The more balanced view is that the company is not falling apart, it is changing shape. Streaming and studios were the stronger parts of 2025, and free cash flow stayed positive at $3.1 billion for the year. Management is also focused on reducing leverage, even though net debt remains high at about $29 billion and leverage is around 3.3x. The investment question is timing: digital growth is real, but it still has to grow enough to offset the decline in traditional TV.

How was the last quarter?

In the fourth quarter, $WBD revenue fell to $9.46 billion (-6% year-over-year), with pressure in virtually every major revenue line outside of streaming. Distribution revenue was down 3%, advertising was down 7% and content sales were down 9%. Executives at advertising openly say that the growth of cheaper ad-supported fare in streaming wasn't enough to offset the decline in viewership on traditional TV, plus the NBA was missing year-over-year, which itself took roughly 4 percentage points off the growth rate.

Adjusted operating profit before depreciation and amortization fell to $2.216 billion (-19% year-over-year), and the main culprit was the TV networks, where adjusted operating profit fell 27% to $1.405 billion. While streaming continues to grow in revenue, profitability deteriorated slightly to $393 million in the quarter as the company increased content and marketing costs due to global expansion.

Net loss attributable to shareholders was $252 million. It's important to add that the income statement was heavily weighed down by accounting and restructuring items: the firm reported roughly $1.3 billion in pre-tax amortization of intangible assets, content revaluation and restructuring costs. That's why WBD's cash is the main thing to watch: operating cash was 1.8 billion and free cash was 1.4 billion, although it was down significantly year-over-year.

From an investment perspective, the clearest signal is in subscriber numbers: streaming ended the quarter at 131.6 million, +3.5 million vs. Q3. At the same time, however, average revenue per user declined as the company grows mainly abroad, while the US was hit by a change in its distribution agreement. Translated: volumes are up, but monetization per user is weaker, which is exactly why the market will continue to want to see margins improve in streaming.

• Full presentation with results.

Top points of the results

• Revenue in the quarter of $9.5 billion, -6% year-over-year.

• Adjusted operating profit before depreciation and amortization of $2.2 billion in the quarter, -19% year-over-year.

• Free cash in the quarter of $1.4 billion, -43% year-over-year (impaired by approximately $0.6 billion of one-time items).

• Streaming: revenue in the quarter of $2.8 billion(+5%), but adjusted operating profit of $393 million (down slightly).

• Studios: sales in the quarter of $3.2 billion(-13%), adjusted operating profit of $728 million(-23%).

• Television Networks: sales in the quarter of $4.2 billion(-12%) and adjusted operating profit of $1.4 billion(-27%).

• Streaming subscribers at quarter-end 131.6 million, +3.5 million quarter-over-quarter.

• Average revenue per user globally declined to $6.80 ( -9% y-o-y), mainly due to the decline in the US and growth in cheaper foreign markets.

• Full year 2025: revenue 37.3 billion(-5%), free cash 3.1 billion(-30%), net debt 29.0 billion.

Management commentary

In the company's materials, the tone is clear: streaming is to be the growth engine, studios are to bring back creative "reach" and TV networks are to be optimized to generate cash for as long as possible. In the 'shareholder letter', management also emphasises the balance sheet work and confirms that it expects strong operating profit to cash conversion in 2026 too, with only the additional transaction and separation costs still running in the first half of the year and the first quarter tending to be seasonally weakest due to the timing of content payments.

Outlook

In 2026, it expects profit-to-cash conversion to remain strong, while acknowledging additional transaction and separation costs mainly in the first half of the year and noting that the first quarter is typically the weakest for free cash. This is important for investors as cash can "look worse" in the short term without impairing the core business.

Long-term results

Warner Bros. Discovery in recent years is a textbook example of a company where accounting earnings must be separated from real cash. In 2022-2024, results were significantly impacted by the accounting effects of the merger and depreciation in value. In 2024, the company reported $39.3 billion in revenue but ended up with a huge accounting loss of $11.3 billion and a negative operating result. At the same time, however, it reported EBITDA of 22.4 billion, showing how different the same year can look by the metrics.

The year 2025 already looks "cleaner" on a current year basis: sales fell to 37.3 billion (-5% year-on-year), adjusted operating profit before depreciation and amortisation fell just 3% to 8.7 billion, but more importantly it reaffirmed where the pressure is coming from. TV Networks (Global Linear Networks) fell year-on-year in both revenue (-12%) and adjusted operating profit (-21%), while streaming and studios grew. Overall, the streaming segment doubled adjusted operating profit to 1.37 billion for 2025, and studios jumped to 2.55 billion. This is the key trend: the "new" digital business is growing stronger, but the "old" TV business still makes up a big chunk of the results and its decline cannot yet be completely overcome.

At the same time, the cash story is tougher than on paper. Free cash is down 30% to $3.1 billion in 2025, with the firm explicitly saying it was negatively impacted by separation and transaction items of roughly $1.35 billion. That's an important distinction for investors to make: part of the decline is "one-off" but part is structural - TV advertising and a decline in cable subscribers.

And then there's the balance sheet, which puts the whole thesis in context. Net debt of 29 billion and debt of 3.3 times mean that WBD is not a "risk-free" story: the company needs to keep a handle on cash because high debt in the media cycle limits room to maneuver. Management is showing that it is paying down debt and wants to maintain strong cash generation in 2026, but the market will be tight: for this title, the pace of debt decline and streaming's ability to grow profits, not just subscriber growth, will be critical.

News

The biggest "operational" news is the continued growth in streaming: +3.5 million subscribers for the quarter and a move to 131.6 million for the year. But at the same time, the company admits pressure on average revenue per user, especially in the US. Alongside this, the company's materials include an emphasis on boosting studio and network efficiency - i.e. a drive to raise the quality of content while extracting maximum cash from linear TV at a time when its audience is declining.

Shareholding structure

WBD is typically an institutional title: the institution holds around 73.8% of the shares and the insider share is around 4.5%. The largest holdings are Vanguard (about 11.4%), BlackRock (7.8%), State Street (5.3%) and Harris Associates (3.2%). This typically means two things: high liquidity and also that sentiment can change quickly as large funds reassess debt risk and the pace of the shift toward streaming.

Fair Price

Enterprise Hardware Powers AI Growth

This bold forecast underscores how hardware vendors with deep enterprise relationships can participate in the broader ai ecosystem, not just through components or chips but through complete server, networking, and support solutions. As organizations of all sizes accelerate ai integration, demand for robust, scalable ai hardware has become a strategic imperative, reshaping how investors view demand cycles for core infrastructure.

Economic drivers fueling ai infrastructure investment

The push for ai-ready servers comes amid a broader explosion in data volumes and computational workloads, where enterprises seek to deploy ai models closer to where data is generated. Analysts note that this trend reflects a broader architectural shift away from monolithic cloud compute toward hybrid models incorporating edge, on-premises, and high performance clusters. With Dell positioned across this full stack, it stands to benefit as spending shifts from capex-constrained it upgrades to targeted ai hardware deployments. Sector coverage supports the notion that ai server demand could rival the historical peaks seen in storage and networking refresh cycles.

In this context, Dell’s projection isn’t just aspirational it aligns with rising corporate it budgets dedicated to ai initiatives, as organizations recognize that general-purpose infrastructure won’t suffice for modern generative models or real-time inferencing workloads. Larger enterprises in finance, healthcare, and manufacturing are increasingly allocating funds to secure performance-optimized platforms, which helps explain why Dell expects such a significant revenue horizon.

Competitive landscape: hardware rivals and ai compute ecosystems

Dell’s forecast comes amid a rapidly evolving competitive landscape where hardware rivals including Hewlett Packard Enterprise, $LNVGY, and Cisco are also positioning their server lines for ai workloads. At the same time, semiconductor powerhouses such as $NVDA and $AMD continue to dominate the processor layer, with their accelerators often at the heart of Dell’s ai server builds. While Dell doesn’t manufacture the chips themselves, its ability to integrate best-in-class accelerators and software ecosystems gives it a strategic edge in the enterprise segment.

Enterprises increasingly prefer turnkey solutions that combine compute, storage, networking, and advanced ai-ready architectures, placing incumbents like Dell in a strong position relative to smaller builders or custom OEMs. This holistic demand explains why Dell’s ai server guidance resonated with investors, as it taps into broad-based budgetary shifts across industries.

Stock reaction and valuation narrative among investors

Following the ai server revenue forecast, Dell’s share price reflected renewed optimism, with strong trading volumes signaling institutional and retail interest. Investors reacted to the magnitude of the $50 billion projection as a validation of Dell’s strategic pivot toward ai infrastructure, incorporating the company’s deep enterprise relationships and operational scale into future growth assumptions. Analysts observed that this narrative shift differentiates Dell from peers whose growth stories are centered more narrowly on software or consumer hardware sales.

Despite the enthusiast reaction, valuation debates persist. Some analysts caution that Dell’s hardware-centric revenue forecasts must ultimately translate into sustained margin expansion and free cash flow growth before multiples can expand meaningfully. Yet the ai server narrative provides a compelling backdrop for reappraisals of Dell’s role in the enterprise growth cycle.

Macroeconomic impacts on demand and enterprise spending

$DELL’s bullish outlook also reflects a nuanced understanding of the broader macroeconomic environment. Many CIOs and CTOs have been cautious with capex allocations in recent years due to inflationary pressures and shifting demand patterns. However, as ai initiatives increasingly become strategic imperatives rather than discretionary projects, enterprise capex on servers and ai infrastructure is showing resilience. Reports from industry analysts indicate that global ai infrastructure spending continues to accelerate despite broader economic headwinds, driven by both private sector competition and public sector modernization efforts.

This dynamic creates a favorable growth runway for Dell’s ai-specialized servers, particularly as companies vie for competitive advantage through internal ai deployment, predictive analytics, and real-time intelligent automation systems.

Integration of software and services complements the hardware story

An important dimension to Dell’s forecast is the integration of software and professional services within ai infrastructure deployments. As hardware becomes more commoditized, value adds such as optimized ai stacks, managed services, and ongoing support contracts create recurring revenue streams that enhance customer stickiness and margin profiles. Dell’s enterprise portfolio has been evolving in this direction for several years, blending software-defined storage, edge solutions, and artificial intelligence management suites that support broader digital transformation agendas.

This trend helps explain why investors may view Dell’s long horizon $50 billion target with increasing credibility it is not based solely on hardware sales volumes but also on value-enhancing service layers that accompany enterprise deployments.

Geopolitical and supply chain considerations in ai hardware delivery

As global supply chain dynamics continue to evolve, particularly under ongoing geopolitical tensions and trade policy shifts, Dell’s ability to secure component inventories, resilient logistics, and diversified assembly has become a differentiator. Trade tensions, such as tariff regimes and export controls, have previously disrupted hardware lifecycles and component pricing, reminding investors that geopolitical risk remains relevant for capital equipment makers.

Dell’s supply chain resilience, developed over decades of managing complex global production networks, positions it to navigate these uncertainties better than smaller competitors. Maintaining this advantage is key to delivering on multi-year forecasts.

The investment case: ai servers as a new growth pillar

In conclusion, Dell’s ambitious forecast of up to $50 billion in ai server revenue encapsulates a broader thematic shift in enterprise technology spending. As ai models grow more sophisticated and computationally demanding, the demand for purpose-built, scalable server solutions is becoming a central growth driver. For investors, Dell’s position illustrates how traditional hardware vendors can still capture outsized opportunity by aligning with secular trends in ai and digital transformation.

Whether long term holders or tactical traders, market participants will be watching closely how Dell translates its strategic aspiration into execution, revenue growth, and sustainable profitability in an era where ai has become the defining frontier of enterprise technology.

The key detail is how management treats cash. The dividend is set so the company can keep about 27% of cash instead of paying out the maximum. That buffer is the reason the yield can be attractive without looking forced.

Top points of analysis

• Dividend yield around 6%, yet the payout is not "on the edge" - cash covers it by a significant margin.

• Dividend cushion is strong: for every $1 of dividend, there is roughly $1.4-1.6 of cash, depending on recent results.

