$SPECTRALCAST INC (SPEC.US)$
how to buy

Having a supportive family and strong family bonding that I am grateful for help to foster a free spirit in me to pursue my own investing journey. Before I start investing, the initial question that comes into my  mind is whether or not it will be a great investment. Almost always I would wonder if I could make any gains from it. While these are useful questions, they may not necessarily be the most important ones. Instead I am able to embark on my investing journey by asking these questions. My approach to investing prioritises buying and holding high quality stocks for the long haul. Rather than letting any short term price fluctuations affect my investing decisions, I focus the most on the business fundamentals of those companies  which I invest in. By examining my risk tolerance, I am able to understand how much volatility I am comfortable with. In view of market uncertainty, I am prepared to hold my stock picks through market volatility and target more on long term returns. Without a doubt, it is impossible that all my stock picks will be winners. Instead, I remain vested in the winning stocks as winning companies normally continue winning. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to spend enough time investing and reflecting on my experiences, which have helped me to learn more along the way. One of the most valuable things I have learnt is the importance of patience in deciding when to buy and sell a stock. Investing is not a race for me as I am looking more to capture reasonable returns over the long term. I am grateful that I could take my time and pay close attention to what I am thinking along the way.
$Alphabet-A (GOOGL.US)$
$Amazon (AMZN.US)$
$Apple (AAPL.US)$
$Bank of America (BAC.US)$
$Meta Platforms (FB.US)$
$Microsoft (MSFT.US)$
$Netflix (NFLX.US)$
$NVIDIA (NVDA.US)$
$Salesforce (CRM.US)$
$Shopify (SHOP.US)$
$Block (SQ.US)$
$Tesla (TSLA.US)$

The markets opened higher on Monday and almost immediately moved lower. This week could be choppy and traction-less, with a two-day Federal Reserve meeting on deck and a quadruple-witching expiration on Friday.
Check out today's top stock trades:
Top stock trades for today No.1: Ford
$Ford Motor (F.US)$ stock made a major breakout on Friday, rallying almost 10% on the day and closing near the highs. On Monday, it was quite the opposite with shares down nearly 5%.
For now, the stock is stuck below the $20.50 breakout level. I want to see Ford hold above this level.
We saw a dip from the long-term 261.8% extension and for me, that's not too surprising. However, if it can hold above $20.50, I believe bulls will remain in control.
That leaves the $21.25 level in play. Above Friday's high, and the $23 level is on the table. That's the 261.8% extension of the current range.
Top stock trades for today No.2: AMC Entertainment
Meme-land is getting crushed today, with $AMC Entertainment (AMC.US)$ down more than 15% on the day. $GameStop (GME.US)$ didn't fair too well either, falling almost 14% on Monday.
The action in AMC stock is not too surprising. Shares were putting in a series of lower highs over the past few months. Then the $33 to $35 area failed as support, while the 200-day and 10-day moving averages turned to resistance.
Now taking out the recent low, AMC stock is testing down into the monthly VWAP measure. I wouldn't hang a two-week salary on this level holding, but if we get a bounce, see how AMC stock handles the $29 level.
If it continues lower, let's see how that former high near $20 acts. Just a few days ago I said this level could be in play, although it didn't seem like it at the time. Below that could put the 21-month and 50-month moving averages on the table.
Top stock trades for today No.3: GameStop
I'm not much for tooting any horns — particularly my own — but this morning I also noted that GameStop looked vulnerable after last week's close.
Below the third-quarter high now, GME stock is looking to find its footing. If it can reclaim this level, see how it handles $159, which was the prior week's low and the breakdown point in recent trading.
If the mid-$130s doesn't act as support, the 21-month moving average may be up next near $115, followed by a potential test of $100.
Over $159, and GameStop still has its hands full, as a number of moving averages loom overhead.
