5 Quality Stocks You Can Still Buy at Reasonable Prices
S&P is at 23x earnings, margin debt is at 20-year highs, no-revenue stocks are soaring, and FOMO is driving the rally. Here are 5 quality companies still trading at reasonable prices.
“When everybody goes insane, staying sane is your competitive advantage.”
—Charlie Munger
I cannot think of any quote better than this to start this post. If somebody asked me to summarize the markets in one sentence, I would say—everybody is going insane.
S&P 500 is trading at a historically high 23 times earnings.
The number of leveraged ETFs is breaking records.
Margin debt is at an all-time high.
I keep seeing people trying to sell new stocks to investors on Twitter, on Substack, and every other medium.
They are basically like “hey, if you missed all the opportunities so far, take a look at this small company I have found, it hasn’t skyrocketed yet, but it’ll.”
When done collectively, this leads to total FOMO and insanity in the market.
Here is the thing—great companies are not that common; they are rare.
How rare? Extremely rare.
Chan, Karceski, and Lakonishok’s 2003 Journal of Finance paper “The Level and Persistence of Growth Rates” is the definitive research in this area. Writers analyzed the US public companies between 1951 and 1997 and found that only 0.9% of the companies achieved more than 10% annual revenue growth for 10 years.
McKinsey estimates that this declines to 0.1% when you extend the time span to 20 years. 10% annual growth for two decades… This is exactly what it takes to become a truly exceptional company, like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Eli Lilly, UnitedHealth, TSMC, Berkshire Hathaway, etc..
Yet, in bull markets, it feels like they are everywhere as many stocks make 3x-6x in a short period of time.
Why is this the case?
Well, in bull markets, the price replaces the performance as a yardstick.
In bull markets, everybody feels that we are in a bull market, so they think it’s the right time to invest. People put their money in widely praised names that are said to have huge potential. When many people do that, these stocks appreciate in price, which is seen as affirming the “exceptionality” of those companies. Basically, the price replaces performance as a yardstick to measure exceptionality.
Here is the proof:
As opposed to what most people think, the current rally is driven by speculative stocks that have no revenue rather than the Mag7 companies.
Why is this the case?
Well, because those who have missed the first few phases of the bull market don’t want to watch others get rich from a distance anymore, and they decided to put their money to work.
Where are they going to invest? Everything is now overvalued because they missed most of the rally.
At this stage, there generally remain two types of companies that haven’t skyrocketed:
No revenue companies.
Companies with great projects in the pipeline but no proof of execution.
Examples of the first group are the non-nuclear companies, experimental biotechs, etc.. Best examples of the second group are perhaps the Bitcoin miners that are trying to pivot to AI-Cloud, very promising projects, but no proof of execution yet, and the future of the business depends on external factors like sustained demand, etc..
People early in the rally generally avoid these two groups because they are very hard to analyze and predict, so they focus on more stable companies with revenues and a clear product-market fit. However, in the late stages of the rally, such low-hanging fruit exist no more, so those who look for rewards are necessarily pushed toward those names.
What’s even worse than this is that those people generally know that they are late to the party. So, in order to catch up quickly and make money before the market turns bearish, they use leverage.
We clearly see this at play, too.
Ratio of margin debt to money supply is at its highest point in the last 20 years:
So, let’s put together what we have set out so far:
Rally is driven by no-revenue stocks.
Margin debt is skyrocketing.
Meaning? People are buying speculative stocks using high amounts of leverage.
As a result, speculative stocks are soaring, and people who write theses about these stocks and call themselves “analysts” think they are geniuses as they find affirmation in the soaring stock prices.
What’s actually happening is this:
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against buying the optionality. To the exact opposite, this is the best thing you can do to get asymmetric returns. However, to do this, optionality should be in your favor.
What does this mean?
Let’s assume a crypto miner is pivoting to AI-Cloud. It has a project to build 2GW data center capacity in the next 5 years. So, let’s say the objective chance of success for this project is 40%. If the stock price implies a 10% chance of success, you should buy the stock. However, if the stock price has risen to imply a 70% chance of success, you are basically counting on somebody else to buy an 80% chance so the stock can rise in price.
This is pure speculation. Nobody should whitewash it by using terms like “optionality”. If you bought it when it was priced at a 10% chance, it would have been optionality. Now it’s speculation.