• Operating cash has fallen in 2025, but earnings and EBITDA have remained relatively stable - need to watch whether this was a one-off blip.

• Debt is higher but manageable for now: interest servicing comes out at around 6x, reducing the risk of immediate pressure on the dividend.

• Valuation-wise, it is an income title: the market is now paying for cash flow stability rather than growth, so the main driver is dividend security and funding costs.

Company profile

W. P. Carey $WPC is one of the large real estate firms that builds on long-term leases where the tenant bears most of the operating costs. The effect for the investor is simple: income is more stable because rents are not based on short-term occupancy of a single center, but on whether the tenant fulfills a long-term contract. In addition, the company invests across the US and Europe and focuses mainly on industrial, warehouse and select retail, properties that are an "operational necessity" for the tenant, not just a nice-to-have.

From a dividend perspective, two things are important. The first is the quality and distribution of rents over time. The second is the ability to continually increase rents through contractual indexation. W.P. Carey has a large portion of rents tied to inflation ( rents automatically increase with inflation) and also reports that contractual rent growth on a comparable portfolio was 2.4% in 2025 and expects a similar to slightly higher rate in the "mid-2%" range in 2026. These are numbers that don't look dramatic on their own, but for a dividend title, they are exactly the stable "centimeters" that make up long-term certainty.

Main theme: Great dividend cover

For real estate companies, the purest metric for the dividend is operating cash adjusted for one-time items, often using AFFO per share. W.P. Carey achieved AFFO of $4.97 per share for 2025 while paying a dividend with a payout of 72.8% of AFFO.

That 72.8% is actually the most important number in the entire dividend thesis, because it says that the company doesn't pay out everything to investors from every "dollar" of operating cash.

This is significant for three reasons. First, even if AFFO deteriorates in the short term, the firm has room to maintain the dividend without having to dig into the balance sheet or sell assets quickly. Second, some of the cash can go into acquisitions and renovations, which keeps the growth going for years to come. Third, it increases the likelihood that the dividend increase will not be a one-off "PR move" but will build on cash earnings growth.

And here we come to 2026. The firm gives AFFO guidance of $5.13-$5.23 per share, which at the midpoint of the range implies further growth around the low single-digit percentages. If W.P. Carey keeps the payout in a similar range, it naturally creates room for continued incremental dividend increases. Not fast, not aggressive, but exactly what a long-term dividend investor wants: stable and underpinned cash flow.

Where will the growth come from in 2026 and beyond?

Contractual rental growth as a "silent engine"

In a long-contract environment, the biggest advantage is that growth does not come in leaps and bounds, but continuously. W.P. Carey reports contractual rent growth of 2.4% in 2025 on a comparable portfolio. What is significant for the 2026-2028 story is that this pace can be sustained without the firm having to dramatically increase risk. For "net rents", much of the growth will happen purely by flipping the calendar: indexations are reflected, contracts run, rents rise.

Capital acquisition and recycling as the second leg

The second growth engine is investment activity. In 2025, the firm made $2.1 billion in acquisitions, which it called a record, while selling $1.5 billion in assets. For 2026, it plans acquisitions in the USD 1.25-1.75bn range and sales of USD 250-750mn. USD 250 MILLION.

This is important for an investor in terms of discipline. W.P. Carey is not pushing for growth at any cost while retaining the flexibility to buy where the return makes sense relative to the cost of capital. In an environment where the real estate market is rebounding after two years of uncertainty, this is a pragmatic approach: jump on opportunities but don't overdo it at a time when rates may not yet come back low.

Portfolio clean-up and higher quality mix

W. P. Carey has been adjusting the portfolio in recent years and communicating a strategy of moving away from offices, which has been reflected in the dividend policy. Today, it is important that the firm positions itself as more of an industrial-logistics player, where there should be rental stability and lower occupancy volatility. For example, analysts mention the shift towards industrial and warehousing and cite high occupancy. In practice, this means: less sensitivity to "old office world problems" and more connection to sectors that are critical to the companies' operations.

Market and context: why conditions are improving for net-lease REITs

With net-lease, the macro story is not whether the economy grows by 1% or 2%. What matters is the cost of capital and market liquidity. And this is where the shift is happening: according to CBRE, US net-lease investment volume rose to $51.4bn in 2025, up +16% y/y, and activity picked up significantly in Q4.

CBRE also reports that the average capitalization rate in the net-lease market was relatively stable, while the spread to the 10-year Treasury note widened. For the investor, this means a simple thing: when yield spreads appear more "reasonable" again, capital returns to the segment. This can help with both acquisitions and divestitures, and it improves REIT valuations, as less nervousness around financing typically lowers the required risk premium.

Dividend: level, sustainability, growth rate

The current dividend is $0.92 per share quarterly, or $3.68 annually, and the company has increased it by about 4.5% year-over-year. But more crucially for the dividend investor, the payout ratio for 2025 was 72.8% AFFO. That's a conservative level for the proportions of a stable net-lease business, as it leaves room for investment and normal fluctuations.

At the same time, it makes sense to expect dividend growth to be more "in rhythm" with AFFO growth in the years ahead, rather than the company seeking aggressive payout increases. And that's exactly the kind of dividend that works best for a long-term portfolio: less spectacular, but stable, with a high probability of sustainability.

How safe is the payout really?

A dividend yield of around 6% is attractive on its own, but a simple rule of thumb applies to real estate titles: it determines how much cash the company has left after the payout. Here, the picture comes out pretty solid, especially when you look at it through operating cash flow.

From the 2025 data - the firm generated Operating Cash Flow of $1.282 billion. With an average share count of ~220.5 million shares, that equates to roughly $5.8 operating cash per share. If the dividend "run-rate" in the market is around 6%, we're typically talking about an annual dividend of around $3.6-3.7 per share (the specific amount varies by share price, but the order of magnitude fits). In this case, it works out that the dividend is covered by operating cash with a very decent reserve.

To make it perfectly clear in one sentence: if a company generates about $5.8 cash per share and pays out about $3.7, it still has about $2.1 per share left as a cushion. This cushion is exactly what an income investor wants to see, because it reduces the risk that there will be downward pressure on the dividend in the first bad year.

What the cash flow trend says and where the weak spot is

It's fair to add the other side of the coin: operating cash flow fell by ~30% in 2025 (from US$1.833bn to US$1.282bn). At the same time, net income remained roughly stable(US$466m vs US$461m) and EBITDA even grew slightly(+6%). This suggests that the decline in operating cash flow may have been partly due to changes in working capital or the timing of items, not necessarily a "break-up" of earnings.

Simple dividend stress test

• If operating cash flow had fallen another 10%, it would have been ~$1.15bn → a dividend of around $0.81bn would still have been covered (~1.4x).

• If it fell by 20%, it would be ~$1.03 billion → the dividend would still be covered (~1.3×).

• Only with a decline of roughly 35-40% vs. 2025 would the coverage approach the "on the edge" level (around 1.0×), where the dividend is already sensitive to any further negative variation.

Valuation

At first glance, valuation may look expensive if we look at the company through a "stock" lens via classic multiples. By the metrics, the P/S is 8.1 and the P/B is 1.94. However, for real estate and income titles, it tends to be more accurate to read valuation through cash flow and what yield the market is demanding versus risk-free rates. And this is where the picture looks more balanced.

Let's start with the capital structure. A market capitalization of $16 billion and an Enterprise Value of $25 billion means that net debt (and liabilities factored in EV) comes out to roughly ~$9 billion. This fits with the fact that the company is capital intensive (debt is normal in this type of business) and also has reasonable debt service ratios: interest coverage of 6.2x looks like a relatively comfortable level in a higher rate environment.

The two metrics that make the most sense for valuation

1) EV/EBITDA

From the numbers: EV $25 billion / EBITDA $1.391 billion ≈ 18×. That's not "cheap as a bank", but for a stable cash-flow model with long contracts, it's not even extreme.

2) Price to Cash Flow (P/CF)

P/CF 16.1×. For income titles, this is often a better compass than P/E because the cash flow is closer to the reality of dividend coverage.

How to combine this with a dividend yield of 6%

The 6% dividend yield is also a "valuation anchor" for the market. For these titles, it is often the case that the share price moves to keep the yield within a certain range. If the company convinces the market that the dividend is safe and that cash flow will grow, the yield may gradually fall (as the price rises). Conversely, if uncertainty increases, the yield will rise (because the price is falling).

That's why the relationship is important: 6% yield + solid cash cover + decent debt service. That's a combination that tends to work as an "income value" profile - the investor gets a yield today while having a chance for gradual repricing if sentiment on rates and financing improves.

What could improve valuation (and what will hurt it)

Potential positive revaluation:

• Steady growth in cash per share (not just book)

• Continued debt discipline (Debt/Equity is already 1.10, so the market will be sensitive to further debt)

• lower cost of capital (easier to refinance, better acquisition spreads)

What may hold valuations down:

• Further decline in operating cash flow (if 2025 trend repeats)

• Pressure on interest costs (reduces room for dividend growth)

• Any signal that the dividend cushion is thinning (payout moves higher)

Long-term results

W. P. Carey (WPC) revenues have been visibly "wobbly" in recent years: after strong growth in 2023 to $1.74 billion from $1.47 billion in 2022 came a decline to $1.58 billion in 2024 and a return to growth again in 2025 to $1.72 billion. The top line itself therefore does not feel like a purely linear growth story, but rather a mix of one-off influences, changes in portfolio composition and timing of returns. Importantly, 2025 is close to 2023 in revenue, but still slightly short of catching up.

At the profitability level, the biggest red flag is the sharp increase in "Cost of revenue" in 2025 to 704 million. USD, while it was multiples lower in 2022-2024 (USD 78-140m). This immediately spilled over into gross profit, which fell to US$1.01bn in 2025 from US$1.46bn in 2024, and also into operating profit, which fell to US$870mn in 2025. USD 1.32 billion from USD 1.32 billion. Operating expense, on the other hand, went down to USD 101 million. The pressure came not from "administration" but from direct costs or the accounting classification of items in cost of sales. An interesting detail is that EBIT and EBITDA in 2025, on the other hand, grew year-on-year (EBIT USD 870m vs. USD 797m, EBITDA USD 1.39bn vs. USD 1.31bn), suggesting that different lines may capture different item structures and without knowing the methodology/notes to the statements, this can be confusing "at a glance".

From a shareholder perspective, the key point is that net income and EPS in 2024-2025 remain relatively stable (net income 461 → 466m USD, EPS 2.09 → 2.11) but are significantly lower than in 2023 (708m USD, EPS 3.29). At the same time, the number of shares has increased significantly since 2022 (average 199.6m → 220.5m), which in itself pushes earnings per share down, even if absolute earnings don't "fall" as much.

What an investor should watch for

• AFFO per share and payout ratio: if it stays roughly around 70-75% and doesn't climb into the loss cushion zone.

• Occupancy and length of leases: 98% occupancy and long leases are the main dividend "protection".

• Investment discipline: if acquisitions are kept to a meaningful volume and sales serve to recycle capital, not extinguish problems.

• Net-lease market liquidity: deal volumes and yield spreads to bonds, as this affects valuations and ability to grow without expensive capital.

Risks worth taking seriously

The biggest risk to the net-lease model tends to be a combination of higher rates and deteriorating access to capital. When financing becomes more expensive and the market closes, acquisitions slow down and some growth is postponed. The second risk is tenant credit. Even with "operating" properties, there are times when a tenant loses the ability to pay or has to restructure, and that's when the power of portfolio diversification and contract quality comes into play. The third risk is the execution of capital recycling: selling at a good price and buying at a meaningful return is a discipline that is harder to do in real estate than it looks on paper.

Investment scenarios

Optimistic scenario

AFFO will meet the top end of the outlook and grow at roughly 4-5% per year due to a stable market and good acquisitions. The dividend rises at a similar rate, with the payout remaining around 70-73%. The result is a combination of a solid dividend yield and gradual payout growth, with valuations able to benefit from improved real estate sentiment and more stable financing.