Source: InvestorPlace

It is a good practice to examine insider sales for companies that are of interest to investors. Some occasional selling is routine, as many insiders obtain a huge portion of their compensation in the form of stock and therefore have to sell shares to generate cash. While insiders unloading a large portion of their shares can be seen as a red flag, the massive insider selling by CEOs of companies like $Microsoft (MSFT.US)$, $Amazon (AMZN.US)$ do not necessarily indicate that the companies are in trouble. CEOs may sell their shares from time to time for personal reasons that are unrelated to a company's short term or long term prospects. The higher multiple, together with other macro headwinds like supply chain constraints, inflation and the Omicron variant could have convinced the CEOs to sell off some of their shares. In general, investors should be more concerned with insider sales of struggling companies rather than hugely successful ones $Microsoft (MSFT.US)$, $Amazon (AMZN.US)$. Even the massive selling may not indicate that the long term prospects of the company have shifted. As such, it does not make sense for investors to sell off $Microsoft (MSFT.US)$ just because of the recent huge insider sale by the CEO. Instead, investors should pay more attention to the long term growth opportunities in its expansion of the ecosystem and cloud growth.
$Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI.US)$
$Nasdaq Composite Index (.IXIC.US)$
$S&P 500 Index (.SPX.US)$
$Alphabet-A (GOOGL.US)$
$AMC Entertainment (AMC.US)$
$Cisco (CSCO.US)$
$Dropbox (DBX.US)$
$Expedia (EXPE.US)$
$Meta Platforms (FB.US)$
$Pfizer (PFE.US)$
$Tesla (TSLA.US)$
$Walmart (WMT.US)$

Previous Hightlight
$Apple (AAPL.US)$ said Wednesday it launched a self-service repair, which will offer customers that can conduct their own repairs access to the company's genuine parts and tools.
$PayPal (PYPL.US)$ shares are trading lower after Bernstein downgraded the stock from Outperform to Market Perform and lowered its price target from $260 to $220.
$Ford Motor (F.US)$ owns roughly 100 million shares of $Rivian Automotive (RIVN.US)$. And Ford's stake has been increasing in value as Rivian's share price has exploded. Coming into Wednesday's trading session, Rivian stock was up more than 120% since its initial public offering on Nov. 10. Ford stock, however, is down over the same span, by about 2%.
$Pfizer (PFE.US)$ said Thursday it entered an agreement to supply the US government with 10 million courses of its investigational antiviral COVID-19 pill Paxlovid for $5.29 billion.
President Joe Biden on Wednesday visited a $General Motors (GM.US)$ electric-vehicle plant in Detroit, where he talked up how the newly enacted infrastructure law aims to boost the EV industry -- and touted reports that his agenda won't worsen inflation.
How to read the chart
· The chart shows stocks with the most option activities of the previous trading day.
· Put/Call ratio >0.7 means more the stock attract more bears than bulls. Put/Call ratio<0.7 means the stock attract more bulls than bears.
· Option volume indicates the shares of contracts traded for the day.
· Open interest indicates the total number of option contracts that are currently open – that means they are not yet exercised or offset.
Want to know more info on trending option?
This function could be found by selecting "Quotes – Markets – Option". You would need access to "option real-time quotes" to access this function.
Explore the world of option trading with: Intro to options.
Improve your option trading knowledge: Key elements on the table

$Tesla (TSLA.US)$
Tesla Remains “Just” a Car Company, Despite Bulls’ Arguments Otherwise. One of the most common arguments bulls make to justify Tesla’s valuation is that the company is more than just a car company. Instead, the argument goes: Tesla is a software, tech, insurance, energy, transportation, “insert any other blank” company. However, the financials bear out a different picture and show the other businesses are more hype than substance. At this point, Tesla is the only car company and generates the entirety of its profits from vehicles.
Per the following figure, Tesla generated 88% of revenue from Automotive Sales in 3Q21, which is up from 87% in 3Q20, and above the quarterly average of 86% since 3Q19. For reference, automotive sales made up 87% and 93% of General Motors’ and Ford’s 3Q21 revenue respectively.
Tesla’s two other segments, Energy generation and storage and Services and other, which make up 12% of revenue in 3Q21, are unprofitable. Over the TTM, Tesla generated $10.8 billion in gross profit. $11.2 billion came from its Automotive segment while Energy generation and storage and Services and other racked up gross losses of $113 million and $263 million. Despite many claims and promises to the contrary over the years, Tesla doesn’t generate gross profit doing anything but selling cars.
Insurance Business Is Not Material. Tesla bulls will also point to Tesla’s insurance business as another way to drive profit growth. We’ve previously covered how Tesla insurance does not have the competitive advantages that bulls ascribe to it and has a long way to go before it can get meaningfully off the ground.
