The advice I keep seeing on Blossom for young investors is that when you're young you can afford to take more risk, and in general I agree with that. Where it goes sideways is in how people put it into practice. Increasing risk usually turns into increasing concentration, and lately that means a few AI names or bitcoin/crypto. What concentration does is widen the range of what could happen to you, without paying you anything extra for it. You might hit it big and you might lose 80 or 90 percent of it, and both of those are very real possibilities. You could take your whole paycheque to a roulette table and put it on red. You have definitely increased your risk. But run that a million times and your expected return is negative, because the wheel has a green zero on it. Run a diversified basket of stocks a million times and your expected return is positive. Both are risky. Only one of them has something paying you to take the risk. Hendrik Bessembinder looked at 25,967 US stocks from 1926 to 2016 and found that only 42.6% of them beat one-month treasury bills over their lifetime, with just 4.3% of stocks accounting for all the net wealth created above T-bills. The median stock lost money. So when you concentrate, you're betting you're holding some of that 4.3%. The usual argument is that a 20 year old can afford to lose it, because there's plenty of time to recover. Personally I'd argue the opposite. If you're 20 and you lose $10,000, at 8% over 40 years that's about $217,000 you don't have at 60. That's the price tag on the bet, not ten grand. And most people are placing this bet inside a TFSA, which makes it worse. If you put $10,000 in and it falls to $1,000, you only get $1,000 of room back when you withdraw it. The other $9,000 of contribution room is gone for good. You can't claim the loss against anything either, since capital losses inside a TFSA can't be used to offset capital gains. I understand the appeal of treating it as bonus money and hoping you picked right. But if you buy something diversified and keep contributing, you put yourself in a good position without ever needing the home run.read more
Since so many people ask how to invest in this sector, or this country, or this asset, I’ve decided to make a comprehensive guide on how you can invest in specific areas. This is NOT portfolio advice, simply information about tickers that you can research yourself. Save this for later so you have a list of ETFs to come back to! Canada: $XIU$XIC$ZCN All expose you to the TSX in Canada. These ETFs consist of all top Canadian companies and access to our national stock exchange. $VCB$VGV$VLB$VAB$VSB$VSC$XBB$XCB Expose you to Canadian bonds; whether it be long-term, short-term, corporate, government, etc. $VDY$XEI$CDZ Expose you to Canadian dividend companies $XRE$ZRE$VRE Give access to Canadian REITs $ZEB$XFN$RBNK Lets you buy the Canadian banks USA: $VFV$ZSP$XSP$XUS$HXS Lets you buy the S&P 500 (learn about hedged vs. unhedged in my other post) $XQQ$HXQ$ZQQ All give you access to the NASDAQ 100 $IWR$VO$VOE$VOT$IJH$SCHM Lets you buy US Midcaps $IJR$IWM$VB$VBR$VBK$SCHA Lets you buy US Smallcaps $DIV$SPYD$RDIV$DHS$VIG$SCHD$VYM$DGRO$SDY Give access from small to high dividend US companies $VTI$ITOT Lets you buy the whole US market $TLT$IEF$VGIT$GOVT$SHY$VGLT Give access to US bonds $XLC$XLY$XLP$XLE$XLF$XLV$XLI$XLB$XLRE$XLK$XLU All give you access to each sector in the S&P such as financials, energy, healthcare, etc. International: $XEQT$FEQT$VEQT$ZEQT Give you an all-in-one exposure to Canada, US, emerging and global markets. $VEA$IEFA$SCHF$SPDW$EFV$EFA Give access to general international exposure $EWJ$EWU$EWC Gives direct access to developed international countries $INDA$MCHI$EWT$EWY$EWZ$EWW$EIDO$EWM Gives direct access to emerging international countries Assets: $KILO$PHYS$CGL Let’s you buy gold directly through ETFs $SVR$HUZ Let you buy silver through ETFs Savings/Interest: $CASH$HISA$PSA$HSAV Access to Canadian savings and interest payments $HSUV-U $PSU-U $HISU-U Access to US savings and interest payments There’s so many ETFs I didn’t go into with dozens of categories, but this should give you some basic starting point to look into your ETF investments. This is simply the starting point, when choosing your investments always research the ETFs, what they provide to you, their fees, your goals, your risk, and what you’re looking to get out of investing. As always do your research and happy investing! Subscribe to the newsletter: relatablefinance.substack.com read more
I am selling all my $VEQT and switching to Wealthsimple direct indexing because it allows you to exclude certain stocks from your Index. Blackrock and Vanguard have separated us from thinking about how our investments can sometimes negatively impact the world without us knowing, because it’s all tucked away out of our sight. I strongly believe that if everyone stopped simply buying the index without considering business ethics we would have a much better world. I know everyone just wants to make money,the good news is that if we all started doing this then the more ethical companies values would go up gaining more of the pie as these unethical companies fall out of the index. I switched to direct indexing for all my Canadian and US index funds , essentially building my own ETF that is similar to VEQT, but I have carefully went through and exluded all Gambling Companies, any Oil & energy companies that don’t invest in renewables ($XOM Exxon Mobil, $CVX Chevron etc.) , as well as anything else that is obviously contributing to the degradation of our society and making us sick here in North America with processed garbage. ($MCD, $COLA, $PEP etc…) If there are any other companies you find that are hurting our people, please let me know in the comments and why they don’t deserve our investment. I know $PLTR seems like a troublesome one I may have to exclude. Together we can make the world a little bit better. read more