A realistic scenario

AFFO grows near the midpoint of the outlook, roughly 3-4% annually, acquisitions are on track but without euphoria, and the dividend grows more slowly to give the company a cushion. In this world, it is primarily a "boring" income title: high yield, moderate dividend growth, and stability.

The pessimistic scenario

Market stays tight longer, some investment shifts, AFFO grows minimally or stagnates. The company holds the dividend, but the payout growth rate slows to a token level, the payout moves higher towards 75% and the market becomes more cautious in valuation. The dividend will survive, but the investor will not get significant capital growth alongside the yield.

What to take away from the article

• The $3.68 per year dividend is covered relatively conservatively today, as the payout was 72.8% AFFO in 2025.

• The company has a clear framework for 2026: AFFO of $5.13-$5.23 per share and an investment plan that supports continued dividend growth.

• The net-lease market is picking up, with U.S. investment volumes at $51.4 billion (+16%) in 2025, improving conditions for acquisitions and valuations.

• The investment thesis is not based on a miracle, but on a combination of long contracts, stable occupancy and discipline in capital allocation.

Dividend ETFs (and dividend stocks in general) are back in the investor spotlight in 2025 and early 2026. After several years of dominance by growth technology titles, some capital is starting to shift to segments that offer more stable cash flow, lower volatility and regular returns. This shift of capital is well evident in the performance of the major dividend funds, many of which are currently trading near all-time highs.

A combination of several factors is behind the increased interest. Higher interest rates have made cash flows more attractive in recent years, while the increased volatility of the technology sector has led some investors to diversify their portfolios more.

Therefore, large and liquid funds focused on quality dividend companies deserve particular attention. However, the key question remains whether their current valuations still offer room for further growth or whether these funds are at a later stage in the cycle.

Our analyst team has selected the 4 most interesting ETFs, with some of them having dividend yields as high as 5% and earning over 10% appreciation in recent months.

Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF $VYM

ETF $VYM is one of the largest and most popular dividend-oriented funds in the U.S. market. Managed by Vanguard, the fund tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, which selects U.S. stocks with above-average dividend yields while excluding real estate investment trusts (REITs). The result is a broadly diversified portfolio of large and mid-cap companies with an emphasis on dividend stability.

In terms of sector allocation, this ETF is heavily exposed to financials, healthcare, industrials and consumer staples. Technology plays a much smaller role here than in the S&P 500, which partly explains the fund's different performance at different market phases. The expense ratio is kept very low at around 0.04%, which is one of the reasons why the fund is popular among long-term investors.

Why has the ETF been rising recently?

The current strength of $VYM is closely related to the rotation of capital from highly valued growth titles into more value-oriented segments of the market. Higher interest rates and increased macroeconomic uncertainty have historically supported dividend and value strategies in particular. The fund also benefits from a heavy weighting in financials and energy companies, which have posted solid profitability and strong cash flow over the past two years.

Another supporting factor is the structure of the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index itself, which favours companies with sustainable dividends and relatively robust balance sheets. This means the fund is less susceptible to speculation and more linked to the fundamental performance of companies.

Performance over different market cycles

Historical data shows that $VYM tends to underperform the broader market during strong technology-driven growth phases, but instead exhibits relative resilience during periods of heightened volatility.

During the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the fund experienced a significant decline similar to the rest of the market, but the subsequent recovery has been supported by a stable dividend component. In the pandemic year of 2020, the ETF briefly underperformed the more technology-oriented S&P 500, but instead outperformed the S&P 500 in 2022, when the market faced rising rates and a sell-off in growth titles.

Source: Vanguard - Fundamental characteristics of the fund

Portfolio Composition

The $VYM portfolio contains hundreds of titles (562 to be exact), with large U.S. blue-chip companies among the largest positions. One of the most interesting stocks in the fund, for example, is $JPM Chase & Co. $JPM represents a strong weighting to the financial sector in the portfolio.

JPMorgan has long benefited from its dominant position in U.S. banking, strong capital base and robust profitability across the cycle. Exposure to similar quality financial institutions is one of the key factors why $VYM has performed relatively steadily in a higher rate environment.

Source: Vanguard - Portfolio sector allocation

Fund Valuation

From a valuation perspective, $VYM typically trades cheaper than technology-oriented indices. The forward P/E is currently at 21 points. It is therefore slightly higher than the long-term average, but given the fund's growth in recent years and the fact that it is currently at absolute peaks, this is not an overblown value.

iShares Core High Dividend ETF $HDV

The $HDV ETF from BlackRock (iShares) is one of the most well-balanced dividend funds on the market. It tracks the Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Index, which doesn't just select stocks based on dividend size, but places a strong emphasis on companies' financial health, dividend sustainability and economic "moat" (competitive advantage).

The fund is more concentrated than, say, $VYM and typically holds about 70-80 stocks (currently 74). The Expense Ratio is around 0.08%, which is still a very competitive level. The dividend yield over the past 12 months is 2.96%. Historically, however, the yield used to be higher. Indeed, the current decline is a function of the fund price, which has risen 13.7% since the start of 2026.

Why the ETF has been rising recently

The strong recent performance of $HDV is primarily related to its sector structure. The fund is heavily weighted in energy, health care and defensive consumer staples. It is these segments that often exhibit relative stability in earnings and cash flow in an environment of higher rates and a slowing economy.

Morningstar's quality filter, which excludes companies with dividend risk from the portfolio, also plays an important role. This has led to $HDV generally exhibiting lower volatility in recent years than some strategies that focus predominantly on dividend yield per se. Indeed, with a higher dividend for a poor quality firm comes a much greater risk of a subsequent dividend cut. However, such firms are not found in this ETF.

Performance over different market cycles

Historically, $HDV has behaved like a defensive stock. During periods of strong technology rallies (such as 2021 or 2025), the fund typically underperforms the broad S&P 500 index. Conversely, during periods of stress or rotation of capital into the value segment, it tends to outperform the market.

During the pandemic downturn in 2020, the fund suffered in the short term due primarily to its exposure to energy, weakening nearly 40% (more than the S&P 500), but the subsequent recovery in the commodity sector helped stabilize performance. In 2022, as growth stocks faced pressure from rates and inflation, the ETF held up relatively well and even managed a 3.6% gain.

Source: iShares Portfolio Characteristics

Portfolio Composition

The $HDV portfolio is more concentrated in large, highly profitable companies. One of the most prominent positions tends to be Exxon Mobil Corporation $XOM on a regular basis, which illustrates the fund's energy exposure well.

Exxon Mobil benefits from a global position in both the upstream and downstream segments and very strong free cash flow in an environment of higher oil and gas prices. The firm's long history of dividend payments and disciplined capital management make it attractive for dividend strategies.

Source: iShares Key Facts

Fund Valuation

From a valuation perspective, $HDV maintains a typical value profile. The portfolio's forward P/E tends to be in the lower to mid "teens," price-to-book tends to be below the broader market, and the dividend yield is often close to 4%. Thus, compared to the broader S&P 500, the fund offers a higher income component at the cost of lower growth exposure.

SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF $SPYD

The $SPYD ETF is one of the highest-yielding dividend funds focused on U.S. large caps (companies with high market valuations). The fund from State Street tracks the S&P 500 High Dividend Index, which simply picks the 80 stocks from the S&P 500 index with the highest dividend yields and weights them equally in the ETF. Unlike $HDV, there is no deep quality filter, giving the fund a significantly different risk-return profile.

The expense ratio is around 0.07%, which is a very good level. The biggest attraction of the fund is the dividend yield, which historically has often been between 4% and 5% depending on the market price and cycle. The high yield is the main reason for the ETF's popularity.

Why ETFs have been growing recently

SPYD's recent growth is closely tied to rotation into the value segment and improved sentiment in high dividend yield sectors. The fund has traditionally had high exposure to real estate, utilities, energy and financials, areas that have been under pressure in recent years and are now partially making up for the loss.

Moreover, the equal weighting means SPYD is not dependent on a few titles, which works to its advantage in a broader market rotation environment. When market performance extends beyond the tech giants, the fund typically benefits.

Performance over different market cycles

Historically, SPYD has been more volatile than, say, previous ETFs.

During the 2020 pandemic shock, SPYD was one of the hardest-hit dividend ETFs, largely due to its heavy weighting in the real estate and energy sectors. The subsequent recovery has been slower than the broader market. In 2022, the fund, despite being dividend-oriented, faced a much larger decline than $HDV.

Portfolio composition

Source.

SPYD's portfolio contains 80 equal-weighted titles, which significantly reduces risk concentration but increases exposure to more cyclical companies. One of the typical strong positions tends to be Realty Income Corporation, which is a good representation of the real estate component of the fund, which is the largest.

Realty Income $O is known as "The Monthly Dividend Company" (because it pays a dividend on a monthly basis) and has long been one of the most stable REITs in the US. The company benefits from a portfolio of commercial properties with long-term leases, but is also more sensitive to interest rate movements. It is titles like these that explain both SPYD's high dividend yield and its higher cyclicality.

Source.

Fund Valuation

SPYD ranks among the cheapest dividend ETFs from a valuation perspective. The forward P/E is currently below 15, the price-to-book tends to be below the broader market (currently 1.83), and the dividend yield is often close to the 5% mark. However, the higher yield is traded off by a higher sensitivity to the economic cycle and interest rates.

Vanguard Value ETF $VTV

The $VTV ETF represents a slightly different approach than previous funds. It is not primarily a top dividend strategy, but a broadly diversified value fund tracking the CRSP US Large Cap Value Index. It selects US companies based on a combination of value metrics (e.g. book-to-price, earnings-to-price) and growth characteristics. Dividend yield is therefore not the main selection criterion here, but a natural side effect.

The fund is one of the largest ETFs in the world and offers a very low expense ratio of around 0.03%, which has long been one of Vanguard's main competitive advantages. Dividend yields typically range between about 2.2% and 2.8%.

Why the ETF has been growing recently

The current strength of $VTV is primarily related to the gradual renaissance of the value segment. After a long period of dominance by growth titles, valuation, cash flow and balance sheet quality, factors to which the CRSP index is sensitive, are beginning to gain more traction.

At the same time, the fund benefits from the high weightings of the financials, healthcare, energy and industrials sectors. If market interest extends beyond a narrow group of technology megacaps, $VTV has historically tended to improve its performance relative to the broader market.

Performance over different market cycles

From a historical perspective, $VTV exhibits classic value investment behavior. In strong growth boom years (e.g., 2017-2021), it has lagged the technology-driven S&P 500 Index. Conversely, in 2022, when rates were rising sharply and technology valuations were declining, the fund rose.

During the pandemic shock of 2020, the fund briefly weakened along with the broader market, but subsequently stabilized due to broad diversification and exposure to financials and industrials. Over the 2023-2024 period, performance varied with the strength of value stocks, with volatility generally lower than the rest of the market.

Portfolio composition

The $VTV portfolio contains hundreds of companies (312 today) and is one of the broadest exposures in the market. One of the most significant and interesting positions has long been Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

As a diversified conglomerate with an emphasis on cash flow, capital discipline and long-term capital allocation, Berkshire $BRK-B captures the values of this ETF. Although it does not pay a dividend, its inclusion in the portfolio illustrates well that $VTV is not a pure dividend fund.

Fund Valuation

From a valuation perspective, $VTV typically trades at a discount to growth indices. The portfolio's forward P/E is slightly above 21 points and the P/B tends to be lower than the S&P 500. It is currently 3. The S&P 500 is above 5.

Conclusion

Dividend ETFs are once again in a more favorable position after years of growth dominance. The combination of still elevated rates, an emphasis on cash flow and broader sector rotation creates an environment in which these strategies can relatively better keep pace with the broader market. At the same time, however, it is evident that individual funds differ significantly in both portfolio structure and sensitivity to the economic cycle.

While the more concentrated highest yield strategies may offer a higher income component, the value approach delivers a more stable profile across market phases. Given that all of these ETFs are currently near all-time highs, future performance will largely depend on the trajectory of interest rates, the strength of the economy and the continuation of sector rotation in the U.S. equity market.

After the Q4 FY2026 results were released, I, like most investors, expected consolidation around $200 or a move toward $210–$215. Instead, there was a sharp decline and the stock closed the day at approximately $184.89 (-5%).

