To The Moon

The Road to a Million Dollars is an in-depth interview series by the Tiger Community, featuring outstanding investors from its "Million Dollar" honors program.

The "Million Dollar" honors program is not about the size of one's assets — it recognizes the investing ability an investor consistently demonstrates in real markets. Within a designated calendar year, every US$100,000 in investment gains unlocks one Tiger Gold Bar or Tiger Gold Ingot, up to a maximum of nine; upon reaching US$1,000,000 in gains, the investor receives the exclusive "Premium" Million-Dollar Milestone.

Every investor on the road to a million dollars has their own method and their own answers. Some are still finding their way in the market; others have already built a mature investment system. But what truly deserves to be seen is how they understand opportunities, make judgments, and manage risk.

Through the real experiences and reflections of these outstanding investors, The Road to a Million Dollars hopes to inspire fellow Tigers to find an investment path of their own.

Profile

"I probably spend about ten minutes a day watching the market."

That was one detail Louis mentioned in the interview.

Based in Adelaide, Australia, this post-80s investor works in the construction industry — yet he already has nearly 20 years of experience in the securities market.

From A-shares in his early days, to Australian stocks, and now a gradual shift of focus toward U.S. equities, his approach has changed markedly: from picking stocks at random and dabbling in short-term trading, to placing far more weight on long-term trends, corporate moats, and investment certainty.

He doesn't read candlestick charts, isn't obsessed with timing the perfect bottom, and rarely predicts where the market goes next.

And while the market's attention is fixated on the race for AI computing power, he prefers AI applications — companies that can genuinely use AI to cut costs, raise efficiency, and widen their lead over competitors.

More interestingly, the biggest contributor to his returns this year wasn't one of the hot tech names, but a pharmaceutical company he positioned in before FDA approval — one that ultimately multiplied several times over.

How does someone who spends only ten minutes a day on the market judge trends, manage risk, and find opportunities amid volatility?

Below is our in-depth Q&A with Louis for this episode of The Road to a Million Dollars.

Q1: You've been investing for nearly 20 years. Why are you now gradually shifting your focus to U.S. stocks?

Louis:

I started with A-shares. After moving to Australia in 2016, I began investing in Australian stocks, and only in the past year or two have I gradually moved toward U.S. and Hong Kong stocks.

These markets are actually very different in character.

Personally, I feel A-shares still lag the U.S. market in areas like information transparency and short-selling mechanisms.

The Australian market is relatively closed, with limited inflows of new capital and limited room for long-term growth. So when I traded Australian stocks, I mostly generated returns by buying low and selling high within ranges.

The U.S. market is different.

It brings together many of the world's leading companies, including quite a few forward-looking ones. Even without doing deep research on individual names, investors can participate in the market's long-term growth through index funds such as the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq.

So over the long run, I'm more bullish on U.S. stocks, and I'll gradually shift the center of gravity of my portfolio there.

Hong Kong stocks, for me, are a supplementary channel — a way to access Chinese tech companies not listed on the A-share market, and to participate indirectly in other markets through related ETFs.

Q2: From your early investing days to now, how has your stock selection changed?

Louis:

In my early A-share days, it was honestly very random.

I bought BYD, I bought tech stocks, I bought large caps like oil companies. Back then I hadn't formed any clear investment style, and there was no particular industry I followed.

After moving to Australia, with a better work-life balance, I finally had more time to study investing.

Especially during the pandemic in 2020, when Adelaide went into lockdown, I bought quite a few books on investing and spent a period learning systematically.

After that phase, my approach started to take shape.

The biggest change now is that I no longer focus purely on individual stocks — I pay much more attention to where society and industries are heading over the long term.

Q3: You keep coming back to "trends." Why do they matter more than financial statements?

Louis:

Financial reports matter, of course, but for me they're not the decisive factor.

The basics of a financial report are something most people can understand after some serious study.

But going deeper than the vast majority of professional investors is extremely difficult.

I come from the construction industry — I'm not trained in finance or accounting — so I don't believe I can gain a meaningful informational edge purely by studying financial statements.

I'd rather build a basic understanding of the financials and then study where society as a whole is heading.

That's because financial reports largely reflect what has already happened, while future numbers can never be calculated with complete accuracy, no matter how you model them.

Rather than predicting a precise number, I care more about the certainty of an industry's long-term growth.

"Certainty is what I value most."

Q4: Which two industries are you most bullish on right now?

Louis:

Healthcare and technology.

I believe the world's future development will largely revolve around these two directions.

The logic for healthcare is fairly easy to understand.

With the global population aging, demand for healthcare is highly inelastic. However the economy changes, people's need for medical services and new drugs won't simply disappear.

Technology, meanwhile, can affect almost every industry.