Even if Tesla’s insurance business gets off the ground, we would not expect it to make much money. For example, from 2004-2006, General Motors generated about $70 per car sold in GAAP net income from its insurance business. If we assume Tesla can generate the same level of business, Tesla insurance would result in just $57 million in GAAP net income based on TTM vehicles sold.
Bulls will counter that Tesla will be so much better at insurance than GM and that GM is not a good comp. There is no way to know for sure. Nevertheless, we concede that anything is possible, but the likelihood of Tesla’s insurance business being material profit producer is extremely low.
Regardless of how successful Tesla insurance is, the potential profits from it are nowhere near enough to help to justify the expectations baked into Tesla’s stock price.
Production Capacity Growth Will Require Billions of $. Current and expected production capacities of all known Tesla factories equals ~2.7 million vehicles, or 12.9 million short of the 2030 production implied by its stock price. See Figure 6.
In other words, despite the new factories coming online, Tesla must spend billions and build many new manufacturing plants before it can approach the capacity needed to sell the number of cars implied by its valuation.
Given the many issues in ramping production in the past, investors should not assume Tesla can increase its production by 5x without any problems.
Incumbents Must Fail for Tesla to Meet Growth Expectations. For many years now, incumbent automakers have spent billions of dollars building out their EV offerings. Automakers other than Tesla already account for 85% of global EV sales through the first half of 2021.
The global EV market is simply not big enough for Tesla to achieve the sales expectations in its valuation unless nearly all of the incumbents reverse course and completely fail to sell EVs.
Here are the projections from the large incumbent automakers that have provided specific goals for future EV production.
$VOLKSWAGEN AG (VLKAF.US)$ projects that 50% of its global sales will be fully electric by 2030
$Stellantis NV (STLA.US)$ projects 70% and 40% of its European and North American sales, respectively, will be fully electric by 2030
$Ford Motor (F.US)$ projects that 40% of its sales will be fully electric by 2030.
$Toyota Motor (TM.US)$ projects that it will sell 2 million EVs by 2030
$Honda Motor (HMC.US)$ plans to sell only EVs in China by 2030
$BAYER MOTOREN WERK (BMWYY.US)$ expects at least half its sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030
$MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG (DDAIF.US)$ manufacturer of Mercedes Benz, expects half its sales to be “EV and hybrid by 2025”
$General Motors (GM.US)$ is targeting EV sales of “more than 1 million” by 2025
$VOLVO(AB) (VOLVF.US)$ plans to sell only fully electric vehicles by 2030
$NISSAN MOTOR CO (NSANF.US)$ (in U.S.): 500,000, 2% market share
Total = 19+ million vehicles and 75% market share
These estimates do not include other incumbents and new entrants (e.g. Jaguar Land Rover, $NIO Inc (NIO.US)$ , $Rivian Automotive (RIVN.US)$ , $Lucid Group (LCID.US)$ and more) or other Chinese EV makers because we could not find specific projections for EV production. Nevertheless, we are confident that their combined market share will be more than zero.
The point is that the rest of the world is not planning to stand by, give up existing market share, and let Tesla own majority of the EV market. Many very experienced and successful automakers are spending many multiples of what Tesla is spending to compete in the EV market.
The bottom line is that it is hard to make a straight-faced argument that Tesla can achieve the sales implied by its valuation in a competitive market.
Incumbents Can Afford to Spend More than Tesla. Incumbents already have infrastructure to produce and sell vehicles at scale, and they are spending billions of dollars to compete in the EV market. Ford, Volkswagen, General Motors, and Stellantis alone are planning to spend at least $280 billion through 2025 and produce over 12 million EVs by 2030.
Given the huge investments from multiple competitors, we expect the EV market will be extremely competitive, as manufacturers fight for profits and market share. The “winner take all” outcome implied by Tesla’s valuation is extremely unlikely. Perhaps, Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi said it best, “the automotive industry is an increasingly global and hypercompetitive industry and we believe that surplus profits and technology innovation will likely be competed away over time, as has been the case historically." In such a market, Tesla cannot achieve the market share implied by its valuation.