(The lower chart also shows after-hours and pre-market trading (24/5).)

What actually happened? Nvidia once again reported an exceptionally strong quarter:

Revenue $68.1B (+73% YoY), above market expectations (~$65.9B)

Adjusted EPS $1.62 (vs. $1.53 expected)

Data Center segment at a record $62.3B

BUT — the stock still fell. Main reasons in my view (trying to find causes looking in the rearview mirror):

Extremely high expectations: Nvidia is priced almost to perfection. “Great” isn’t enough—the market wants “exceptional.”

Concerns about future AI capex: Hyperscale companies are investing enormous sums in AI infrastructure, and investors are starting to question whether this pace is sustainable long-term.

The outlook didn’t provide a fresh catalyst: Guidance was solid but didn’t offer anything that would significantly raise already high expectations.

Profit-taking: The stock had run up into the results, so some investors simply took profits.

Possible scenarios for the coming weeks:

1) Optimistic scenario Holding above $180 and a return above $195–$200 could open the way back to $210–$220, especially if strong demand for Blackwell chips is confirmed.

2) Base case (most likely) Consolidation in the $175–$195 range over the next few weeks until a new catalyst arrives (e.g., the GTC conference or another outlook).

3) Negative scenario If concerns about AI investment intensify, the stock could test $160–$170. A break below $170 would indicate a deeper correction.

My approach: I remain growth-oriented for the long term—Nvidia still holds a dominant position in AI infrastructure. Short-term, however, I expect higher volatility and I would personally consider buying on a drop below $170.

What do you think? Are you adding on this dip, or waiting for even lower prices?

An English version of this post is available on my profile at www.etoro.com. If you want to follow me there or copy my USD portfolio, I’d be very happy.

What changes the tone is the capital return plan. Salesforce generated very large operating cash flow and free cash flow over the year, and management is using that capacity to raise shareholder payouts. The company announced a new $50 billion share repurchase authorization and increased the dividend to $0.44 per share. For investors, the message is simple: growth continues, but the company is now also behaving like a mature cash generator that returns more capital.

How was the last quarter?

Salesforce $CRM showed in the fourth quarter that it can grow without "buying" revenue at the expense of profitability. Revenue rose to $11.2 billion and the core foundation of the business - subscriptions and support - added 13% to $10.7 billion. This is important because this is the part that is most predictable and forms the core of the company's long-term value.

But the report's strongest metric is the pipeline of contracts going forward. Total contracted future revenue of $72.4 billion (+14%) shows that despite the large comparative base, demand for the platform is still very much alive. Short-term contracted revenues of 35.1 billion (+16%) then suggest that it is not just a case of "sometime in the future" but that the contract pipeline is spilling over into revenues in the foreseeable future.

And the third layer is cash. For the full year, the company generated $15.0 billion of operating cash flow and $14.4 billion of free cash flow. To an investor, this means that Salesforce is not just a "growth story" but a very strong cash machine that can afford massive buyouts while investing in products and acquisitions.

Highlights of the results and outlook

• Q4 revenue: $11.2 billion, up +12% year-over-year.

• Subscription and support revenue: $10.7 billion, +13% YoY.

• Total contracted future revenue (RPO): $72.4 billion, +14% year-over-year.

• "Short-term contracted" revenue (cRPO): $35.1 billion, +16% y/y.

• Operating margin for 2026: 20.1% on an accounting basis and 34.1% after adjustments.

• Operating cash flow: $15.0 billion(+15%) and free cash flow : $14.4 billion(+16%).

• Return of capital to shareholders: $14.3 billion (buybacks 12.7 + dividends 1.6).

• New buyback program: $50 billion (replaces unused previous programs).

• Dividend raised to $0.44 per share(+5.8%).

• Q1 outlook: revenue of $11.03-11.08 billion, "short-term contracted" revenue growth of around 14%.

• Outlook for sales (full year): $45.8-46.2 billion and operating cash flow is expected to grow about 9-10%.

• Full presentation with results.

CEO commentary

Marc Benioff builds communications on the fact that Salesforce wants to be the "operating system" for businesses where work is combined between humans and automated helpers in software. From an investor's perspective, it's important to filter the marketing and take the hard numbers that management attaches to it: annual recurring revenue from the suite around Agentforce and Data 360 exceeded $2.9 billion (more than tripling year-over-year), and Agentforce alone reached $800 million, growing 169% year-over-year. In addition, CFO Robin Washington mentions that the acceleration of "new contracts and expansion with existing customers" in the second half of the year reinforces confidence that organic growth can accelerate again in the second half of fiscal 2027.

Outlook

The outlook for 2027 is built on two pillars: steady double-digit revenue growth and maintaining strong profitability after adjustments. Salesforce expects revenue of $45.8 billion to $46.2 billion, or 10-11% growth, and an operating margin of 20.9% on an accounting basis and 34.3% after adjustments. That's a clear signal that the company doesn't want to "chase" growth at the cost of broken margins - and that the discipline the market has appreciated in Salesforce in recent years is set to continue.

For the first quarter, the company expects revenue of $11.03 billion to $11.08 billion and earnings per share after adjustments of $3.11 to $3.13. At the same time, it expects near-term contracted sales to grow around 14%, which is important because that metric often outpaces the future pace of reported sales. At the same time, management is explicit that organic growth should accelerate again in the second half of the year - a promise the market will want to see confirmed in the next two to three quarters.

Long-term results

Salesforce has undergone a four-year transformation from a "fast-growing company" to a "large, steadily growing, high-margin company with huge cash." Revenues have grown from $31.4 billion in 2023 to $34.9 billion in 2024, $37.9 billion in 2025 and $41.5 billion in (FY) 2026. The growth rate has gradually stabilized around 9-11% per year, which is typical for a company of this size - which is why the question of whether new products can "kick-start" growth again without having to discount margins comes to the fore.

Profitability is seeing a return of operating leverage. Operating profit has risen from $1.0 billion in 2023 to $5.0 billion in 2024, $7.2 billion in 2025 and $8.3 billion in 2026. That's a massive shift that didn't happen by accident: costs have grown slower than gross profit and the company has systematically pushed for efficiency. Net profit rose from 0.2 billion in 2023 to 4.1 billion in 2024, 6.2 billion in 2025 and 7.5 billion in 2026.

The key detail for shareholders is "earnings per share" and working with the number of shares. Earnings per share rose from $0.21 in 2023 to $4.25 in 2024, $6.44 in 2025 and $7.85 in 2026. At the same time, the average number of shares declined (from roughly 992 million to 950 million), so the company is not only increasing earnings, but also translating some of the value into "per share" metrics via buybacks. Combined with the fact that it returned $14.3 billion to shareholders for 2026 and launched a new $50 billion buyback, it is clear that return on equity will be one of the main drivers of earnings in the years ahead.

And here's an important interpretation: Salesforce is no longer a "grow 20% a year" story. It's a story about being able to grow steadily, hold high margins, and return capital aggressively from cash. Moreover, if it can really accelerate organic growth in the second half of the year, it may change what "growth premium" the market is willing to pay. If it doesn't, there is still a very solid foundation of contract pipeline and cash strength.

News

The biggest news is that the company has started to publicly measure "how much work automated helpers can do in the system" and adds scale of use numbers (billions of units of work, trillions of tokens processed). For the investor, the only thing that matters is that Salesforce is trying to prove that AI is not just an extra feature, but a new revenue source that is already of measurable size (recurring annual revenue in the billions of dollars) and accelerating business activity (tens of thousands of contracts). The second innovation is purely capital-intensive: the new $50 billion buyout is a huge commitment that also suggests the company expects high cash generation over the long term.

The shareholder structure

Salesforce is a distinctly institutional title: the institution holds roughly 84% of the shares, and the insider stake is around 3%. The largest shareholders are Vanguard (roughly 9.6%) and BlackRock (roughly 8.6%), followed by State Street and Capital International. This typically means high liquidity, and also means that share price movement is sensitive to how large funds evaluate contract pipeline growth, margin stability, and rate of return on capital.

Analyst expectations

According to MarketBeat's summaries, the consensus is around a "slightly positive" recommendation and the average target price is roughly $300, with a wide range of estimates.

The practical interpretation: the market will continue to want proof that "AI in action" actually accelerates organic growth, not just marketing. In this report, Salesforce showed excellent cash and a record backlog of contracted sales. Now it will decide whether that translates into visibly faster growth in the coming quarters without the need to rely on acquisitions.

Fair Price

Strong subscriber and engagement metrics underpin strategic narrative

Recent company disclosures reveal that Spotify is delivering robust growth across core user engagement metrics. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the firm reported double-digit increases in both monthly active users and premium subscribers while expanding revenue and improving margins. These results reflect an expanding user base nearing three-quarters of a billion monthly listeners and a continued climb in paid subscriptions key dynamics that support long-term growth narratives and help justify higher valuation targets.

AI features and product innovation gain traction amid competitive pressures

$SPOT's product roadmap has evolved beyond traditional music streaming. The company recently launched AI-powered prompted playlists in beta, enabling users to create personalized listening experiences from natural language prompts — a signal of how deeply AI is being integrated into engagement tools. This type of feature may help increase time spent on the platform and differentiate Spotify in a crowded field that includes tech giants with extensive audio offerings.

Price targets and analyst views paint a mixed but constructive picture

While the recent upgrade has perked up sentiment, analyst price targets for Spotify remain wide-ranging, reflecting differing views on how subscriber growth, advertising recovery, and monetization initiatives will translate to earnings over the next few quarters. The consensus leans moderately bullish, with a significant number of analysts rating the stock as a Buy and an average projected upside of nearly 45 % from current levels. Such divergence underscores how investor positioning is balancing growth optimism with near-term execution risks.

Revenue composition and monetization remain key investor focus areas

Behind the scenes, Spotify’s revenue mix continues to evolve. Premium subscription fees remain a cornerstone, but advertising and emerging revenue streams such as podcasting, audiobooks, and live experiences are increasingly central to management’s monetization strategy. Price adjustments in select markets and explorations of new paid services suggest that Spotify is addressing margin expansion while continuing to invest in content and technology The interplay of pricing power and engagement growth will likely influence long-term profitability profiles.

Institutional interest signals conviction but risks remain

Institutional flows into Spotify stock highlighted by recent notable portfolio additions from respected investment managers indicate that some major investors see current valuations as attractive entry points. This level of capital commitment often accompanies confidence in sustainable earnings drivers. Yet, at the same time, the stock has traded below some earlier high targets and experienced volatility as markets digest mixed signals around ad revenue recovery and new product monetization.

Technical and sentiment dynamics shape near-term price action

Technically, Spotify’s share price has been under pressure relative to its multi-year highs despite earnings beats and growth surprises, suggesting profit-taking, rotation out of deeply valued tech stocks, or risk aversion among certain investor cohort. Short-term trading sentiment may swing with macro developments, streaming sector rotation, or upcoming quarterly earnings previews all of which will be closely watched by traders and longer-term holders alike.

Long-term thesis: scale, engagement, and diversification drive structural growth

Looking forward, Spotify’s strategic positioning reflects a broader shift in how audio platforms monetize and engage users worldwide. With an expanding base approaching 1 billion users and a clear push into integrated content categories and AI-driven discovery, the company is framing its transformation as a platform for all forms of audio and creator-driven content. If execution toward broader monetization and margin expansion complements subscriber growth, Spotify could justify higher valuation multiples as it transitions from pure streaming to a diversified audio ecosystem.

The market is punishing perfect results that beat analysts' expectations today. Can someone please explain why?

TTD: -17%, CRM: -4%

Investors also liked the “quality” side of the results. Snowflake generated strong free cash flow and showed a very high cash margin, which supports the idea that growth is becoming more efficient. On top of that, management’s outlook for the full year came in above what analysts expected, which is usually the detail that decides whether a good quarter turns into a positive re-rating.

How was the last quarter?