It can raise office productivity, transform transportation, improve corporate management — even help the healthcare industry develop new drugs.

I also like some consumer companies — businesses like Costco can be very stable operations.

The problem is, I'm less certain about how much market space those companies can still add.

By comparison, I see the long-term growth direction of healthcare and technology much more clearly.

Q5: AI is the hottest theme right now. Why do you prefer AI applications over pure computing-power platforms?

Louis:

My favorite direction is AI applications.

I'm more cautious about pure computing-power platform companies.

Right now, every major tech company is pouring enormous amounts of capital into building data centers, hoping to seize a first-mover advantage.

But once these companies' computing power starts to converge, I think the industry could see extremely intense competition — possibly even a price war.

At that point, the contest may no longer be about who owns the most compute, but who can deliver services at lower cost and higher efficiency.

With so many companies deploying enormous amounts of capital, not every one of them will necessarily recoup its investment.

So for me, pure compute platforms carry significant competitive uncertainty, while companies that actually apply AI to real businesses deserve more attention.

Of course, if an investor wants exposure to compute platforms but can't be sure who will ultimately win, I think participating through an ETF that covers multiple companies is also an approach worth studying.

Q6: What exactly characterizes the "AI application companies" you describe?

Louis:

The kind of company I like looks like this:

It was already an excellent business in its industry, with established operations and competitive advantages — and now it's using AI to further raise efficiency and cut costs, widening the gap between itself and its peers.

Companies like Microsoft and Amazon have exactly that kind of room to apply AI.

I believe the true value of AI is efficiency.

It can speed up decision-making, reduce labor costs, and automate many tasks that used to depend on human work.

Amazon's logistics system is a fairly intuitive example.

More and more links in the chain can be handled by automated equipment and intelligent systems — even some errors can be identified and corrected by AI.

That system has the potential to run more efficiently than the limits of traditional human management.

So what I focus on isn't whether a company has an "AI story," but:

Has AI actually made it more efficient and more competitive?

Q7: Are you worried about the elevated AI capital spending at large tech companies?

Louis:

Yes — that's an important reason I'm cautious about pure compute platforms.

Many companies keep pouring money into computing centers even when that spending is already visibly weighing on their financial results.

What they're fighting over is first-mover advantage.

But if computing power becomes a more standardized, quantifiable, exchangeable resource in the future, competition will ultimately come back to cost and efficiency.

New forms of compute infrastructure may even emerge.

For example, I've followed SpaceX's long-term vision of space-based computing. If the space environment one day offers clear advantages in energy use and heat dissipation, the competitive landscape for existing ground-based compute infrastructure could change.

Of course, that's still a long-term vision — not something certain to happen.

But it reminds me that a technological moat that looks crucial today may not exist forever.

So I won't simply assume that any company investing in compute today is guaranteed a commensurate return in the future.

Q8: Which type of stock contributed the most to your returns this year?

Louis:

Healthcare.

I previously invested in a pharmaceutical company, and I started building my position before its first drug received FDA approval and generated any revenue on the market.

In between, the stock went through a fairly large decline.

But I didn't sell — I actually kept adding.

Because in my judgment, the company's core R&D thesis hadn't changed.

Later, the drug did receive FDA approval, officially launched, and began generating cash flow — and the stock rose several-fold.

That has been one of my most profitable investments so far.

So I believe investing often isn't about whether you can accurately predict short-term price moves; it's about whether you truly understand a company's future value — and when that value is likely to be realized.

Q9: When that stock plunged, why didn't you cut losses instead of adding to your position?

Louis:

Because I don't decide whether to sell or hold based solely on how much the price has fallen.

I'm a value investor.

If a company wasn't worth investing in from the start, I wouldn't have bought it on day one.

But if only the price has fallen while the core business, competitive advantages, and long-term thesis remain intact, I actually find it more attractive.

For me, the situation that truly calls for an exit is this:

The original investment thesis no longer holds.

If a company's fundamentals have fundamentally changed, I'll sell even at a loss.

But if it's just a price swing driven by market sentiment, I won't necessarily sell simply because the decline looks ugly.

Of course, this has to be built on continuous research and repeated verification of the business — not blind averaging down.

Q10: You once said something interesting: "Bottom-fishing is an addiction you have to quit." Why?

Louis:

Because you simply cannot know where the real bottom is.

In the past I probably also hoped to buy at the lowest point, but now I don't think it's worth obsessing over.

If I believe a company is worth this price, then I can buy it.

If it keeps falling after I buy, that's fine. If it falls much further and my assessment of the company's value hasn't changed, I may well keep buying.

But I won't buy just because a candlestick chart or some technical indicator tells me this is the bottom.

Actually catching the exact bottom is, in my view, mostly luck.

So my approach isn't to guess the bottom, but to judge:

Whether value already exceeds price.