You should be proud of yourself. I need you to stop for a second and recognize how incredible what you’re doing actually is. Every dollar you invest represents discipline, sacrifice, planning, patience, and choosing your future self over something you could have spent that money on today. That matters! If you’re scrolling through Blossom and feeling like you’re behind because someone else has $500K, $1M or more invested, please don’t compare your chapter to theirs. They had to start somewhere too. They had to wait. They had to be patient. They had years where it felt like nothing was happening. They made sacrifices you may never see. And they’re simply further along in their journey. You are not behind. You are on your own timeline. Maybe you’re investing your first $100. Maybe you just reached $10K. Maybe you’re working toward $100K, $500K or $1M. Whatever your number is, I want you to be proud of it. Because you’re doing something that takes incredible commitment. You’re building options. You’re buying freedom. You’re giving your future self a better life. And I genuinely hope you realize how amazing that is. So stop being so hard on yourself. I’m cheering for you. I’m proud of you. And I can’t wait to see how far you go. ❤️ Keep going. Your future self is counting on you.read more
The S&P closed above 7,800 for the first time in history yesterday. That is the headline. The story is the argument happening underneath it. Start with the memory run, because almost everyone got the reason wrong. SanDisk ($SNDK)ripped as much as 17%, Micron ($MU) added better than 5%, Western Digital and SK Hynix ($SKHY) ran with them. The trigger was not a price hike announcement. It was Nebius's earnings report. Buried in Wednesday's print was $37.5 billion in contracted future obligations and $8 billion of first-half capex, and the memory market did the arithmetic instantly: every dollar of multi-year GPU capacity that neoclouds lock in drags a proportional wall of NAND, HBM and enterprise SSD demand behind it. Add Grok 4.6 pricing tokens at a third of the competition, which expands inference volume, which is memory demand again. When a cloud company's backlog moves chip stocks the next morning, the shortage is contractual, not cyclical. The late day giveback was profit taking on parabolic charts, not a change in the story. Nebius ($NBIS) itself had the most two sided day in the book. It opened strong on those same numbers, then bled as a Hunterbrook report detailed two stop-work orders at its Vineland, New Jersey data center in a single week, one halting LNG tank work on August 6 and another halting fuel cell installation on August 10, both over permits. DA Davidson cut its target 30% on the delay risk. The company says the site remains on track. Full disclosure as always, this is my largest position, so here is exactly how I read it, the $37.5 billion of demand is contracted, the question Vineland raises is whether the capacity to serve it arrives on schedule. Permits are fixable problems. Timing guidance is the thing to watch at the next update. This is why the position is hedged, and why I sleep fine holding a stock that is up like CoreWeave, which is now roughly 80% higher in two weeks. Parabolas are rented, not owned. The Burry subplot continues. Chatter out of his Substack chat says the tone has gotten tense as the squeeze runs against his entries, and I flag that as exactly what it is, unverified chatter. What is verifiable is that he is not retreating an inch, doubling down on the circular financing thesis in writing. Say what you want about the man, he does not manage his conviction to the crowd's applause. One of us is going to be wrong, and both of us are paying for insurance while we find out. SpaceX ($SPCX), meanwhile, quietly completed one of the great sentiment round trips of the year. Two weeks ago the lockup was supposed to bury it. Yesterday it closed at $146, back above its IPO price, after another Starlink launch, and Elon disclosed a 48% personal stake. Founders who own half the company do not sell the future to fund the present. The float stays scarce, and the shorts who leaned on the unlock are now the fuel. Two honest notes from my own book. Ondas ($ONDS) grew revenue thirteen fold and raised its full year outlook to $550 million, and the stock fell 7% anyway because losses are still wide. The market has spent all week saying the same sentence, which is growth is assumed, show me margins. And Rocket Lab is raising fresh capital on the back of its record backlog, which is what smart companies do when their stock is strong and their order book is stronger. The quiet risk of the day is not American. Japan signaled a hawkish turn, and