In the fourth quarter, Snowflake $SNOW delivered two numbers that can be read as direct evidence that the company is stabilizing after a turbulent year: 30% growth in core services revenue and, at the same time, 42% growth in contracted future revenue. The $1.28 billion in revenue isn't just a "nice round" number - it's mainly that the growth isn't built on one big customer, but on a broad base. The company added 740 net new customers, up 40% year-over-year, while continuing to grow its depth of relationships: 733 customers are already spending over $1 million a year, and the number of large customers over $10 million a year has reached record levels.

The second layer is the quality of the revenue. Revenue retention of 125% means that the average customer already using the platform continues to expand usage - and that's the healthiest type of growth in practice because it's cheaper than hunting for new names. This is backed up by the fact that contracted future revenues have jumped to $9.77 billion. For an investor, this is like a "future bill stock": contracted future consumption that will only gradually translate into reported sales.

The third layer is profitability and cash. After adjustments, Snowflake reported $139 million in operating profit and an 11% operating margin in the quarter, with core services gross margin of 75% after adjustments. At the same time, it's worth a fair explanation of the difference between profit and loss and cash: under standard accounting, the company reports an operating loss (-318 million in the quarter), but cash flow is very strong - operating cash of 781 million and free cash of 765 million. This is important, because with Snowflake, the market has long wondered whether it can grow while not "burning through" costs. Q4 shows that the cash engine is already significantly more robust than a year ago.

Top points of the results

• Revenue in the quarter of $1.28 billion, +30% year-over-year.

• Core services revenue of $1.23 billion, +30% YoY.

• Revenue retention of 125%.

• 740 net new customers in the quarter, +40% year-over-year.

• 733 customers with annual core service revenues of over $1 million, +27% year-over-year.

• Contracted future revenue of $9.77 billion, +42% year-over-year.

• Core services gross margin after adjustments of 75% in the quarter.

• Free cash of $765 million ( $782 million after adjustments), roughly 60% cash margin.

• Full fiscal year 2027 outlook: core services revenue $5.66 billion(+27%).

• Full presentation with results.

CEO commentary

CEO Sridhar Ramaswamy builds the story on the fact that Snowflake is the infrastructure on which companies are building the use of AI safely and at scale. Crucially, it doesn't just rely on marketing: the leadership team backs its argument with numbers - rapid growth in contracted future revenue, steady retention of 125% and accelerating new customer inflows. CFO Brian Robins then puts the emphasis on two things the market wants to hear: the ability to bring in new customers in bulk while deepening relationships with existing ones, as seen in the growth of customers over a million dollars a year as well as the record number exceeding ten million.

Outlook

The outlook is really the "material" part of the report this time. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2027, Snowflake expects core services revenue of $1.262 billion to $1.267 billion, which equates to roughly 27% growth. For the full fiscal year, the company is targeting $5.66 billion in core services revenue, again roughly 27% growth, and that was above the market consensus cited by Reuters.

What's important about the outlook "between the lines": Snowflake is no longer just talking about revenue growth, but giving a framework for profitability and cash. The company is targeting a 75% core services gross margin after adjustments, as well as a 12.5% operating margin after adjustments for the full year (it expects 9% in Q1). In addition, it gives a target for free cash after adjustments of 23% for the full year. Translated into investor-speak: the growth rate is holding high, but the company wants more of it to gradually translate into "cleaner" operating discipline.

Long-term results

Snowflake has been growing rapidly and relatively regularly for the last four years, which is still exceptional in the enterprise data market. Revenues have risen from $2.07 billion (year ending January 31, 2023) to $2.81 billion (2024), $3.63 billion (2025) and now $4.68 billion (FY 2026). The growth rate may be gradually slowing from the upper thirties towards less than thirty percent, but it is still growth that most large software companies would take with all ten hands. At the same time, gross profit is also growing, showing that the underlying "machine" is working: gross profit has moved from $1.35 billion to $3.15 billion over the same period.

But the long-term picture is more complex at the operational level, and here it's important to be specific. The operating result according to standard accounting is negative over the long term, and even growing in absolute terms: roughly -0.84 billion (2023), -1.09 billion (2024), -1.46 billion (2025) and -1.44 billion (2026). The main reason is simple: operating costs are growing rapidly (around $4.58 billion in 2026) as the company invests in development, sales and support at scale. That's also why it's so crucial for investors to track "after adjustments" metrics and, most importantly, cash at Snowflake. And this is where we see improvement: in fiscal 2026, free cash reached $1.12 billion and $1.19 billion after adjustments, meaning that even with a book loss, the company can generate very decent cash.

The big change of the last year is the "shape of growth": the company is no longer relying only on expansion with existing customers and is accelerating the acquisition of new ones. That's important because 125% retention is great, but that alone won't explain long-term sustainable growth if the inflow of new business slows. Q4 brought 740 net new customers while growing the number of those spending over $1 million per year. That's a combination that usually increases the likelihood that growth will not be a "temporary blip" but rather a more stable trend.

A final important point for the long-term outlook is contracted future consumption. Contracted future sales grew 42% to $9.77 billion, significantly faster than current sales growth. This often means that the company has a very strong business pipeline and that some of the growth has yet to "spill over" into reported numbers in future quarters. If this ratio holds, Snowflake can continue to grow at a high rate in 2027 without having to aggressively worsen pricing.

News

Three areas stand out from the report: rapid expansion of AI capabilities (the company lists over 9,100 accounts using these features), accelerating product development (over 430 new capabilities per year), and strengthening partnerships with major model vendors to give customers choice. It is also adding acquisitions in operational monitoring and systems reliability to expand the use of the platform beyond pure data analytics towards operations and application management.

Shareholding structure

Snowflake is a distinctly "institutional" title. The institution holds roughly 78% of the shares (and over 80% of the free float), with insiders holding around 3.4%. The largest holders are Vanguard and BlackRock (both around 8-9%), followed by Fidelity (FMR) and Jennison.

Analysts' expectations

Reuters mentions that the core services revenue outlook for the year ($5.66 billion) was above the average market expectation and that the outlook for the first quarter was also above consensus. This is usually the main trigger for a positive reaction at a company where investors are most worried about a slowdown in consumption. At the same time, however, the market will continue to keep an eye on two things: whether the 125% retention will hold, and whether operating discipline will continue to improve as indicated by the margin and cash outlook.

Fair Price

Based on my experience over the past two years, trading shares of Lenovo Group Limited $0992.HK and NIO Inc. $NIO has proven relatively straightforward for me. For Lenovo, I’ve found it effective to buy below $9 and sell above $10, while for NIO I buy below $4.60 and sell above $5.60.

I have successfully executed each of these strategies twice already. I currently hold Lenovo purchased at $8.92 (January 2026) and NIO at $4.62 (January 2026). If the price exceeds the target level by roughly 10%, I set a trailing stop-loss based on the original target price to protect gains while allowing for further upside. This approach has worked very well so far. The main risk would be a prolonged downtrend, where an investor repeatedly buys a falling asset (“catching a falling knife”).

Why this strategy works for Lenovo:

Strong technical support around $9: The stock repeatedly bounces from this level, supported by a relatively low valuation and cyclical demand for PC and server infrastructure refreshes.

Quick upward moves above $10: Demand for AI servers and a broader tech-sector recovery often produce short-term gains of 10–15%.

Why this strategy works for NIO:

Support around $4.60: The high volatility in the electric vehicle sector creates repeated buying opportunities, with technological innovations and rising deliveries acting as catalysts.

Moves toward $5.60 and above: Positive news from the Chinese economy, stimulus measures, or better-than-expected results can lead to relatively rapid gains of tens of percent.

This approach fits my conservative strategy — disciplined entries and exits even with more volatile stocks can deliver steady returns if the investor follows clearly defined risk-management rules.

What do you think of this strategy? Does it make sense to use recurring price bands, or do you think it’s too risky? Do you have similar positions in other stocks?

An English version of this post is available on my profile at www.etoro.com. If you’d like to follow me there or possibly copy my USD portfolio, I’d really appreciate it.

The more important part is capital return. The company is generating large free cash flow and is actively sending it back to shareholders through buybacks and a higher quarterly dividend. That is why the valuation debate exists: the market focuses on the fear of “cooling,” while the business is behaving like a strong cash generator.

Top points of analysis

• 2025 revenue: $26.9 billion, +13% y/y; bookings $186.1 billion, +12%.

• Operating profit 2025: US$8.83bn(+17%); net profit US$5.40bn.

• Free cash flow 2025: USD 9.09bn(+15%), operating cash 9.41bn.

• Net margin 20.1%, adjusted EBITDA margin (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) 36.9%.

• 2026 outlook: Q1 revenue growth of 14-16%.

• Valuation: P/E 26, P/S 5, EV/EBITDA 14; this is a "quality premium" title, not a cheap bet.

Company introduction

Booking Holdings $BKNG is a global travel platform that primarily earns money from arranging accommodation and other travel services. At its core is Booking.com, complemented by brands such as Priceline, Agoda, KAYAK and OpenTable. Simply put, it connects the supply of accommodation and travel services with traveler demand and takes a commission or brokerage fee, or earns a commission on payments and advertising.

The business is "fixed" from both sides. What works on the traveller side is breadth of supply, brand trust, reviews, ease of change and customer support. On the partner side, access to demand and the ability to fill capacity is key. The bigger the network, the more self-reinforcing it is because the customer goes where the choice is greatest and the hotelier goes where the demand is greatest.

From an investment perspective, one more thing is important: even though it is travel, it is not a "fragile" model built on revenue growth alone. The company is already in a high profitability and high cash generation mode, which gives it a lot of flexibility in how it survives weaker periods and how it continues to buy back stock.

Core business in numbers

The best shortcut to understanding Booking Holdings' performance is to look at three operating metrics: the number of nights sold at various properties, booking volume and revenue. In 2025, the company sold 1.235 billion nights in suites and rooms ( +8% year-over-year), with bookings volume reaching $186.1 billion(+12%) and sales of $26.9 billion(+13%). In the fourth quarter alone, there were 285 million nights, $43.0 billion in bookings and $6.3 billion in sales.

These are the numbers that tell you directly if the platform is growing "for real" or just due to pricing. For Booking Holdings, the bottom line is that growth is not just through price, but through volume: room nights are up, and total bookings are up at the same time. In addition, the company reports that nights in alternative accommodation on Booking.com grew by around 9% in the fourth quarter, which is important because expanding beyond traditional hotels increases choice and strengthens the platform's network effect.

The third key level is efficiency. In Q4, operating expenses grew 15%, slower than revenue (+16%), and for the full year, adjusted EBITDA margin increased to 36.9%. In other words, the company can grow while continuing to maintain discipline, which is exactly what feeds earnings per share over the long term on a large platform.

Market and addressable potential

Online travel is no longer a young market that will grow just by people "going online". It's growing mainly by moving more categories to digital channels, improving payments, mobile shopping, personalising offers and simplifying the whole booking process. According to one widely cited projection, the online travel agency market is set to grow from roughly US$613 billion in 2024 to US$1,003 trillion by 2024. USD 1. 3bn by 2030, equivalent to a rate of around 8.6% per annum.

For Booking, the bottom line is that in such an environment it is not just about "how many people travel", but who can get a bigger share of each transaction. This is where monetisation comes into play: a higher proportion of direct bookings (fewer expensive intermediaries), more effective marketing, expanding the range of accommodation on offer and adding services that increase the value per booking. If the market is growing in single digits, the leader can grow similarly - but can still lift earnings per share faster through redemptions and better margins.

And then there's the second dimension: technology. In travel, there is a growing concern about future bookings being "via smart assistants" that bypass traditional platforms. That's a real risk, but it also forces platforms to invest in their own tools, data and direct relationship with the customer, because that's their biggest defence.

Competition and market position

Booking Holdings competes primarily with three types of competition. The first is Expedia Group $EXPE, which has a broad portfolio of brands and a strong position in packages and the US market. The second is Airbnb $ABNB, which is extremely strong in alternative accommodation and in direct host-guest relationships. The third is Trip.com $TCOM, which has a dominant position in Asia and an advantage in local ecosystems.