As long as my investment conditions are met, there's no need to keep hesitating in wait for a bottom that can't be predicted.

Q11: So how do you judge whether a company is truly worth buying?

Louis:

For technology companies, I mainly look at several things.

First, the moat.

What advantages does this company have in its industry? How hard are those advantages for competitors to overcome?

Second, sustained R&D capability.

A tech company's competitive edge isn't permanent. If a company can't keep innovating, its current leadership could be replaced quickly.

NVIDIA, for example, has a strong moat right now, but I also watch whether AMD is gradually closing the gap in certain product areas.

If I believe both companies have room to grow over the long term, I don't rule out holding both.

Financial reports and the core team matter too, of course.

I just don't spend every day digging through masses of granular numbers.

For financial reports, I usually read a few different analyses and summaries, cross-check them, and get a picture of the company's basic operating condition.

If the core management team has already proven itself over the long term, I don't monitor it daily either — unless there are changes involving the founder, the management, or major business direction.

To sum up:

The moat, sustained R&D capability, and long-term industry trends are the factors I value most.

Q12: Over all these years of investing, have you had any particularly painful losses?

Louis:

Yes — Faraday Future (FFIE).

It was an experience where I paid the price for wishful thinking.

At the time, I knew the company wasn't in good shape.

But I saw that it had poured more than a billion dollars into the FF91, while its market cap had already fallen to an extremely low level.

I remember thinking:

"It's already fallen this far — how much further can it possibly go?"

Although I wasn't genuinely bullish on the company, I figured that if any piece of good news came out and the stock bounced in the short term, I might find a chance to get out.

So, carrying that bit of wishful thinking, I bought a small position.

Unexpectedly, the company later adjusted its per-share price through reverse stock splits, while the overall share performance remained terrible — and the stock plunged again.

That investment was essentially wiped out.

It made me realize that there's no such thing in the capital markets as "it can't fall any further."

A cheap stock price doesn't mean the fundamentals are worth investing in.

Q13: How did that FFIE experience change you?

Louis:

The biggest change is that I'll never entertain that kind of wishful thinking again.

I knew perfectly well at the time that this was a company in poor operating condition.

But because it had spent so much money in the past and its market cap was now so low, I hoped to make a quick profit from a short-term rebound.

Looking back now, that was never a solid reason to invest.

So from then on, I basically stopped touching companies whose fundamentals are already very poor and whose long-term value I can't endorse.

I no longer assume a company is worth buying just because it has fallen a lot.

It also made me much more cautious about so-called "cigar-butt" investing.

Q14: How do you currently split your long-term and short-term positions?

Louis:

I generally divide a position into two parts.

One part is the core position — as long as I remain bullish on the company, I may simply keep holding it, sometimes untouched for a long time.

The other part is the swing position.

The short-term swing portion is usually fairly small — roughly 10%–20%, never more than 20%.

If a company I'm long-term bullish on falls sharply, I may use the swing position to buy some; if it rises a lot, I may sell part of it.

But the core position stays.

That way, even if I sell too early in the short term, it doesn't matter.

Because as long as the company's long-term upward thesis remains intact, I still capture the bulk of the gains through the core position.

I think investors need to accept one reality:

You can't have it both ways — capturing every short-term fluctuation and riding the entire long-term gain.

Different positions carry out different tasks, so there's no need to demand perfection from every single trade.

Q15: Facing the market in the second half of 2026, do you forecast the broader indices in advance?

Louis:

I don't really have a view.

(laughs)

And I don't believe I have the ability to predict the market accurately.

Of course, I listen to market opinions, and I have my own subjective judgments.

But I rarely go heavily long just because I think the market is certain to rise.

My approach is actually quite passive.

When the market falls, if prices appear that meet my criteria, I'll consider buying.

When it rises to a suitable level, I may sell part of a position.

"Whatever scenario unfolds, I decide my response in advance — that's all I need."

For me, what matters isn't guessing the future correctly in advance, but preparing responses for different scenarios ahead of time.

Q16: Have you participated in the recent memory-chip rally?

Louis:

Somewhat, but the overall proportion isn't particularly high.

I've participated in the memory theme through an FCN, and through Hong Kong stocks I've accessed some investment products linked to SK Hynix and Samsung.

The FCN was my first time trying a structured note.

What I like about it is that it lets me think through what I should do in each scenario before investing.

For example, I choose an underlying I'd be willing to own; if the relevant conditions are triggered in the end and I'm obligated to take delivery of the shares at a price within my acceptable range, then I can consider holding them.

If the conditions aren't triggered, I receive the corresponding coupon according to the product terms.

This way of thinking through different outcomes in advance fits my investing habits well.

Of course, an FCN is not a risk-free product — it depends on the note's terms and the performance of the underlying.