What makes things even more disastrous is that people feel this speculative valuation. They know that the price they buy already implies an 80% chance of success. Given that it will never be 100%, there is a limited runway for appreciation. It may go from 80% to 85% at best. What do they do? They use leverage to get performance. They use 10x leverage, so when the implied chance of success moves from 80% to 85%, they make money as if it moved from 35% to 85%.
This is a recipe for disaster.
The money accumulates in margin accounts, waiting for the price to hit a level that implies an 85% chance of success. Eventually, a bad announcement comes, declining the chance of success by 10%. For instance, the company falls into financial hardship and raises money to pay its suppliers. The implied chance of success plummets by 10% and all the margin bets get liquidated.
Once this happens, other people start closing their margin positions, and regular holders start selling. Margin money trapped inside gets liquidated, triggering further decline and panic. This is how the deep correction starts.
We have seen this playing out many times when the margin debt hit all-time highs:
I am not saying this is imminent, but the same dynamic is clearly at play right now, and we’ll get such a correction sooner or later.
So, why the hell did I write all these?
To explain to you that we aren’t swimming in generational opportunities as some accounts on Twitter and Substack argue. I assure you that people made the same arguments back in 2000 and 2021; however, just a handful of all the names mentioned ended up being really generational opportunities. This is the dynamic that’s driving risk assets higher, not the fact that there is an abundance of amazing opportunities.
So, after all these, what do I think investors can still buy? Three groups:
1️⃣ High-risk/high-reward plays where the optionality is in your favor.
If the company is pivoting from crypto mining to AI-Cloud, and the stock price implies just 10% of success while the objective chance is around 30%, I would buy it. Of course, if you do that, limit the risk by position sizing, for instance, by not making it more than 2% of your portfolio, etc.
2️⃣ Global stocks with high potential.
My focus is always on the US, and it’ll stay this way. The US market has some structural advantages over others. It has the highest liquidity and thus has the strongest mean reversion. Thus, it’s exponentially more likely that you’ll be able to profit from market inefficiencies in the US as they tend to correct over time.
I can’t say this for global markets. In the absence of liquidity, what’s undervalued can remain undervalued for a long time. One exception to this is stocks with high and consistent growth rates. Their consistent high growth sends regular signals to the market to revisit the stock price. Thus, betting on these companies can work very well as they offer high returns and diversification away from the systematic risk in the US.
3️⃣ Fundamentally strong names having temporary headwinds.
At the current stage of the market, most stocks are optimistically priced.
A group that isn’t optimistically priced is one that has fallen out of favor for some reason. Thus, they largely lagged the rally. As they lagged the rally, they further fell out of favor because investors started to see them as dead money.
Among this group, there are companies that are actually facing real problems that are hard to solve. However, for some of them, problems look more temporary rather than permanent. They currently present attractive opportunities at reasonable multiples.
In this post, I’ll focus on the second and third groups.
There are also opportunities in the first group, but the companies there require way deeper dives into the business to understand whether the optionality is favorable. A company-specific deep dive is a better way to do it. Thus, the list will focus on the businesses in the second and third groups.
So, here are 5 no-speculation stocks that I think are attractive now:
5️⃣ Amazon
Here is the thing—Amazon doubled its operating cash flow since 2020, but the stock is up just 40%.
In the meantime, Amazon’s price-to-operating cash flow ratio shrank from 25 to 19.
What does this tell you? Well, it tells me that the company has grown into its overvaluation in the last 5 years. This again affirms the single most important thing I keep saying about investing—price is the most important thing.
In investing, you aren’t necessarily rewarded for buying a great company, but if you pay low enough, you can even make a profit on an insolvent company.
At 19 times operating cash flow, I think Amazon’s overvaluation isn’t a concern anymore. However, the stock has been floating around the current levels since the beginning of this year. So, if no more overvaluation, why isn’t the stock moving?
The main reason is that the market thinks Amazon is falling behind in the AI race.
Nobody expects it to come up with a frontier model and dethrone ChatGPT; what the market expects from Amazon is to thrive as an AI infrastructure provider, as it’s already well positioned to do so through AWS.
Yet, AWS’s growth has largely lagged other hyperscalers so far:
AWS is currently the slowest-growing cloud provider among the Big 5. Even Alibaba Cloud, which was considered dead until this year is growing faster than AWS.
Why?
The reason is largely strategic.
While other providers rushed to buy Nvidia chips to build their capacity, Amazon wanted to rely on its chips, as they didn’t think pouring that much money into Nvidia was sustainable.