Booking has several long-term advantages against it: the size of the offering, a strong position in Europe and a global scale that improves marketing effectiveness. Where it may lose out, on the other hand, is where the way search and booking is changing - if some of the demand shifts outside of traditional search (to in-app 'agents', for example), there is increasing pressure for the brand and direct channel to be strong enough.

Importantly, this is not a 'winner takes all' market. Rather, it's about who can have the best mix: more direct bookings, the best conversion from visit to purchase, and the lowest cost of customer acquisition. This is where the details in marketing, product, and technology will make the difference, not one big breakout moment.

Management and CEO

The CEO of the company is Glenn D. Fogel.

The company says: Glenn D. Fogel is the CEO and President of Booking Holdings, a position he has held since January 2017. He previously served as the company's global head of strategy and planning, a position he held from November 2010 to December 2016. He was also Executive Vice President of Corporate Development, a position he held from March 2009 to December 2016, and was responsible for global mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances. Mr. Fogel joined Booking Holdings in February 2000. Prior to that, he was a trader at a global asset management firm and before that an investment banker specializing in the airline industry.

From an investor's point of view, the most important thing about his style is that the management combines growth with a very tough discipline in capital allocation: much of the free cash goes into long-term share buybacks and, more recently, the dividend. In its latest report, the company emphasized that returning capital to shareholders remains a key priority alongside product and technology investments - Q4 buybacks of $2.1 billion and a concurrent dividend increase.

Management's credibility is assessed here simply: whether it can sustain growth in operating metrics (nights, booking volume) while not letting marketing and fixed costs "run away". So far, the numbers bear this out, as the company has increased revenue by 13% and free cash flow by 15% for the year while continuing to reduce share count.

Financial performance

Over the past four years Booking has shown a combination of growth and profit scaling. Revenue has risen from US$17.1bn (2022) to US$21.4bn (2023), US$23.7bn (2024) and US$26.9bn (2025). Operating profit has risen sequentially from US$5.1bn to US$5.8bn, US$7.6bn and US$8.83bn in 2025. This is exactly the picture of a company that is no longer in a "post-pandemic comeback" mode, but is in a stable operating performance mode.

Earnings per share are affected by two things: actual profitability and share count. Profitability was still very strong in 2025, but net income fell year-over-year to $5.40 billion from $5.88 billion in 2024, which translated into a slight decline in earnings per share. At the same time, however, the company has been reducing its share count over the long term: the average number of shares has fallen from around 39.9 million (2022) to 32.5 million (2025). This is crucial for investors because even with more "normal" revenue growth, earnings per share can grow faster by being split between fewer shares.

The net margin for 2025 was 20.1%, while the adjusted EBITDA margin was 36.9%. In practice, this means that while travel can be cyclical, this company has high enough margins today to weather weaker periods without having to break even on investment or stop returning capital.

Cash flow and capital discipline

At Booking, cash is the main argument why the "narrative" sometimes misses the reality. In 2025, the company generated $9.41 billion of cash from operations and $9.09 billion of free cash flow. The free cash flow margin was 33.8% of revenue, an extraordinarily high number for a company in the service sector.

This cash then goes in two directions. The first is returning to shareholders: $2.1bn of buybacks in Q4, with $21.8bn of authorisations still to come, plus a growing dividend of $10.50 per share (payable 31 March 2026). The second direction is investment in product and technology, where the company is openly talking about its transformation programme and targeting around $550m in cash. USD 550 million in annual savings by the end of 2026.

For an investor, this is important because even if revenue growth slows in any year, the combination of high cash and buybacks can "hold" earnings per share growth - and thus long-term returns.

Valuation

Booking trades today as a quality, highly profitable leader. Metrics show a P/E of 26, P/S of 4.96, EV/EBITDA of 14.23 and P/CF of 15.54. In practice, this means two things: (1) the market expects continued growth and stable margins, and (2) the upside room for the stock price is highly sensitive to whether the company delivers on guidance and maintains the pace of bookings.

With such a valuation, it is key to understand what can improve it. It's not just about higher revenues. Valuations are often shifted by a combination of higher direct bookings, better marketing effectiveness and continued buybacks. Should demand worsen or customer acquisition costs rise sharply, multiples can quickly retreat even if a company remains profitable.

Growth catalysts and outlook

In the near term, the catalysts are relatively "boring" but all the more reliable: continued growth in bookings, growth in nights and stable margins. The firm expects revenue growth of 14-16% and bookings growth of 14-16% for Q1 2026, also at constant currency, with 7-9%. This is important because it says that even with a reasonable currency slowdown, the organic pace remains decent.

The second catalyst is efficiency. The transformation programme, with a target of around EUR 550 million, is a very good one . USD 550 million in annual savings by the end of 2026 can act as a silent profit engine. If the savings actually materialize and the company can largely translate them into higher earnings per share (rather than "eating it all up" through marketing), that's exactly the type of improvement the market values at a higher multiple.

The third catalyst is return on capital. In an environment where the market is unsure how fast demand will grow, investors often gravitate toward companies that can continuously repurchase shares and hold a disciplined dividend. Here's a concrete number to see: $21.8 billion in remaining repurchase authorization. That's "fuel" that can smooth out volatility and increase each shareholder's share of earnings over the long term.

Risks

• Weaker demand in the U.S. or Europe, which would slow growth in nights and bookings.

• Deterioration in marketing efficiency: higher customer acquisition costs can squeeze margins.

• Risk of technological change: bookings via 'smart assistants' may weaken traditional platforms over time if they lose the direct relationship with the customer.

• Higher interest rates for longer: with interest cover around 4.5, care needs to be taken to ensure profit and cash remain robust in a worse cycle.

• Competitive pressure: more aggressive subsidies and discounts from competitors can temporarily drive out marketing costs.

Investment scenarios

Optimistic scenario

Travel demand remains strong, the company maintains bookings growth in the upper bands while managing to translate savings from the transformation program into higher margins. In this case, earnings per share in 2026 may grow by around "mid-teens percent" through a combination of business growth and redemptions, and the market may be willing to hold the multiple around current levels or even higher.

Put another way: if earnings per share grow by around 15% and the market holds a multiple of around 26-30, this gives a price range of around 4,950 to 5,700 (using the same valuation logic). This option rests on the "slowdown narrative" not being borne out and cash continuing to flow steadily.

Realistic scenario

Growth normalises. Bookings and sales grow in the single digits to low teens on constant currency, margins remain roughly stable, and the company continues to make buybacks and pay a dividend. Earnings per share may grow mainly due to buybacks and efficiency, not dramatic market growth.

In such a scenario, it is crucial that valuations do not "fall apart". If the market values the company more conservatively (e.g., P/E of 22-26) and earnings per share grow modestly, a range of approximately 4,200 to 4,700 is logical. This is a "quality compounded appreciation" scenario, not a quick speculation.

Negative scenario

Demand slows perceptibly, marketing becomes more expensive, and some savings are lost in the battle for market share. Revenues may continue to grow, but at a slower rate, and earnings per share will improve little or not at all. At such a point, the market will usually pull the multiple down as the certainty of growth is reduced.

If earnings per share stagnate and the multiple falls towards 20-22, this gives a range of roughly 3,600 to 4,200. Ironically, for an investor, this could be the point at which an "expensive quality title" becomes a quality title at a more affordable price - but only if it turns out to be a cycle, not a structural problem.

What to take away from the article

• Booking Holdings is growing "in volume and in money": 2025 revenue +13%, bookings +12%, nights +8%.

• The company is generating extraordinary cash: free cash flow of $9.1 billion and free cash flow margin of 33.8%.

• Return of capital is strong: Q4 redemptions of USD 2.1bn, remaining authorisations of USD 21.8bn, dividend of USD 10.50.

• The "slowdown narrative" needs to be backed up by numbers; so far the outlook for Q1 2026 still shows a decent pace.

• The main investor defense is to watch operating metrics, margins, cash and marketing effectiveness.

• If the company maintains discipline and keeps buying back shares, the long-term story is based on stacking earnings per share, not one big trick.

Global financial markets entered the last few weeks expecting a gradual calming of trade relations. After the legal disputes over the tariffs introduced last year, it seemed that the biggest source of political volatility might temporarily subside. Thus, the Supreme Court decision, which challenged part of Trump's tariff policy, was initially interpreted by markets as the potential start of de-escalation.

However, these expectations proved premature. Donald Trump signalled almost immediately that he intended to continue the trade pressure and very quickly proposed new measures. At the same time, his rhetoric at the last press conference indicated that trade policy will remain a key instrument of his administration's economic strategy in the months ahead.

For investors, this marks the return of a factor that was one of the main sources of market volatility in 2018-2019. Back then, when Trump was in the White House for the first time, all it took was a single announcement on tariffs or countermeasures and indices such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaqr echoed with sharp movements. Indeed, investors could see the same behaviour in April last year. The current situation bears similar features. It is no longer just about the tariffs themselves, but above all about the increased level of uncertainty about the future direction of US trade policy.

Moreover, from a macroeconomic perspective, today's environment is more sensitive than in the last cycle. Global supply chains are increasingly fragile after the pandemic and geopolitical upheavals, inflation may have fallen from its highs but remains above central bank targets, and US equity valuations are above long-term averages. The combination of these factors increases the likelihood that even relatively small political shocks of this nature can have a significant and immediate impact on markets.

The initial market reaction was consistent with this. Following Trump's comments on the court decision, there was an increase in implied volatility, a weakening of cyclical sectors sensitive to global trade, and a relative resilience of defensive segments. As a result, investors are once again starting to factor the risk premium associated with trade policy into asset prices.

How tariffs are actually impacting equity markets

In order for investors to properly assess the current situation, it is crucial to understand the mechanism by which tariff policy translates into equity prices. This is because the market is not only reacting to the introduction of tariffs itself, but more importantly to the expected impact on margins, global demand, supply chains and currency flows.Let's break this down into four main channels:

The first and most direct channel is the pressure on the cost structure of firms. Tariffs effectively act as an additional tax on imports, which immediately raises input costs for companies dependent on foreign components or finished goods. Companies are thus faced with a choice: either absorb the costs into margins or pass them on to the customer. However, in an environment of cooling demand, cost pass-through to end customers is often limited, leading to a decline in profit margins. This is what stock markets are particularly sensitive to.

The second key channel is uncertainty in supply chains. Already during the 2018-2019 trade war, it was evident that companies started to postpone investments and shift production. This process is capital intensive and negative for cash flow in the short term. If trade tensions escalate again now, the market may begin to discount a repeat of a similar scenario, particularly for industrial, technology and consumer companies with global exposure. Indeed, they tend to be the most sensitive to this.

A third, often underestimated effect is the impact on global demand. Tariff escalation tends to slow down world trade volumes. The weaker trade dynamics then translate into lower GDP growth expectations, which has a direct impact on cyclical sectors. This is why segments such as industry, semiconductors, transport or SMEs with high economic sensitivity have typically lagged behind in past tariff wars.

Value of duties and fees collected from 2026 in billions of USD

Fourth channel impact on investor sentiment. Markets today are largely driven by expectations. Once unpredictable policy variables come back into play, volatility rises, credit spreads widen and capital tends to rotate into safer assets. This process can push down valuations in the short term even without an immediate impact on fundamentals. We can see it live in the markets now. Riskier assets are falling and dividend stocks like $MCD, $PEP and others are rising. The investor community at Bulios has dissected the capital shift in this post.

What makes the current situation extra specific is that it comes at a time of relatively tight valuations for US equities. The S&P 500 index is still above its long-term forward P/E average, which means the market has less benevolence to absorb negative surprises. Thus, political risk may have a more rapid transmission to prices in this cycle than in periods when valuations were significantly lower.

In the short term, therefore, it is not just the level of the new tariffs themselves that is critical, but whether the likelihood of a broader trade escalation begins to increase. It is the change in investor expectations that has historically been behind the largest market movements.

Sector map: which sectors are at risk and which can benefit

History shows that the impact of trade barriers is concentrated in a few specific segments, while other parts of the market may remain relatively resilient or even benefit indirectly from geopolitical frictions.