Tokyo shares wobbled on rate hike talk. Our PPI came in flat against expectations of an increase, the second tame inflation print in a week, so the Fed question is settled for now. If the world's cheapest funding currency gets more expensive, that is a different story. August 2024 taught everyone what a yen surprise does to leveraged books. Watch the yen, not just the Fed. And in the department of things being priced early, Washington is floating a capital gains tax cut while prediction markets push AOC up the 2028 board. The tax regime your exits depend on is already a traded market. Plan accordingly. Today: retail sales tells us about the consumer, and the SEC meets on tokenized stocks, which could put equities on chains trading around the clock. Records above, permits and parabolas below. Have a good weekend, and keep the insurance paid up.read more
Not sure if it's just the algorithm that fills my feed or if this was true overall, but bashing Michael Burry was definitely a popular activity on Blossom this week... All his 'short' positions typically get criticized, but $NBIS seemed to be the one that lit a fire under folks. I think I read he first shorted NBIS at ~$211 and I believe added to that in the $250's or $260's since. His call is obviously wrong so far, but much like investors averaging down long positions as share prices drop, Burry is doing the same on his shorts as share prices rise. I have no idea if Burry will end up being right on his shorts. What I do know is, he was heavily criticized, facing investor revolt, mockery from banks and isolation from peers as he bet against the housing market from 2005 -> early 2007. In 2008, he was proven right in a big way; to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. One investing 'flaw' I'm guilty of is almost always being early... I'm almost always early to buy, meaning stock drops after I initially buy, which is why I DCA slowly. I'm also early to sell, meaning stock usually continues to rise after selling, which is why I typically average out of positions as well. With all that said, I'm usually proven right, as my portfolio can attest to. Maybe this is why I'm not counting Michael Burry out on his short trades yet. Maybe Burry's not wrong, maybe he's just early. That's TBD but it the meantime, I'm definitely not mocking him...
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN 💸 The margins are just too good to pass up! 🤑🤑🤑 Especially when you consider the loyalty of the new wave of investors who dismiss the negative impacts of high fees, who ignore the structural drags on performance, who believe high distributions are more than a feature (they are not) and who ultimately are content paying more fees for lower return. Imaging being able to build an inferior product, sell $32 billion to consumers and be able to cash out $2.3 billion. 👀 Capitalism is alive and well!! I’m thinking of bringing back floppy discs and rotary phones. 🙌 As I’ve said in previous posts/comments - the CEOs of high fee ETFs thank the finfluencers for their marketing efforts and YOU for your loyalty! 🙏 (PS. I’d expect to see more transactions like this to follow as more of these CEOs cash out before the next downturn and before investors wise up. It seems there’s no rush on the last point.) 🤷♂️ $SPYI$QQQI$BTCI$IAUIread more
If I had $100,000 to invest in the stock market TODAY, this is exactly how I’d allocate it. No ETFs. No cash sitting on the sidelines. No over-diversifying just for the sake of it. I’d put every dollar into the businesses I believe offer the best combination of growth, quality, valuation and long-term upside. Here’s the portfolio: SoFi | $SOFI — $20,000 Amazon | $AMZN — $16,000 Uber | $UBER — $14,000 ServiceNow | $NOW — $12,000 Netflix | $NFLX — $10,000 Zeta Global | $ZETA — $9,000 Brookfield | $BN — $8,000 Oscar Health | $OSCR — $6,000 Snap | $SNAP — $5,000read more
SanDisk is soaring after revealing $93,900,000,000 in contracted revenue from just 8 customers at today's Investor Day, covering more than half of next year's chip shipments $SNDK has added ~$25,516,000,000 in market cap today #followme
Did my last Upper Brass shift today! After two weeks of working every single day, I can finally say I have TOMORROW OFF ( they are forcing me 😂 ). And I reached my goal of 10,000 XRP before the week ended! 🎯 Another $100 into $XRP and, of course, $160 into $XEQT Tomorrow: class + my interview! I’m so excited 🤏
The “Power of 3” Personal Finance Strategy Part II My personal finance thesis: Real financial security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses — not by asset values alone. After 30 years of studying personal finance, managing and operating large businesses, I’ve come to believe many people are using the wrong scorecards. A portfolio can rise. A house can rise. Net worth can rise. Income can rise. And yet real financial security can still be getting weaker. Why? Because we do not live inside our brokerage statements. We live in the real world of: - housing costs - food costs - healthcare costs - utilities - insurance - taxes - transportation - and changing purchasing power Wealth matters. Assets matter. Net worth matters. But if those measures are not connected to actual living and living expense coverage, they can create a FALSE sense of security. A person can have a larger