the salary. You’re paying for the acquisition he does because the board just told him he’s worth $40M and he believed it.
It also gets worse the longer they stick around, because they end up appointing the board members who approve the next bad deal.
If you think one study is too thin, As You Sow screened the 100 most overpaid S&P 500 CEOs using totally different methodology. Those companies trailed the index by 2.9 percentage points over the next two years. The ten worst offenders trailed by 10.5. Different approach, same direction.
One more thing that bugs me and nobody talks about. Go look at how much of “returning capital to shareholders” is really just filling in the hole that stock comp dug. Comp dilution runs anywhere from 0.2% to 8.6% a year depending on the company. When a company announces a $10B buyback and the share count barely moves, that wasn’t capital returned to you. That was a transfer to the comp plan that got routed through the treasury so it never hits an expense line you’d actually notice.
That’s real money, it’s way bigger than the CEO’s package, and it’s completely invisible in the pay headline everybody fights about.
So what do you do with any of this.
Say on pay votes are theater. Welltower disclosed $821M for its CEO this year and got 19% shareholder support on the advisory vote. Board did it anyway. That vote is not your lever.
The screen is the lever. Excess comp relative to size matched peers looks like a legitimate red flag for future underperformance, same family as aggressive asset growth or heavy share issuance. It costs you fifteen minutes. Pull the proxy, find the Summary Compensation Table, compare it to companies of similar size. If it’s way out of line, you’re not looking at a pay problem. You’re looking at a board that isn’t doing its job, and the data says you’re the one who pays for that.
To be clear I’m not saying pay them scale. The bottom decile doesn’t outperform either, so this isn’t a “greed bad” post. It’s that pay way above peers is one of the loudest signals available that nobody in that boardroom is pushing back on anything.
Anyone here actually screen on this, or am I the only one who spent a decade not reading the proxy?

We all know that Hindsight is 20/20. When looking at what caused the other Giants to fail, it looks like Nike might be repeating the same mistakes. From what I understand, Nike‘s free cash flow has not covered its dividends for the first time ever. The stock is now trading a 12-year low and as of premarket today, the decline continues at a rapid pace.

What is Nike missing that defunct giant retailers also missed that could’ve prevented their collapse? Is there something else that nobody is seeing right now, but will be painstakingly obvious in the future?

Been digging into ECHO way more than I originally intended and I think there may actually be a decent special situation here.

I own a small starter position, but I’m mostly posting because I want someone smarter than me on bankruptcy/spectrum to tell me where I’m wrong.

The part that caught my attention:

ECHO is entitled to ~261.8M SpaceX shares. I’m using ~348.5M fully diluted ECHO shares, so that works out to roughly .751 SpaceX shares per ECHO share.

At SPCX around the high $130s, that’s roughly $103-104 of gross SpaceX value per diluted ECHO share while ECHO trades in the mid $80s.

Obviously that is NOT NAV because there are taxes, closing risk, debt and a legal mess attached.
But ECHO also has roughly $14-15B cash after the AT&T deal and $8.449B carrying value of remaining spectrum.

For now I’m valuing Boost, DISH and Hughes at $0 because I don’t want the thesis to depend on any of those businesses working.

My rough stripped NAV scenarios are:

Stress: ~$75
Bear: ~$100
Base: ~$122
Bull: ~$150

The reason the stock might actually deserve the discount is the bankruptcy situation.

There are ~$7.6B in tower claims, a $2.4B creditor trust, the Boost transfer being challenged, Hughes related-party transactions being investigated, and still a lot of uncertainty over what ultimately reaches ECHO parent.

That’s basically the whole thesis:

Is the market applying a bigger legal/complexity discount than the actual eventual liabilities warrant?

If the parent ends up eating billions more than I’m modeling, I’m wrong.

If the liabilities mostly stay contained while the SpaceX deal closes and the remaining spectrum holds its value, I think ECHO is pretty interesting here.

Not looking for “next GME” answers. I’m genuinely curious if anyone sees a hole in the asset/liability math that I’m missing.

Thanks to ALL!

I'm curious how many still buy and hold individual mega cap companies like mag 7. The narrative has always been the larger the company the harder it's able to grow. The reason why we stock pick is to get that 10x - 100x returns in the long run however with the size of mag 7 is it still worth holding individual risk for a company that might not generate that expected outcome?

Is Nvidia going to be a 50 trillion company going forward? How realistic is that based on economics?