Thus, they put a lot of investment and effort into developing their AI accelerators, which caused them to lag other players in the market.
Without AWS growth, the market doesn’t feel the need to revisit the valuation, as the online stores segment is growing at high single digits, and advertising is still small to move the needle much.
However, I think we’ll soon see substantial acceleration in AWS's growth.
Anthropic’s two gigawatt-scale AWS clusters are beginning operations this quarter, and they are expected to reaccelerate AWS growth to over 25%.
That’ll already be a significant catalyst for the stock. If it works well for Anthropic, other players, especially the smaller labs, may pick AWS as their compute partner, as Trainium-based clusters will be much cheaper to own and operate than Nvidia -based clusters.
From there, I think AWS can hold an average 20% annual growth for the next 5 years, which will give us around $305 billion in revenue in 2030, given that the current run-rate is $123 billion. Assuming a 30% net margin, AWS alone will generate over $90 billion in net income for Amazon. At 25x earnings, this segment alone will be valued at $2.3 trillion. This is Amazon’s current valuation.
The rest of the company is currently generating $551 billion in revenue. Even if we assume that the rest of the businesses will grow only 9% annually and have just 15% net margin, they’ll generate nearly $850 billion in revenue and $127 billion in net income. Even if we attach a lower 15x earnings to them, they’ll be valued at another $2 trillion.
Combined, they’ll create a $4.3 trillion business in 2030.
Discounting that to the current day at a 10% annual rate gives us $2.6 trillion company, meaning Amazon is around 10% undervalued today.
Let’s say fairly valued.
Given the current market valuations, I think being able to buy one of the most dominant and highest quality companies in the world makes sense.
For anybody who wants to allocate capital now, I don’t see why a portion of that money shouldn’t go to Amazon.
4️⃣ Novo Nordisk
This is currently one of the most misunderstood companies in the market, in my opinion.
The problem with Novo Nordisk is that the market had unrealistically high expectations for it, and when it proved unable to meet them, the market blamed the company, of course.
It was trading at 50 times earnings in June 2024… At those valuations, you don’t have any room for a blunder. If you don’t deliver all the time, you’ll get hammered. I think this is what happened to this business.
Its upcoming drug, Cagrisema, provided 22.7% weight loss while the investors expected 25%. So what? What’s the difference between 22.7% and 25% for anybody who could use the drug? Literally?
It wouldn’t be that important, probably if the competition wasn’t stiff. Investors expected Cagrisema to be way superior to Eli Lilly’s Zepbound, but it only matched Zepbound’s performance. That led the market to think that Novo is falling behind in the game.
This is nowhere near the case.
Let’s look at the weight-loss pipelines of both companies. Both of them have upcoming oral weight-loss drugs and flagship drugs that’ll follow the oral pills.
Novo Nordisk has oral Wegovy coming as a weight-loss pill, while Eli Lilly has a pill called Orforglipron.
Novo has already applied for approval to the FDA, and it expects to receive one before the end of this year, while Eli Lilly expects to launch Orforglipron early next year. So, Novo has a slight time-to-market advantage.
Beyond that, oral Wegovy delivers significantly better performance than the Orforglipron. Novo’s oral Wegovy delivered 16.6% weight loss in 64 weeks, while Lilly’s Orforglipron delivered an average weight loss of 12.4% (about 27.3 pounds) in a 72-week Phase 3 trial. Meaning, Novo’s drug is better and affects faster.
The situation isn’t that different for weight-loss injections.
Novo will bring Cagrisema to the market next year, which will match Eli Lilly’s Zepbound in performance.
Beyond that, the flagship drugs in both companies’ pipelines are Amycretin for Novo Nordisk and Retatritude for Eli Lilly.
In the latest trial, Novo’s Amycretin provided a 24.3% loss after just 36 weeks. Against this, Lilly’s Retatritude provided 24.2% weight loss after 48 weeks.
As you see, “Novo is falling behind in competition” is largely a perception that rose after Cagrisema fell short of expectations. The reality is that Novo has a superior pipeline of weight-loss drugs, though Lilly’s pipeline is also strong. I don’t see any material difference between the two pipelines, so I believe whoever gets more market share will largely be determined by other processes, such as marketing and distribution.
In any case, even if we assume modest growth, Novo is cheap enough to promise above-average returns from here.