portfolio, a higher home value, and a bigger nominal net worth — while at the same time having less real purchasing power and less durable financial security. That is why I use this measure: Financial Security Coverage The question is simple: How many times does your sustainable cash flow cover your absolute core living expenses? In my view, that is one of the clearest and most important measures of real financial security. --- Why traditional wealth measures can mislead In recent years many people have seen: - stock portfolios rise - home values rise - retirement balances rise - nominal net worth rise Someone may say: - “I hit $1M in my portfolio.” - “My assets doubled in five years.” - “My net worth is up massively.” That may all be true in nominal dollars. But the more important question is: Has your real financial security improved at the same rate? Often, the answer is not nearly as much as they think. Because while asset prices rose: - inflation eroded purchasing power - living costs rose - insurance rose - healthcare rose - taxes rose - replacement costs rose So yes, statement values may be higher. But if the cost of sustaining your life rose sharply too, then the practical meaning of that wealth may be far smaller than the headline number suggests. This is the illusion of nominal wealth without purchasing power awareness. Asset growth matters. But wealth should not be measured only by what it is worth on paper. It should also be measured by the cash flow support and life coverage it can provide in the real world. --- My framework: Financial Security Coverage Financial Security Coverage = Sustainable Cash Flow / Absolute Core Living Expenses My target is 3.0x. If my absolute core living expenses are: - $7,000 per month - $84,000 per year Then my target is: $84,000 x 3 = $252,000 So I target $252,000 in sustainable, after-tax cash flow capability. Not gross income. Not paper gains. Not one-time wins. Not inflated asset values. Not temporary market strength. Sustainable. Durable. Net cash flow. Why 3.0x? Because in my view that is where you have: - essential life coverage - contingency - flexibility - meaningful margin of safety - cash flow left over to save, invest, and compound wealth - near-complete financial durability under stress testing At 1.0x, you are covering life. At 2.0x, you have meaningful breathing room. At 3.0x, you have what I consider durable financial security. Sharp readers will realize that reducing the denominator — expenses — is one of the fastest ways to improve security. --- Reality check In my view, many people are operating between 0.85x and 1.15x core living expense coverage. That means they are: - below full coverage - right at the line - or only slightly above it This is why so many people feel pressure even when income looks decent or assets have risen. A small disruption can destabilize everything: - medical costs - car repairs - rent increases - insurance increases - income loss - tax changes - business slowdowns Any honest personal finance framework has to begin with empathy. Most people are not failing because they are reckless. Many are struggling because they are living with very little margin. That is a STRUCTURAL issue. --- Definitions matter ABSOLUTE CORE LIVING EXPENSES: The essential costs required to maintain life at a durable baseline: - housing - utilities - food - healthcare - insurance - transportation - minimum debt service - essential household expenses - baseline taxes This is not luxury. This is not status spending. This is the number required to keep life functioning. SUSTAINABLE CASH FLOW: This should be after tax, durable, and repeatable. Examples: - reliable salary - durable business income - pension income - recurring rental cash flow - recurring distributions - conservative portfolio income assumptions It should exclude or heavily discount: - one-time gains - temporary spikes - windfalls - irregular bonus dependence - speculative cash flow - unrealized paper gains A lot of people look secure on paper. Far fewer are truly secure in cash flow. --- The second layer: Direct and Indirect Cash Flow I now think the most accurate version of Financial Security Coverage should include both: 1. Direct Cash Flow The sustainable, after-tax cash flow you receive now: - salary - business income - rental cash flow - pension income - recurring distributions This answers: How well is my life covered by the cash flow I currently produce? 2. Indirect Cash Flow The sustainable cash flow your assets could support: - stocks - bonds - retirement accounts - taxable portfolios - other investable assets A simple proxy is a conservative withdrawal rate such as 4%. If someone has $2,000,000 in investable assets: $2,000,000 x 0.04 = $80,000 If core living expenses are $84,000, then: $80,000 / $84,000 = 0.95x This answers: How well could my life be covered by the cash flow capacity of my assets? --- Why this is a better measure of wealth Most people measure wealth by: - portfolio value - home value - net worth - income Useful, yes. Complete, no. A better question is: What level of sustainable life support do my income and assets actually provide? That is why I believe Financial Security Coverage is a more accurate and more important measure of wealth and security than asset values alone. It translates both: - income - assets into