I think what matters more than any specific product is thinking through what could happen before you commit your money.

Q17: Would you consider studying options more seriously in the future?

Louis:

Yes.

I've actually gone through some options training materials before; I just haven't put them into practice much.

Going forward, I may set aside a dedicated pool of capital to learn and experiment with options trading.

Compared with single-leg options, I'd lean more toward combination strategies.

For example, vertical spreads, or studying Sell Put and Sell Call strategies around my existing holdings.

I think options themselves are a very important tool — they just take time to truly understand.

I'm still in the learning and exploring stage, and I won't treat them as a fully mature trading system yet.

Q18: You only watch the market for ten minutes a day. Where do you mainly get your information?

Louis:

Mainly the Tiger app, plus some U.S.-stock YouTubers.

For example, if I've followed a company on Tiger, relevant news about my watchlist gets pushed to me, and I'll take a look.

On YouTube, I follow a few creators who analyze U.S. stocks — mostly checking whether the directions they research interest me.

Occasionally, I also look at changes in the holdings of Warren Buffett and Duan Yongping.

But I don't proactively search through large volumes of news every day.

Because my trading frequency is low to begin with.

If a company's core thesis hasn't changed in any obvious way, most short-term news doesn't affect me all that much.

Q19: In your experience using Tiger, is there any feature you'd especially like to see improved?

Louis:

I've long wished for a way to manage holdings by investment strategy.

For example, I have several tech stocks bought under one strategy, and several consumer stocks managed under a different approach.

I'd like to place them into separate portfolios and track each one's profit-and-loss performance independently, rather than only viewing my assets by U.S., Hong Kong, and Australian markets.

Because stocks bought under different strategies should have their results evaluated by different standards.

During the interview, colleagues at Tiger also told me about the portfolio features already available on the desktop version, and I plan to give them a proper try.

In addition, I'm quite interested in options combination features, and I hope to learn those operations more systematically in the future.

Q20: How do you view the US$100,000 gains milestone, and the million-dollar goal ahead?

Louis:

When I first reached the US$100,000 level in gains, of course it was a little exciting.

But over time, after experiencing it more times, my mindset gradually settled.

Now, a million dollars no longer feels like a distant dream to me — it feels more like a goal.

That said, managing a million dollars in assets and earning a million dollars in a single year are two completely different things.

If we're talking about managing a million dollars in assets, I feel I'm already fairly close.

But if it's reaching a million dollars in annual gains, that will probably take longer — at the moment I'd estimate another three to five years.

Closing thoughts: A truly mature investor isn't necessarily good at forecasting

There's an interesting paradox in Louis's investing story.

He isn't good at predicting the market, yet he has persisted in it for nearly 20 years.

He doesn't believe in technical analysis, yet he has formed his own approach to stock selection and position management.

He isn't obsessed with buying the bottom, yet when he truly understands a company, he chooses to add gradually as the market falls.

And two of his trades happen to illustrate this transformation.

One was Faraday Future.

Knowing full well the fundamentals were poor, he bought anyway because he believed the stock "couldn't fall any further" — and paid a painful price in the end.

The other was the pharmaceutical stock.

He positioned ahead of the first drug's approval, kept verifying the investment thesis through a steep decline, and ultimately waited for FDA approval, commercialization, and a rising share price.

Both experiences involved falling prices, yet they ended completely differently.

The real difference wasn't how far the price had fallen — it was whether the investment thesis could withstand verification.

That also explains why Louis gradually moved from random stock picking toward an approach focused on long-term trends, corporate moats, and value.

Today, facing the industrial wave of AI, he hasn't rushed to bet on every company spending huge sums to build computing power. He prefers to look for companies that can genuinely turn AI into productivity, cost advantages, and commercial value.

From trying to hunt for market opportunities in the past, to planning his responses to market changes in advance today, his investment philosophy has gradually become simple:

See the trend clearly, understand the value, prepare ahead of time — then let the market run.

Perhaps the greatest reward of his nearly 20 years of investing isn't learning how to accurately predict the next rally, but gradually coming to accept this:

You don't have to guess the future right every time — but you need to know why you're acting.

Join the discussion

After reading Louis's investment logic, which point resonates with you most?

Not predicting the market, but preparing your responses in advance? Or not worshipping technical indicators, buying only when value exceeds price?

And for the next leg of the AI cycle, are you more bullish on computing infrastructure — or on AI application companies that can genuinely create efficiency and profit?

Share your views in the comments, and tell us whether you've experienced a similar shift in understanding on your own investment journey!

This article is compiled from an interview with the guest. The views expressed represent only the guest's personal opinions and do not constitute investment advice. Any judgment involving individual stocks, industries, or investment instruments should be independently researched in light of your own circumstances.