Unlike Tesla, the incumbents generate plenty of free cash flow (FCF) to fund their EV investments and don’t have to dilute existing shareholders to expand EV capacity as Tesla does. For instance, over the last five years, General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford generated a cumulative $12.4 billion, $7.1, and $6.1 billion in free cash flow while Tesla burned -$19.5 billion.
FSD Continues to Overpromise & Underdeliver. Full-self driving (FSD) has been consistently plagued by issues that, unfortunately, have deadly consequences. Industry research provider Guidehouse Insights ranks Tesla last in its 2021 ranking of Automated Driver Systems (ADS), and states flatly, “Tesla needs a thorough rethink of its approach to developing ADS. It has overpromised with its marketing for nearly 5 years and severely underdelivered.”
Per the following figure, Tesla lags the competition by quite a large margin, as it’s the only company that falls into the "Followers" category.
The most recent problems with Tesla’s FSD version 10.3 forced the company to roll back the update as users reported false crash warnings and other problems with autosteer and cruise control. These issues resulted in Tesla recalling nearly 12,000 vehicles because “a communication error may cause a false forward-collision warning or unexpected activation of the emergency brakes,” according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
While the roll out of an updated 10.3.1 has restarted, Tesla’s haphazard approach to deploying FSD remains unsettling and led Guidehouse Insights to note, “Tesla’s approach to testing its system is fundamentally at odds with virtually every other company in this industry.”
Alphabet’s Waymo routinely ranks as the best automated driving system. Importantly, many of the firms ranked ahead of Tesla are focused solely on building automated driving systems and are not distracted by scaling up automobile production, delivery logistics, and the general day-to-day operations of producing cars. Even so, other direct competitors such as GM Super Cruise also get better scores from third-party organizations.
Increased Regulatory Risk. While Tesla has mysteriously avoided regulatory crackdown on its sales of FSD and practice of beta testing software on live drivers and roads, renewed requests from the NHTSA/National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) signal that Tesla might be held accountable for practices that many find highly misleading and dangerous to citizens.
Missy Cummings, recently appointed as senior advisor for safety at the NHTSA, has expressed concerns about Tesla’s FSD in the past, tweeting as far back as 2019 that Tesla’s “autopilot easily cause mode confusion, is unreliable and unsafe” and that “NHTSA should require Tesla turn it off.”
More recently, Tesla requested “confidential business information treatment” on its responses to a litany of information requests the NHTSA made as part of its investigation into FSD. If approved, the public would likely never see Tesla’s responses to key questions pertaining to Tesla not issuing a recall for Autopilot after multiple accidents involving parked emergency vehicles, the selection criteria for Tesla’s FSD beta testing program, and the non-disclosure agreements Tesla was making drivers sign before they could use the beta system.
The NHTSA is not alone in criticizing Tesla and its FSD rollout. On October 26, 2021, the head of the U.S. NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, said that Tesla has not yet officially responded to the NTSB regarding its safety recommendations while calling the use of full self-driving ”misleading.” She stated, “my biggest concern is that Tesla is rolling out full self-driving technology in beta on city streets with untrained drivers and they have not addressed our recommendations that we’ve issued as a result of numerous investigations of Tesla crashes.”
Battery Technologies Are Nothing Special. Tesla announced it will be switching to a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery in all standard range cars. These batteries are already being used in vehicles built in the Shanghai factory, and this switch is expected to bring down costs. The timing of this change comes as other battery producers, in partnership with incumbent auto manufacturers, are ramping up production, which should drive down battery costs for all EV makers. In other words, the competitive advantages of a cheaper battery may be short-lived, as incumbents build economies of scale in their own supply chain in the coming years.
Additionally, while the much heralded 4680 cylindrical battery, produced by Panasonic for Tesla, and nearly ready for production, should bring a higher energy density in a more efficient package, competitors’ offerings all aim to provide the same.
General Motor’s Ultium platform will enable up to 400-450 miles of range, and the firm is building a new battery research facility aimed at building batteries capable of 600 miles on a single charge. General Motors recently announced a joint venture with LG Chem to build a second U.S. battery cell plant, which is expected to have an annual capacity of 35 gigawatt hours, or slightly above the 30 gigawatt hour capacity of its first Lordstown battery plant. Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas noted that the “formation of Ultium/Ultium Cells LLC will prove to be a critical point of strategic differentiation that will ultimately drive value creation for [GM] shareholders.”