the one metric that matters most: Coverage of Real Life And unlike nominal balances, it forces us to think about: - inflation - purchasing power - changing living costs - market volatility - income durability - resilience under stress --- Why tracking it Year over Year matters This framework becomes more powerful when tracked annually. Year-over-Year changes in: - direct cash flow coverage - indirect cash flow coverage - total living expense coverage reveal what is really happening and a far more accurate measure of Wealth and Financial Security If the ratios improve, it may mean: - income is strengthening - assets are becoming more supportive - purchasing power is holding up - expenses are becoming easier to carry If they deteriorate, it may mean: - inflation is outrunning cash flow - expenses are rising too fast - income is less durable than expected - assets are worth more nominally but support less real life - financial security is weakening despite appearances This is the difference between paper progress and real progress. --- How I interpret the ranges Below 1.0x — financially exposed Cash flow does not fully cover core living expenses. 1.0x to 2.0x — functioning but VULNERABLE Essentials are covered, but margin is limited. 2.0x to 3.0x — real RESILIENCE Core life is well covered, contingency improves, and optionality begins. Above 3.0x — robust SECURITY and compounding power This is my target zone: real coverage, real flexibility, real resilience. Moving from 0.95x to 1.15x matters. Moving from 1.15x to 1.50x matters. That is real improvement. --- My conclusion After 30 years of personal finance study, I believe this: Wealth should not be measured only by asset values. Security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses. And the most complete version of that measure includes both: - Direct Cash Flow — what your life produces today - Indirect Cash Flow — what your assets can support tomorrow Track both. Measure both. Watch them year over year. Because the real question is not: What are my assets worth on paper? The real question is: How well can my finances sustain my life, now and in the future, in a world of changing costs and changing purchasing power? That is why I use Financial Security Coverage. And my target is 3.0x. That is my thesis. My definition of Financial Security: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/ir4906pb Expanded post on cash flow: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/i0eun8py Expanded post on tracking living expenses: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/qkgdki8p Financial Control Part I — Emergency Cash: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/k3e80c3w read more
I know this concept gets brought up as a joke sometimes, but I just had a serious conversation with a beginner about it, so I’m inspired to offer some clarity. When people say covered calls have “capped upside,” I think two different ideas sometimes get mixed together. First, capped upside does not mean your entire portfolio return is capped. It refers to the upside of the underlying above the strike price during the life of the option. If you own something at $100, sell a call with a $110 strike and collect a premium, you can still benefit from the underlying rising from $100 to $110. Your return can be a combination of: Capital appreciation + option premium If the market moves sideways, the premium can help. If it falls modestly, the premium can soften the loss. If it rises but stays below the strike, you can participate in that rise while also keeping the premium. It’s only once the underlying rises substantially beyond the strike that you start seeing the opportunity cost of the covered call relative to simply holding the underlying. I think this matters because otherwise “capped upside” can accidentally turn into a strawman where people hear it as: “Covered call investors can’t benefit when stocks go up.” That isn’t true. The second point is why many people still favour simply owning the underlying for long-term investing. If you own an asset because you believe it has substantial long-term appreciation potential, repeatedly selling calls against it means repeatedly creating periods where some of that upside can be surrendered in exchange for premium. Sometimes that trade works very well. Sometimes the premium more than compensates you for the upside you gave away. But over a long investing horizon, an asset that experiences large upward moves gives you more opportunities to run into that cap. That is the actual trade-off. “Capped upside” doesn’t mean no upside. It means you are getting paid a premium in exchange for agreeing to give up some upside beyond a defined point.read more
I’ve been contemplating adding more $GOOGL. I like the company, I like the current setup, and it’s one of the individual stocks I view as a long-term foundational holding. The dilemma: I’m already up about 106% and it’s grown to roughly 5% of my portfolio (not including its value in my ETFs). Part of me thinks 5% is enough for one individual stock. The other part thinks if it’s one of my highest-conviction companies, why not let it be a little bigger? Still deciding but leaning towards adding. Anyone else hesitate to add to a stock you have strong conviction in once it’s already a decent-sized part of your portfolio?