Cyclical industrial companies with high exposure to global trade remain the most vulnerable group. This includes manufacturers of machinery, industrial components, transport logistics or capital goods. These firms typically operate with complex international supply chains and are also strongly linked to global trade volumes. As the likelihood of tariff barriers increases, the market for them quickly discounts the combination of higher costs and potentially weaker demand. In past years of trade tensions, it was the industrial sector that was among the first to start underperforming the broader index.

The semiconductor segment also remains very vulnerable, albeit for different reasons. For chip companies, it is not just about tariffs alone, but about the broader geopolitical fragmentation of technology supply chains. Export restrictions, regulatory barriers and pressure to localise production may gradually increase the capital intensity of the entire industry. In an environment where valuations of parts of the AI and chip ecosystem are still elevated, even a slight deterioration in the outlook can trigger a disproportionately strong market reaction. The biggest players such as $NVDA or $MU have not yet been directly impacted and the stock has even appreciated.

Another vulnerable area is the import-dependent consumer sector, especially the consumer segment. Retailers and consumer goods manufacturers often operate with low margins and high price sensitivity of customers. If tariffs increase import prices, there is limited scope for passing them on to the final consumer, again increasing the risk of falling margins.

At the other end of the spectrum are the defensive sectors. Utilities, parts of the healthcare sector or basic consumption typically have lower direct exposure to global trade and more stable demand profiles. Historically, in periods of heightened macro uncertainty, capital seeking cash flow stability has been directed to them. This does not mean that they are immune to trade wars, but performance against cyclical segments tends to be more favourable in such phases. This is, in recent days and weeks, a much talked about capital shift.

It is also important to monitor the financial sector. Although banks are not the direct target of tariffs, they are sensitive to secondary effects, such as the economic slowdown in particular. If trade tensions start to dampen growth significantly, this could gradually feed through to profitability expectations for financial institutions.

What the market will watch next

Following the strong rise in US equities in previous quarters, and with valuations still relatively elevated, especially those of the largest companies, the likelihood that policy shocks such as the introduction of tariffs will have a more rapid and visible impact on asset prices than previously.

The key now will be whether Trump's rhetoric and the newly announced tariffs translate into a broader escalation of trade disputes. Historically, markets have been able to absorb individual tariff moves relatively quickly as long as they remain isolated. However, a significantly more negative reaction came when investors began to react to a chain reaction of retaliation from trading partners and real disruption to global trade.

Moreover, the macroeconomic environment does not provide the market with as much room for benevolence as in previous years. Global growth is gradually slowing, industrial indicators in several key economies remain mixed, and central banks may be moving towards easing policy, but the pace remains slow. Should trade tensions escalate further, this could complicate the expected improvement in sentiment in the second half of the year.

Thus, from a stock market perspective, several specific signals will be crucial to watch.

• The first is the evolution of implied volatility, which often acts as an early indicator of a change in risk aversion.

• The second is the performance of cyclical versus defensive sectors. A sustained decline in industrials or semiconductors would suggest that the market is beginning to take the trade slowdown scenario more seriously.

• A third factor would be the reaction of corporate managements during earnings season, particularly comments on costs, pricing and investment plans.

The Fed also remains an important variable. Trade policy is once again becoming an instrument of broader economic strategy and its future evolution may be significantly influenced by domestic political dynamics in the US. In addition, a new chairman of the US Federal Reserve will be elected in May, which may also have some impact on markets, although it is expected to be rather mild for the time being. What will really make the difference will be the rate cut actions in the second half of the year.

Conclusion

US trade policy is once again becoming one of the key factors that may shape the mood of equity markets in the coming months. While the level of the new tariffs alone does not yet represent a systemic shock, the combination of political uncertainty, elevated valuations and a fragile global environment creates the conditions for a more sensitive market reaction than in previous years. As a result, investors are again starting to reflect the risk premium associated with trade policy unpredictability in asset prices.

A key theme for the period ahead will be the evolution of expectations, not just the implementation of tariffs per se, but whether the likelihood of broader trade escalation and spillovers to the global economy will increase. The current situation thus reaffirms that geopolitics and trade policy remain a full part of market sentiment, not just short-term noise.

What investors will focus on next is guidance. Nvidia expects about $78.0 billion in revenue next quarter, with a small range around that figure. The company also said this outlook assumes no data-center revenue from China. That supports the idea that demand elsewhere is very strong, but it also highlights how export rules can still affect where growth comes from.

How was the last quarter?

In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026, Nvidia $NVDA posted revenue of $68.127 billion, up +20% versus Q3 and +73% year-over-year. Gross margin on a standard accounting basis was 75.0% (75.2% adjusted), up 1.6 percentage points from the prior quarter. Operating expenses rose to $6.794 billion (+16% vs. Q3), but operating profit and net income rose to $44.299 billion (+23% vs. Q3) and $42.960 billion (+35% vs. Q3), respectively, thanks to faster sales and margin growth. Earnings per share were $1.76 ($1.62 after adjusting for the impact of the same).

The key is where the growth is coming from. Data center segment revenue was $62.3 billion, and itself grew faster than the company as a whole: +22% vs. Q3 and +75% year-over-year. For the full fiscal year 2026, the data center segment generated $193.7 billion (+68%). This means that today it is no longer "one strong product" but an industry-wide range of computing infrastructure delivery, where networking, systems and entire turnkey platforms for running AI are sold alongside the chips themselves.

At a company-wide level, the picture is similarly extreme for the full year. Fiscal year 2026 brought revenues of $215.938 billion (+65%), operating profit of $130.387 billion (+60%), and net income of $120.067 billion (+65%). Earnings per share rose to $4.90 ($4.77 on an adjusted basis). At the same time, we can see that the company is investing in growth and people: annual operating expenses increased by 41% (on standard accounting), a logical accompaniment to a situation where NVIDIA is running at the edge of capacity while preparing the next product generation.

A very important part of the report is the return on capital. NVIDIA returned $41.1 billion to shareholders during fiscal year 2026 (a combination of buybacks and dividends) and still had $58.5 billion of authorized buyback capacity available at the end of Q4. The dividend remains nominal ($0.01 per share), so the main tool for shareholders continues to be buybacks.

Highlights of the results

• Revenues of $68.1 billion, +20% versus last quarter, +73% year-over-year.

• Data center revenue $62.3 billion, +22% vs. last quarter, +75% YoY.

• Gross margin of 75.0% (75.2% adjusted), an improvement from last quarter.

• Operating profit $44.3 billion, +23% vs. last quarter, +84% YoY.

• Net income $43.0 billion, +35% versus last quarter, +94% year-over-year.

• Earnings per share $1.76 (adjusted $1.62), nearly double year-over-year.

• For the full fiscal year 2026, sales of $215.9 billion (+65%) and net income of $120.1 billion (+65%).

• The company returned $41.1 billion to shareholders in 2026 (buybacks and dividends) and still has $58.5 billion in authorized buybacks.

• Q1 outlook: revenue of $78.0 billion plus or minus 2% and excluding data center contribution from China.

• Important accounting change: starting in Q1, the company will now include stock compensation expense in "adjusted" metrics.

• Full presentation with results.

CEO's comments

Jensen Huang builds the communication on the fact that companies are moving from experimentation to mass adoption of "autonomous helpers" in software and processes, which is lifting demand for computing power and shifting the focus from learning models towards their daily use in companies. In practice, this means a push for the lowest cost per compute and the highest efficiency, where NVIDIA is betting on next-generation systems and fast inter-chip interconnects. The tone is both confident and investment-savvy: the company wants to convince the market that the biggest wave of demand isn't over, it's just changing shape.

Outlook

The outlook for the first quarter of the fiscal year is exceptionally strong: revenue of $78.0 billion plus or minus 2%. Gross margin is expected to remain around 75% (74.9% on a standard accounting basis and 75.0% on an adjusted basis, with a plus or minus 0.5 percentage point tolerance). Operating expenses are expected to rise to about $7.7 billion ($7.5 billion on an adjusted basis), with about $1.9 billion of stock compensation expense already included.

The sentence about China deserves the most attention: NVIDIA does not include any data center revenue from China in the outlook. If the situation doesn't improve, it's a drag. If, on the other hand, there is a possibility of at least partial shipments, this is an asymmetric positive factor that is not in the current outlook.

Long-term results

Nvidia today is an extreme example of what the combination of a superior product, strong demand and operating leverage will do. Yet fiscal 2022 was a "normal" tech business: sales of around $26.9 billion and profits of $9.8 billion. Fiscal year 2023 was virtually stagnant sales, but also a push for profitability - operating profit fell to around 4.2 billion and net profit to 4.4 billion. Then the story broke: fiscal year 2024 brought sales of 60.9 billion and net profit of 29.8 billion. Fiscal year 2025 had already jumped to 130.5 billion in sales and 72.9 billion in net profit. And now fiscal year 2026 has delivered sales of 215.9 billion and net profit of 120.1 billion. That's not "rapid growth," that's a scaling of the entire business in just a few years.

But the bottom line is that it's not just about sales, it's about how profitability behaves. Gross margin in the quarter [Q4 2026] was around 75%, very high even by the standards of the top semiconductor companies. For the full fiscal year 2026, gross margin is lower than the previous year (the data shows a drop of about four percentage points), a signal that the company is also rapidly expanding capacity, changing product generations, and some of the "cost of production" may be temporarily pushing margins. Even with that, however, operating profit for 2026 was $130.4 billion, up 60% from a year ago. In other words, even if margins fluctuate slightly, volume and operating leverage are so great that overall profits continue to grow at a tremendous rate.

When we look at costs, there is an important nuance: operating costs are growing fast (over 40% annually), but in absolute terms they are still "small" compared to the growth in sales and profits. That's the very definition of operating leverage - the company adds people, development and operations, but every additional dollar of sales carries a high contribution to profits.

Another long term important factor is "earnings per share" and working with share count. Nvidia has a slightly declining average share count, so earnings growth translates well into growth per share. Earnings per share for fiscal year 2026 rose to $4.90 ($4.77 after adjusting). And because the company is returning huge cash through buybacks, this effect may continue to strengthen. In fiscal 2026 alone, it returned $41.1 billion to shareholders through buybacks and dividends, and at the end of the quarter it still had $58.5 billion in authorized buybacks. The dividend is rather symbolic; the main "driver for shareholders" is share buybacks.

News

The report shows that NVIDIA doesn't want to stand on just one product generation. The company has unveiled the next platform for the next period, while expanding partnerships with key players that operate large data centers. At the same time, it is strengthening the ecosystem around networking, storage and software so that customers buy the whole solution, not just the chip. Significantly, the company is also openly communicating the push for AI operational efficiency, i.e., reducing the cost of running models in the field, a topic that will directly impact customer investments in 2026 and beyond.

Shareholder structure

Nvidia is a distinctly institutional title: institutions hold roughly 69.6% of the stock (and roughly 72.8% of the free float), while insiders hold around 4.35%. The largest holders are Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity and Geode. This typically means high liquidity, stable "index" capital, and also sensitivity to how large funds change exposure to AI and the technology sector as a whole.

Fair Price

Nvidia released results for fiscal Q4 2026 and the numbers again confirm that demand for AI infrastructure remains extremely strong.

📊 Key results:

• Revenue: $68.1B (+73% YoY)

• Net income: $43B

• EPS: $1.76

• Gross margin: 75%

🧠 Data Center remains the main growth driver

The Data Center segment achieved revenue of $62.3B (+75% YoY) and confirms that Nvidia is no longer just a GPU company, but a key infrastructure provider for the entire AI economy.

⸻

📊 Estimates vs. reality:

• Expected revenue: ~$66.2B → actual $68.1B ✅

• Expected EPS: $1.53 → actual $1.62 ✅

• Expected outlook for next quarter: ~$72B → Nvidia guides $78B ✅

The biggest surprise came from the outlook!!!

⸻

💰 The company returned $41.1B to shareholders over the year through buybacks and dividends.

👉 Key trend: AI is shifting from model training to real-world deployment (inference), which keeps demand for compute power very high. ✅✅✅

Their main point is that the market often assumes established firms are the ones that will be harmed by AI. Morgan Stanley takes the opposite view. In the next few years, the bigger effect should be practical adoption of AI inside real businesses. That can lift productivity, expand markets, and support pricing power for companies that already have customers, data, and strong sales channels.