Ford’s Mustang Mach-E became the first electric SUV not made by Tesla to reach an EPA-rated range of up to 300 miles, and the company recently entered a partnership with SK Innovation to build three U.S.-based battery plants to power 1 million EVs annually.
On its own, LG Chem plans to expand its existing U.S. facilities and build two more plants that will produce both pouch cells used by General Motors, Ford, Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, and more, as well as the cylindrical cells used by Tesla.
Ultimately, the race for the “perfect” battery is less important than the race to procure battery supplies to build the number of EVs each manufacturer aims to produce in the coming years. The incumbents have proven they can maintain and win a race to procure supplies, and they’ve only been doing it for multiple decades now.
Not All Supply Issues Can Be Coded Away. To its credit, Tesla managed the global chip shortage relatively well by re-writing software to allow the use of alternative chips. However, not all supply issues can be solved via software, as evidenced by the growing wait times for Tesla’s vehicles. As Electrek notes, Tesla recently updated its delivery timelines for new orders, and depending upon specs, some vehicles won’t be delivered until September 2022 if ordered today. New orders for the Model 3 Standard Range Plus, which is Tesla’s cheapest vehicle, are currently on pace to be delivered in May 2022, or seven months from now.
While certainly not unique to Tesla, extended delivery/wait times give consumers ample time to comparison shop and possibly switch orders to a competitor’s EV that would be available sooner.
Delivery delays aren’t exclusive to in-production vehicles, but Tesla’s future vehicles as well. The much-hyped Cybertruck has recently been delayed again, this time until at least 2023 (compared to an original late 2021 release), which ultimately gives competitors more time to establish a presence in the EV truck market.

The Barbell strategy is coined by Nassim Taleb. He is a Lebanese-American statistician, investor and writer and is well known for the term “Black Swan”. It refers to unexpected events at a large magnitude, such as Covid19.
The barbell investment strategy advocates pairing two distinctly different portfolio of investment assets – distributing between the two extremes with almost nothing in the middle. 
One portfolio (85-90%) holds extremely safe investments, while the other aggressive portfolio (10-15%) holds highly speculative or leveraged investments. 
The conservative portfolio should hold asset that can at least beat the inflation.
Depending if you are in the Wealth Accumulation stage or Wealth Preservation stage of your life, you can tweak the two portfolio accordingly.
Wealth Accumulation Stage:
The objective is to grow your wealth beyond this $1m windfall.
I would have 85% in the conservative portfolio.
Instead of low risk asset such as cash or short term deposit, I would allocate more into blue chip technology stocks such as
$Amazon (AMZN.US)$ 
$Alphabet-A (GOOGL.US)$ 
$Meta Platforms (FB.US)$ 
$Apple (AAPL.US)$ 
A portion of it will go into etf such as $Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO.US)$.
I would also allocate 10% of the conservative portfolio to strong growth stock such as $NVIDIA (NVDA.US)$ 
For the remaining 15% in the Highly aggressive portfolio, 10% will be in $Tesla (TSLA.US)$ , 5% in crypto such as $Bitcoin (BTC.CC)$ and $Ethereum (ETH.CC)$ 1% can even go into meme stock coins such as a Moomoo coin suggested by @Mars Mooo or $Dogecoin (DOGE.CC)$ .
This is how the allocation will look like:
Wealth Preservation Stage:
The objective is to protect this $1m.
I would take a more conservative approach and keep some money as cash. The rest of the allocation will be very similar to the weakth accumulation stage, using a barbell strategy.
The conservative portfolio will be 90% and the aggressive one is 10%.
Quoting @NANA123" There is no best, only the most suitable “ strategy.
How you deploy the $1m totally depends on:
* Your risk appetite
* Your life stage
* Your investing style
* Your objective
I believe that using a barbell strategy can help me to meet the 4 points mentioned. The allocation % can be reviewed and adjusted annually if required. Most importantly, it should help me to sleep soundly at night.
Now…the question is….how should i get this $1m windfall?
Any ideas guys?
@Investing with moomoo @HopeAlways @GratefulPanda @Syuee @Tupack H Mcsnacks

$Astrotech (ASTC.US)$ Issue new shares?

$NIO Inc (NIO.US)$ im newbie