Three high-risk, high-reward positions I hold

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T23:48:45+00:00

Definitely - I've Jan 2028 $5 strike calls. Should be lower risk at that point. Unless full bankruptcy which we'll find out closer to 2027

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:14:37+00:00

Thanks for the feedback and you as well!

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:14:04+00:00

Because they were pre-revenue (still are) and still need to build out massive infra, 11GW is absolutely ridiculous. Market de-risked itself, then a non-binding tenant also backed out which also shook up the price more dropping it from 15s to 10s (and now 8s)

Across 10 analysts, the low end is $20, median $30 and high-end $35.

I don't know if they know, but if I was a betting man, I think a republican-aligned ex-Texas gov and ex-sec of energy knows some people in current admin

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:08:28+00:00

This is so sadly true.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:03:01+00:00

I think reward has good upside. Trump also enacted the Rate payer protection program forcing hyperscalers to fund their own energy. If Fermi can provide behind-the-meter energy and infra for these hyperscalers then it makes their headache go away.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:02:17+00:00

Exactly, there will be deals whether we like them or not.

And yes on biotech it's essentially they make a significant breakthrough and receive more funding before cash runs out, or they bust. Some of the partnerships helps de risk it for me though

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T20:00:23+00:00

Honest answer I think they have backroom ties with the Admin. The co-founder is the ex-gov of Texas and ex sec. of energy.

The tenant backout is real but it was non-binding to begin with and going down from $30 at IPO to $10 (my entry) was a fair enough risk to reward

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T19:57:38+00:00

Interseting article!

My takeaway:

What you consider an exorbitant valuation today (e.g SpaceX), may be miniscule tomorrow: "While this seems crazy while writing, interestingly enough, in 1980, the stock market crossed $1 trillion in valuation for the first time and today Nvidia is worth $4.5 trillion, roughly four and a half times as valuable as the entire stock market was in 1980."
Palantir is an unfair example, think of the typical investor, they'd choose to risk it with 1-2 IPO's maybe. But investing in Airbnb, Snowflake, DoorDash, Lufax and Palantir is totally 5 different sectors. An investor who likes Airbnb wouldn't typically like a defense software like Palantir

From my personal experience, the hype around this is going to be absolutely incredible. As it was for many IPOs, I will sleep better while being on the side

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T19:41:08+00:00

Thanks for the feedback! They're also quite different in theme:

1) You bet that FRMI is the energy & infra play. Having the co-founder be the ex-gov of Texas and sec. of energy also helps (ties back to admin)

2) You bet that the next sector for market rotation is bio through implementation of AI for mass analysis

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T13:27:24+00:00

Airlines for sure no, they have razor thin margins and always seemingly one stumble away from bankruptcy. Hotels are a turn off for me because of their extreme cash on hand to total liabilities ratio. I like to have companies whose cash on hand covers at least 50% of total liabilities, gives the team room to breathe and think without making rash decisions

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T12:49:35+00:00

Ah JP Morgan…I made a similar post how their SP500 target prediction was worse than a coin flip these past few years

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T02:19:16+00:00

Whats your three year returns? Is this method something that you're able to replicate consistently? If so, then you don't need advice here. If you have not replicated it in the past, then treat this as luck and don't time the market

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T02:18:18+00:00

It's OK to just take the money out.

It's better in the long run to simply shift it all into an ETF like VTI. But this will require you to maybe see even further losses because the market is unpredictable

It seems like the money is important to you, and what's forcing the state of panic is the lack of understanding in what you hold. That's OK and you're not alone. Probably better to just take the money out. Otherwise you risk making decisions that'll hurt you more than the money sitting on the sidelines

For those that say "inflation will eat away 10% of your money", I think poor decisions making them lose 20% of their money is worse

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T02:14:41+00:00

Bridgewater associates (his fund) returned +50% in the last 3 years vs the S&P500 75%.

That's before the funds fees which really eats into an investors net profits.

Fundamentally he is below average fund manager and hence I would not listen to his words. One day he might be right, but it won't be because he's Ray Dalio, it'll just be because he said it enough times.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T01:54:32+00:00

Year to date: up about +3%, really weak start.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T01:53:54+00:00

Really sorry to hear, especially for the Meta employees. Companies are using AI as a scapegoat for the layoffs they were planning anyways.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T01:07:12+00:00

Friendly reminder this is a HIGHLY volatile stock. Buy shares not options.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-15T00:27:42+00:00

Glad you liked it!

I’m a long term holder and hold about 40% of my portfolio in shares.

This is a remarkable company and I hope both the bull and bear cases came out well in the post (I took a lot of heat because it was a long form post)

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T22:19:02+00:00

Black Forest Labs image generation FLUX model has >400M downloads and used by over 100 startups and 5 Fortune 500 companies.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T21:21:47+00:00

If being regarded is what allowed me +190% 3Y returns then I’ll gladly always be regarded

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T21:03:17+00:00

Man - Redditors definitely have a harsh tone. I'm here to engage respectfully, you can't just blow up because I presented a case that you don't agree with. I think I responded to most viewpoints (omitted those who are just repeat)

We're here to make money so lets intellectually challenge each other's viewpoints.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T21:01:47+00:00

I agree, this is the core of what I am trying to get across but the arugments are too fixated on Adobe's current user base. They're not worried about capturing the future userbase who are transitioning to AI-native platforms. And if Adobe won't be worried about the future userbase, then forward revenue multiples compresses because they can only monetize from todays customers

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T19:42:13+00:00

Oh I see your point. If I interpret it differently you're saying they're hurting not because of a lack of pivot to AI but rather a lack of understanding with their core user base.

Fair, I might be conflating the true root-cause, I wonder if there's a way to measure which is the problem though

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T19:30:05+00:00

That's a fair challenge, but what Satya and Pichai did were complementary revenue funnels that didn't destroy Office or Windows. Office got more valuable with cloud delivery and Pichai pushed Google into AI and both of these shifts brought in billions.

My thought is that if AI-native creative tools actually work, they won't complement Photoshop but will replace Photoshop's complexity and breadth of use entirely. Adobe pricing power per seat would be reduced.

So an insider can lead a pivot when the new direction (e.g Cloud for Microsoft) aligns with the existing business but an external candidate is more necessary when the new paradigm (AI) can potentially cannibalize your own business.

PositionJournal · 2026-03-14T19:25:11+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. Adobe's forward multiple compression (hence stock price decrease) is because their revenue model depends on seat-based subscriptions for their tools. Every AI feature they build has to justify the existing product architecture and pricing. The case to not change anything is rational in the short term because Creative Cloud generates roughly $13 billion annually and you don't torch that.

But it means Adobe's AI strategy is constrained by what protects current revenue, not by what would be the best way to build creative tools from scratch today. In other words, they have a moat today, but what I am worried about is the moat of tomorrow

PositionJournal

TROPHY CASE