Two days ago my portfolio hit $950K invested. Started 2026 at 806k imvested.. I don’t really celebrate every $50K milestone, but this one feels pretty cool. I’m now 95% of the way to $1 million invested. It’s taken me about 10 years to get here. I see people like @nettspend who contributes regularly at such a young age and know all those regular contributions, staying invested, and honestly, just letting time do its thing will fosure make younger folks on here millionares one day. I remember when having $100K invested seemed like such a huge number. Now I’m sitting at $950K and getting pretty close to that $1M mark. Gonna have to celebeate some how..feel free to throw me ideas of how we should celebrate? haha $50K to go. 👀 read more
What is the most recent stock you added to your portfolio? Let me know in the comments! 👇 Personally speaking, mine was Rollins ($ROL). I started buying it about a couple months ago and have been DCAing into it every week since then. So far, it’s still a relatively small position, but we’re coming up on 100 shares. I’ll probably try to double that before I consider it a “full” position, at least based on my portfolio size as it currently stands.
Hey everyone that follows me or interacts with me here in Blossom. Today I decided to make a branding name change on both my YOUTUBE and BLOSSOM identity. And I wanted you all to be aware in case some of you think after I change it - that someone is trying to copycat my account. THEY ARE NOT - THIS TIME. It's LEGIT! So... over the past year, my youtube has grown substantially and the ecosystem of everything i create in my YouTube channel and even my persona here in Blossom has become bigger than just ME - PERRY. my "PIIVERSE" brand has become the identity of my entire INCOME INVESTING STRATEGY videos, posts, and talks. As such, I have already made the change in my YouTube (from the old PERRYPII) and now here in Blossom (from the old PERRYF) an aligned handle of PIIVERSE. My YouTube channel now looks like https://www.youtube.com/@PIIverse and my Blossom handle is now @piiverse Transition is never easy but making this name change to PIIVERSE and aligning it across channels is strategically important. SO..... WELCOME TO THE PIIVERSE :)
I see many beginners posting that they’re new to investing and don’t know where to start. 🤔 As someone who was in a similar situation just a few months ago and learned, here are the 4 ETF types (& ETFs) that are popular among long term investors 😃 : 1) S&P 500: US: $VOO / $SPY / $SPLG Canadian: $VFV / $ZSP / $TPU 2) GROWTH / TECH: US: $QQQ / $VUG / $VGT / $SCHG Canadian: $QQC / $HXQ / $TEC / $ZUQ 3) DIVIDENDS: US: $SCHD / $VYM / $DGRO Canadian: $VDY / $XEI 4) ALL IN ONE / BASKET / Global Exposure: US: $VT / $AVGE Canadian: $ZEQT / $XEQT / $TGRO / $VEQT / $ZGQ I noticed many people following this type of a basic / uncomplicated portfolio and are doing really well for themselves 🔥 For % allocation, you can divide evenly among the ETF categories or allocate a higher % based on your preferences. Just DCA regularly and you should be good. 😎 Some people even just put it all into an all in one etf like $XEQT. This is also a good approach - it is much simpler and it works. Ultimately, it comes to whatever you prefer 🙂 Oh and yea, there are overlaps, but I don’t think there is anything wrong in that though - it would just count as doubling down on good things. 💯 I’m sharing with you all what helped me, but don’t forget to do your own research too! 🙏🏼 read more
If a stock (or a whole sector, like memory) that has been surging dips, and there is no change in the overall fundamentals/thesis, that's the time to buy. Everyone was saying "memory is dead" just because of a sell off that was largely caused by margin calls and leveraged trades in Korea. I'm really glad I didn't listen to them and bought the dip. Block out the noise and do your research, people. $DRAM$SKHY$STX$MU$SNDK
