To The Moon

Abbott Laboratories, a diversified healthcare giant with a 135+ year history, has faced investor frustration in early 2026. Its stock has pulled back sharply, trading around $95–$96 as of mid-April 2026 following a roughly 6% drop after Q1 results. The primary culprit? Continued weakness in the nutrition segment, which includes household names like Similac infant formula and Ensure adult shakes. This drag has overshadowed solid growth elsewhere, raising questions about near-term recovery and whether ABT remains a compelling long-term holding. The Nutrition Drag: What’s Happening?Abbott’s nutrition business has been a consistent underperformer. In Q4 2025, worldwide nutrition sales fell 8.9% year-over-year to $1.94 billion (9.1% organic decline), driven by U.S. market share losses—partly fr

In late February 2026, the United States and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, igniting a conflict that quickly threatened the Strait of Hormuz, spiked oil prices, and sent shockwaves through global markets. As of mid-April, fighting continues amid fragile truce talks, while other wars—from Russia’s grinding invasion of Ukraine to the persistent Israel-Hamas conflict and civil wars in Sudan and Myanmar—rage on with no end in sight. Yet here we are: the S&P 500 has clawed back every loss from the Iran war’s opening salvos, sitting just a whisper below its all-time high around 7,000 and posting its best weekly gains in months. How is this possible? Wall Street, it seems, has a remarkable talent for compartmentalizing chaos. The market isn’t blind to the wars—it’s simply pricing in a fu

In the age of artificial intelligence, market concentration isn’t a warning sign. It’s the scoreboard.As of the close on April 14, 2026, the cap-weighted S&P 500 (SPY) has posted a blistering +29.07% return over the past year. The equal-weighted version (RSP), by contrast, has lagged badly. The raw RSP/SPY ratio sits at just 0.2893. Normalized to 100 at the start of 2020, it now reads 80.99—down 19.01% over six years. That gap isn’t noise. It’s the clearest evidence that a handful of mega-cap innovators have carried the entire index while the other 493 stocks have mostly watched from the sidelines. Yet here’s the contrarian truth most breadth hawks miss: this extreme concentration is not a bug in the system. It’s the logical outcome of an exponential technology shift. And the first cra

bank earnings season is kicking off right now, and honestly, I'm pretty optimistic about what the big six – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley – are likely to deliver for the first quarter of 2026. Analysts are calling for overall profits to rise around 5% year-over-year across the group. Revenues should grow in the mid-to-high single digits for most of them, which isn't flashy but feels reliable in today's environment.What’s driving this? Net interest income (that sweet spread between what banks earn on loans and pay on deposits) is still holding up nicely thanks to rates that, while lower than their peak, remain elevated after the Fed's cuts in late 2025. The Fed has kept the benchmark steady around 3.5-3.75% lately, with just one m

$Microsoft(MSFT)$ long term holding

$NVDA 20260410 160.0 PUT$ full premium at expiry 

No one can predict the future with certainty over a full decade, but Berkshire’s business model is built for durability and compounding, which supports reasonable projections. I’ll focus strictly on earnings, strategy, and share price/market cap based on the latest 2025 full-year results, Greg Abel’s first shareholder letter as CEO, historical trends, and the realities of Berkshire’s current scale. Current Snapshot (as of early 2026)Operating earnings (Berkshire’s preferred metric): $44.5 billion in 2025, down from $47.4 billion in 2024 but still above the five-year average of about $37.5 billion. Insurance underwriting and investment income faced some cyclical pressure. Net earnings (GAAP, including volatile investment gains/losses): Roughly $67 billion in 2025, impacted by mark-to-market

As someone who’s spent countless hours dissecting markets, crunching performance data, and watching investor money flow into shiny new products, I’ve developed a healthy skepticism toward actively managed ETFs. Don’t get me wrong — the idea sounds fantastic. Hand your money to a star manager like Cathie Wood at ARK Invest, let them chase “disruptive innovation” with bold bets on Tesla, CRISPR, and the next big thing, and outperform the boring old S&P 500. What could go wrong? Plenty, it turns out. The case against active ETFs boils down to three hard realities I see play out over and over: sky-high fees that quietly erode your wealth, returns that rarely justify the hype (and often lag simple index funds), and marketing that sells excitement instead of results. And the kicker? Replicat

If you blinked over the past week, you might've missed the wild swing. As of April 8, the S&P 500 has climbed back toward the 6,700–6,800 zone after posting solid gains on ceasefire hopes. The Dow and Nasdaq joined in, with small-caps (Russell 2000) showing even more pop. The trigger? Optimism around a potential pause or framework for de-escalation in the Iran conflict, including talk of reopening the Strait of Hormuz.Oil prices, which had been the big drama queen, dropped sharply—Brent crude pulled back noticeably after spiking hard earlier. That relief eased some of the inflation panic and gave stocks room to run.My honest take: This feels like a classic overreaction unwind. The conflict kicked off late February, sending oil surging (at times well above $100–110), spiking energy cost

$NVDA 20260406 155.0 PUT$ full premium at expiry