Assuming:
A very low, 9% annual revenue growth rate for the next 10 years
Decreasing ROIC from 25% to 15%
Stable operating margin at 48%
25% marginal tax rate
7% cost of capital
We get an intrinsic value that is double today’s price:
So, given Novo’s strong pipeline and already established market position, I believe it can do even better than 9%.
These make Novo Nordisk one of the high-quality stocks that are still attractively valued in my opinion.
3️⃣ Fluence Energy
People are flocking to data center and semiconductor stocks, thinking that they are the picks and shovels of the AI revolution.
It’s true, however, there is not much money left in that trade to make as the valuations have gone through the roof lately.
Another pick & shovel of the AI revolution is energy, and it’s largely been undiscovered with the exception of non-nuclear stocks.
Bloomberg predicts that the power demand from AI data centers will quadruple in the next 10 years:
Given that fossil fuels will be largely used up in the next five decades, we’ll have to meet a substantial portion of this demand from renewables.
Accordingly, renewable energy capacity is projected to double by 2030:
The downside of renewables is that we can’t turn them on and off to generate energy at will, as we are used to doing with fossil fuels. In renewables, nature decides when we generate energy and not. This adds an internal unpredictability to the energy generation. To ensure that the supply doesn’t fall short of demand at any time, we need to generate all the energy while we can and store it as much as possible for later use.
Result? We’ll need to add massive energy storage capacity across the world.
This is why I am extremely bullish on Fluence Energy.
It’s one of the leading utility-scale energy storage providers, and it’s been growing pretty wildly since 2020.
Despite this growth, the market largely ignores it as it’s trading at just 1.2x sales. It hit the inflection point last year, becoming profitable, and I expect this performance will continue as the demand for energy storage will only increase in the next decade or so.
There are a few reasons I picked Fluence among other utility-scale battery providers:
First, it’s a joint venture between two of the leading companies in the industry, Siemens and AES Energy. Siemens already has decades of experience in manufacturing grid and storage components, and AES is one of the largest utilities focusing on green energy. Because of this focus, it already had a very strong energy storage unit. Fluence inherited Siemens’ manufacturing capacity and AES’s storage unit, and the book of business from both of its parents. As a result, it’s already working with some of the largest customers. Amazon, Meta, and Google have already deployed Fluence’s batteries on their data center sites.
Second, Fluence is an early mover in reshoring manufacturing capacity to the US.
Last month, it shipped its first batteries 100% manufactured in the US. Though reshoring efforts led to some delays and prevented it from ramping up the capacity, I think it’ll pay off as the US buyers distance themselves from batteries manufactured in China due to tariff barriers.
Third, it has integrated software for monitoring and bidding. This means that its customers don’t need to integrate third-party software for monitoring and monetizing the excess power they have stored. This is a significant advantage over the batteries manufactured in China, as the US buyers don’t really want to use software integrated by the Chinese suppliers due to concerns over data leakage.
In short, Fluence is one of the best-positioned companies in an industry that is poised for secular growth in the next few years. The market currently ignores its potential as it’ll only be able to hit the lower end of 2025 guidance due to delays related to reshoring efforts. As these efforts have largely been concluded now, I think the company will start to collect the fruits of these efforts soon.
The valuation affirms the asymmetric potential.
Assuming just 11% annual growth for the next 10 years, and 18% operating margin, we get a DCF implied fair value that is 4x today’s price:
Straightforward valuation based on forward growth and exit multiples also corroborates this.
If we assume 15% annual growth for the next 5 years, we get $5 billion in revenue in 2030. Assuming an industry average of 15% net margin, we will get $750 million in net income. Slap a conservative 15 times earnings and we have a $11.25 billion company, which is also 4.5 times of today’s valuation.
In short, the business looks extremely undervalued from every angle, and I believe it presents an asymmetric opportunity, which is a rare occasion now.
2️⃣ InPost
This is one of those rare companies that checks all the boxes I have in my mind for a good investment:
Founder-led.
It’s a simple business.
It’s growing mind-blowingly fast.
Protected by durable competitive advantages.
It’s attractively valued given the potential ahead.
Companies that check all these boxes are rare, and I tend to hold onto them with great conviction when I find them. This is one of those rare companies, I believe.
It has created the largest out-of-home delivery (OOHD) network in Europe.
They currently have over 88,000 OOHD points across Europe, including the UK.
Naturally, it benefits from strong economies of scale and network effects. As it expands its OOHD network, more merchants work with InPost for OOH delivery, and as the merchant network expands, it adds new points to better handle the scale.
It’s extremely convenient for people to send and receive packages across InPost’s network. What’s even better is that once a customer uses its service, they tend to use it many more times as they get used to the convenience of ordering to an OOHD point.
This is not just convenient for customers, but also efficient for merchants too, as it cuts the last-mile delivery cost, which is the most expensive part of the logistics process. It’s a win-win for all the stakeholders.
Benefiting from strong network effects, they have rapidly expanded throughout Europe in the last 5 years. They acquired other OOHD network and parcel delivery services in France, Spain, and Portugal to fuel pan-European growth. They also entered the UK and acquired two other parcel delivery networks to fuel the growth.
As a result, their growth in the last 5 years has been nothing short of stellar:
They have grown revenues by 36% annually since 2020, while net income has grown at a 20% annual rate in the same period.
Now, let’s get to the crux of it—despite this performance, it’s trading at 14x forward earnings.
How and why?
Two reasons:
Legal issues it experienced in the UK.
Competition from one of its largest customers, Allegro.
The first one is no longer relevant. Its acquisition of the British parcel delivery network, Yodel, was stopped due to a lawsuit from the ex-Chairman of the company, and the British Courts had stopped it from restructuring Yodel. This is largely irrelevant right now, as the higher Court gave its green light for the restructuring, saying that any damage, if it exists, is monetary in nature, so there is no reason to stop restructuring.
The second one is actually more consequential for the sentiment around the business now. Poland is its largest market and Allegro is the largest marketplace in Poland, also Inpost’s largest customer. Lately, Allegro has pushed to expand its own parcel delivery network and is redirecting customers from InPost to its native service. This could be very problematic for the business as Poland is Inpost’s biggest market with 48% revenue share, and Allegro makes up 30% of Inpost’s Polish revenues.
I agree that the stock deserves some discount due to Allegro competition, but I believe it’s now overdone.
InPost recently explained that users who shop only on the Allegro account make up less than 5% of the total volume; thus, the impact of redirection would be limited for InPost:
Even if we assume that all the Allegro revenue will be lost, it’ll be a 10% blow to the top-line, which I believe can be made up for shortly due to fast growth in the UK and Eurozone.
Run a quick napkin valuation, and you see how overdone the current discount is.
Let’s say, Inpost loses all the Allegro revenue, and the top-line retreats to $2.9 billion. If we assume it’ll slow down acquisitions and expansion, we can estimate that the net margin can climb back to 15% levels, which was the case around 2020. This will give us $430 million in net income. Slap 15x exit multiple and we get a $6.5 billion company.
It’s currently valued at just $6.2 billion.
Meaning, the business is undervalued even if we completely ignore the future growth.
What will it be worth in a more mainstream scenario?
Let’s assume:
15% annual revenue growth until 2030.
15% net income margin.
15 times exit multiple.
In this case, we’ll get $6.4 billion in revenue in 2030 and nearly $1 billion in net income. At 15x earnings, we’ll get a $15 billion company, which is 2.5x of today’s valuation.
In short, I believe the risk/reward is now very favorable in this stock given its dominant market position, growth potential, and deeply discounted valuation.
I think it makes sense to take chances on it, which will also provide investors with some diversification away from the systematic risk of the US market.
I am long InPost.
1️⃣ Hippo
Hippo is a direct-to-consumer home insurance company. The stock is up 20% since I published my research on it, but I believe it is still undervalued.
It’s an insurtech company similar to Lemonade and Root, but it has distinguished itself from the other players in the market by focusing on the home insurance niche, which is largely out of scope for the other players in the market.
Now, first let me explain to you that I am categorically long in insurtech companies.
There are a few reasons for that.
First, the insurance industry hasn’t been disrupted. Despite the digital transformation we have gone through in the last two decades, the insurance industry has largely preserved the traditional norms of doing business, i.e, agency model, life-time recurring commissions, manual onboarding and claims processing, etc..
This has two effects:
The speed of distribution remains low.
The business is largely inefficient.
Thus, the entry barriers have remained high as the bulk of the business went to the established players that have distribution and scale advantages that conceal the underlying inefficiency.
As a result, clients have paid higher than warranted premiums for decades as they were trapped between a few inefficient choices.
Insurtech companies appeared as an alternative to this traditional model, promising to correct inefficiencies and pass savings to clients, resulting in lower premiums.
However, they have failed to deliver upon this so far.
Most insurtechs automated two steps in the insurance value chain to make their processes more efficient: Marketing and onboarding.
They reduced the usage of agency-based models and replaced them with direct-to-consumer marketing. This resulted in lower acquisition costs and commission expenses. They also devised fully online onboarding processes, significantly cutting labor costs.
However, they failed at two critical points: Underwriting and claims processing.
AI-ML-based models haven’t been able to conduct underwriting with acceptable accuracy, while claims handling remained divided between automated models and humans, depending on the complexity.
The failure to deliver in underwriting and claims processing has prevented them from taking over the traditional players so far. This has changed since the launch of ChatGPT.
AI models are now way more capable, nearly to the extent that all the underwriting and 70% of claims processing can be handled by AI models. As a result, direct-to-consumer insurance models significantly accelerated in the last 3-4 years. Look at Lemonade and Root and you’ll see what I mean. We bet on both of these companies and doubled our money each time.
Hippo, I believe, won’t be different.
It’s ignored by the market so far because it’s focused on a less attractive niche, home insurance. However, it has delivered stellar growth in the last 5 years:
What I like about Hippo is that it’s not just another D2C insurance company; it’s a true insurtech that leverages technology in all areas of its business. Where this comes consequential is their “preventive care” approach.
What the hell is that?
They developed something called the “Hippo Home Care Program.” They basically install sensors across the home to detect leakages, cracks, and any other potential hazards early. The system then prompts both clients and Hippo to take action to reduce further damage. Meaning, it encourages small preventive actions even if they result in payment. This allows them to prevent bigger claims ahead and avoid higher payments, driving both customer satisfaction and profitability.
This approach significantly reduces Hippo’s loss ratio.
Its net loss ratio consistently decreased in the last 5 years as a result of this strategy and increasing business efficiency:
This allows Hippo to create what we can call a “growth flywheel.”
It passes some of the cost savings to the clients in the form of lower prices, which attracts more clients. As its client base grows, fixed expenses disperse over an even larger client base, reducing fixed cost per client and thus premiums. This cycle plays over and over again, resulting in an ever-growing customer base and lower prices.
We can concretely see this dynamic at play. Hippo’s prices are between 30% and 50% lower than those of the industry leaders, such as State Farm and Allstate:
I believe Hippo is very early in its fast growth phase. Home insurance alone is $70 billion market in the US, while the broader property insurance market is larger than $340 billion. Against this, Hippo’s TTM revenue is just $425 million.
This means that Hippo has a very long runway for growth ahead, and it doesn’t need to do wonders to generate stellar shareholder returns.
Even if we assume 20% annual growth for the next 5 years and 10% net margin, it’ll generate $1 billion in revenue and $100 million in net income in 2030. Even if we assume just a 20x exit multiple, it’ll be valued at $2 billion, which is more than double today’s valuation.
Given the huge market opportunity ahead, I think the chances are great that it can do even better than this.
🏁 Final Words
The market is expensive, and great opportunities aren’t flying around as some people are trying to make it look like.
You are not hearing this from somebody who has made it a habit to be bearish in the market. I am, by default, bullish, and I believe optimism is a “must” to make money in the market. I have made a lot of money by being long the US and the companies I believed in. If you have been following this publication for a while, you know this very well.
However, at this point, I have an obligation to invite everybody to sanity and say that there aren’t that many opportunities around as some people want you to believe. I am saying this because I know that there are people who make investment decisions following this publication, and I value their hard-earned money as if it’s my own.
The reality is, exceptional companies are rare, and most of them are fully valued in the current market environment. This is driving people to bet on higher-risk, speculative plays. When many people are driven in the same way, these stocks go up, and people who are promoting these stocks think they are good investors and their theses are working.
The truth is that people who are driven by FOMO are attacking speculative stocks to catch the rally from some point, driving the prices higher and higher. But once the FOMO turns to fear, those who are trapped inside will be rug-pulled and become exit liquidity for others.
In such a fragile market environment, these are the five stocks that I believe still offer adequate return and long-term safety.
They are not going to quintuple your money in a month, but they have a good chance of compounding your money at an above-average rate for a long time from the current levels.
I think this is as good a deal as you can get in the current market conditions.
I hope this helps.
Thanks for summing up the state of the market and the potential pitfalls of investing in the current economy. There are many that would be advised to read this article in its entirety (they were mentioned).
Great information. I appreciate your willingness to share your view. Stocks are expensive these days which only makes it more challenging to identify future potential gems. Thanks again!