"The 'AI panic' as a misplaced market bet

Morgan Stanley $MS describes the current jitters as typical of the course of a great investment cycle: alternating between phases of enthusiasm and phases where the market begins to question whether the giant capital outlay will pay off and who will be "rolled over." During such periods, price volatility widens and pockets of selling emerge where the sell-off becomes detached from the reality of corporate performance.

This is why the bank recommends looking for three types of titles: established "core" players in the AI ecosystem, strong growth companies, and quality companies with a high ability to translate value into prices. In their vocabulary, this means companies that can deploy AI quickly into products while having the customer impact to maintain margins even in times of pricing pressure.

Why Morgan Stanley is returning to software even though it has been under pressure

Software is one of the segments that has been hit hardest by AI fears, with some investors interpreting the new tools as having the potential to "cheapen" development, thereby destroying the pricing power of traditional vendors. But Morgan Stanley says the market overly assumes the inability of established firms to use AI innovation to their advantage. Rather, their thesis is that AI will expand what can be automated in enterprise systems, thereby increasing the scope for further growth.

The argument from the second Morgan Stanley note taken up by financial sites fits in with this: after sell-offs, multiples in software are significantly lower than at times of peak uncertainty, creating "attractive entries" in big names. Specifically, the average firm value-to-revenue multiple has fallen by about a third since October 2025, returning to levels familiar from the earlier wave of uncertainty around firms moving to the cloud.

That's why Morgan Stanley names the likes of Microsoft $MSFT, Intuit $INTU and Atlassian $TEAM as interesting entry points - firms that have a strong position with enterprises, a broad ecosystem and the ability to "build AI" into products in a way that customers will actually pay for. In that logic, AI is a new feature that adds value to products and extends contracts, rather than a "killer" of existing players.

Banks as the net beneficiary of AI profits

Interestingly, Morgan Stanley counts banks among the net winners. The reason is pragmatic: the banking business is full of repetitive processes (client servicing, risk control, document processing, compliance) where AI can incrementally increase productivity and reduce costs. This translates into profitability over time, even if it is not "seen overnight".

At the same time, the bank names specific "most resilient" choices: Citigroup $C, Bank of America $BAC, State Street $STT and Truist $TFC. The common denominator is supposed to be a combination of size, a stable business and the fact that it is difficult for them to be quickly displaced by pure technology change. In other words: AI in banks is likely to first lift the efficiency of those already sitting on the infrastructure and customer base.

Payments, consumer finance and insurance: less revolution, more efficiency

For payments and fintech, Morgan Stanley mentions Mastercard $MA and Visa $V as beneficiaries. The basic reasoning is simple: AI increases automation, speeds up decision-making, improves fraud detection and can support new ways of shopping where software does some of the decision-making for the user. Thus, short-term concerns about "disruption" can become a long-term story of efficiency and higher transaction volume over time.

Consumer finance is viewed similarly: the market fears that AI will bring new competitors, but Morgan Stanley argues that the benefits in terms of productivity and better processes will outweigh this. For insurance, they see a gradual improvement in the way intermediaries work, while contract complexity, regulation and mandatory processes reduce the risk of AI "overhauling" the entire industry anytime soon.

What to take away from this as an investor

Morgan Stanley's entire thesis can be summed up as follows: the market today is "selling some sectors" as if AI is a purely disruptive force. In contrast, the bank says the next few years will be dominated by a wave of AI adoption - and this will favour firms that already have customers, distribution and the ability to translate new value into pricing.

To this they add a longer-term framework: generative AI is set to expand the addressable market for enterprise software solutions into the hundreds of billions of dollars by 2028. This is important because if the 'pie' gets bigger, established firms may not just struggle for share - they may grow in absolute numbers too.

Technical rebound driven by oversold conditions and relief buying

Crypto analytics show that Bitcoin had entered deeply oversold territory prior to the rebound, fueling a classic relief rally as derivative liquidations eased and traders began covering short positions. Technical momentum indicators such as the Relative Strength Index (RSI) were historically low, suggesting that prior selling pressure had stretched sentiment beyond sustainable levels. When such conditions appear, technical traders often step in, creating short-term strength that can quickly reverse intraday price swings.

Political events and statements adding volatile sentiment swings

Political developments, particularly the State of the Union address, contributed to the backdrop for this week’s crypto moves. Reports indicate that $BTCUSD initially surged to around $66,000 as markets digested economic commentary from political leadership and broader signals about economic health and policy direction. Although the subsequent speech did not directly touch on cryptocurrencies, the optimism around economic data and risk-on positioning helped lift risk assets, including digital currencies. Bitcoin briefly pared some gains during the address but maintained elevated levels compared to earlier weakness.

Short-term volatility amid mixed macro and risk appetite

Despite this rebound, Bitcoin’s price has been sensitive to broader risk sentiment. Recent declines in February put BTC on track for its worst monthly performance in years as wider market risk aversion and profit-taking led traders to reduce exposure to high-beta assets. At the same time, episodes of rising risk appetite often tied to easing macro indicators or relief rallies in equity markets have helped stabilize prices and attract bargain hunters back into the digital asset space.

ETF flows and institutional participation shaping demand dynamics

Underneath these price swings, institutional flows through regulated Bitcoin vehicles continue to be a significant underlying driver. Data from crypto markets suggests that spot Bitcoin ETFs have attracted considerable capital, with steady inflows tightening available supply on exchanges and supporting upward price pressure over time. Institutional participation via ETFs and regulated products also bolsters market confidence, as traditional asset allocators gain exposure with greater compliance and custody safeguards.

Broader crypto market and altcoin correlations confirm risk-on moves

Bitcoin’s rebound has not occurred in isolation. Other major cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum and XRP have also posted gains, reflecting a broader relief rally in digital assets when systemic risk aversion temporarily recedes. These moves often signal broader risk appetite returning to crypto after extended periods of selling pressure, particularly when correlated with positive moves in traditional equities and macro markets.

Psychological and technical milestones influencing trader behavior

Key price levels play a psychological role in the market as well. Levels such as $65,000 and $66,000 have emerged as important short-term resistance or support points, shaping trading decisions amid heightened volatility. If Bitcoin can sustain a hold above these technical thresholds, it could encourage further dip buying and position adjustments among swing traders. Conversely, failure to maintain these levels could lead to renewed selling pressure as market participants reset risk expectations.

Looking ahead: catalysts and risk factors for Bitcoin’s trajectory

Looking forward, Bitcoin’s near-term path will be shaped by a combination of macroeconomic developments, political messaging, institutional flow dynamics, and technical market structure. Upcoming economic data releases, central bank guidance on interest rates and inflation, and continued adoption of regulated crypto products are all potential catalysts that could influence sentiment and price direction. For long-term investors and speculative traders alike, monitoring these elements alongside key technical levels will be crucial to parsing whether this rebound represents a fleeting bounce or a broader shift in market momentum.

If you were a WBD shareholder, would you take $31 and the $7 billion “insurance” as sufficient reason to side with Paramount, or would you bet that Netflix will come up with an even higher bid — even at the cost of prolonging the whole process and risking the market punishing the uncertainty?

This company is an example. Over the last year it produced about $538 million of free cash flow and paid $0.74 per share in dividends, so the common dividend looks well supported. The attention, however, is moving to the preferred shares, because they trade at a low price and show a yield above 7%. The key point is that the yield is high for a reason: the market is charging a premium for credit risk.

Top points of analysis

• Dividend per common share: $0.74 per year, yielding roughly 2%.

• Preferred stock: Dividend e.g. 4.45% (Series O = $1.1125 per year), 5.25% (Series M/N = $1.3125 per year); at a price below $25, the current yield comes out over 7%.

• Debt to assets 0.50, interest coverage 4.82, Altman score 0.50.

• Cash is the main argument: free cash flow over the past year of $538 million. USD 538 million vs. the annual cash estimate for the common dividend of around USD 141 million. USD 141, a gross cover of about 3.8 times.

• Meanwhile, portfolio operations are holding up: revenues are around USD 1.8bn over the long term (2024: USD 1.788bn), 2024 EBITDA of c. USD 881mn. USD 881 million - no collapse, rather a "stable engine in a heavy segment".

Company introduction

Vornado Realty Trust $VNO is a real estate trust that owns and operates primarily office properties in New York City, supplemented by select other assets. It's the type of company where the investment thesis revolves not around "revenue growth like a tech company" but around how tenancy, occupancy, debt refinancing and the ability to maintain portfolio quality in an environment where the office market is not uniform. In other words, it's not about whether offices exist, but which offices tenants choose when they have the opportunity to save, move or change work arrangements.

For a real estate fund, it's good to have a simple income model in mind. Most of the money is from rent that comes from contracts for years in advance. In the short term, therefore, it is usually not "how many people are sitting at the table today" that determines the rent, but rather how many contracts are renewed over time and on what terms. In the long term, it is then the quality and investment in the buildings that is decisive, as the office market has split in recent years: prime addresses and modern buildings hold demand significantly better than the average rest.

The third level is the capital structure. What is important for an investor in Vornado is that there is not only a common stock with a relatively low dividend yield, but also several issues of preferred stock. These have a priority dividend payout and their current yields are now coming out high mainly because they are trading below par at $25. That's why some of the market is looking at Vornado through the lens of a "credit" approach rather than purely through the common share price.

Business

Vornado's office business can be simplified to three questions: how good are the buildings, how strong are the locations, and what are the financing costs. After all, office space today is not just about price. More often than not, tenants are choosing to give employees a reason to come to the office: better accessibility, building services, modern technology, energy efficiency, quality common areas and the ability to flexibly address company needs. This is practically the "product" of the office stock.

This is where the difference between winners and losers arises. The winners are those who own the assets where companies move from inferior offices. The losers are those who own older buildings that would require expensive retrofits to be competitive, but the market often doesn't give them the room to easily pay for those investments with higher rents. From an investment perspective, this means that "office" as a sector can look weak even as the top end of the market improves.

When we look at the numbers, we can see this indirectly: Vornado has had relatively stable revenues in recent years (about $1.8 billion a year), but investors remain cautious anyway because the key uncertainty isn't about today's revenues - it's about how expensive it will be to keep the portfolio top-end over the next five years and what interest costs will look like when refinancing.

The market and addressable potential

For the office market, it makes sense to look less at "global market size estimates" and more at local realities. Vornado is essentially betting that Manhattan will behave like a market where the supply of quality space is limited in the next phase of the cycle, and therefore even with structural changes work will remain a struggle for the best buildings. This is the concept of "flight to quality": firms won't disappear, but they will move to smaller, better space.

The addressable potential here therefore does not look like linear growth, but a combination of normalising occupancy, stabilising effective rents and gradually narrowing the gap between the rest of the market. For the investor, the key point is that once market expectations change from "it's going to get worse" to "the worst is over", there is often a rapid revaluation - even if the change is delayed in the accounting numbers.

At the same time, it's fair to say that offices are now more than ever a funding market. Even when demand improves at the best of times, high rates and cautious banks can keep valuations down. That's why there's an attitude emerging in the current Vornado debate: instead of a pure bet on common share price growth, some investors are looking at preferred stock returns, which are more "about the collection" than when sentiment on offices will turn.

Management and CEO

The CEO is Steven Roth, and at this type of company, management is evaluated less on "big vision" and more on three disciplines: portfolio work, debt work, and dividend work. In the office sector, a bad decision in timing sales, refinancing or building investments can hurt for years. Conversely, a good decision will often take a long time to come to fruition because leases and renovations have a long cycle.

Therefore, management's credibility can be read from whether the company will maintain liquidity, not take forced steps, and maintain stable operating cash even in a higher rate environment. The firm's credit profile can be considered stable, based on the fact that ratings remain unchanged and that market-adjusted metrics support a rating of roughly Ba1.

And for the dividend investor, this has another corollary: if management is conservative and protecting capital, it makes more sense to look at how the company treats the preferred stock (because that's a commitment it doesn't want to damage) than to expect aggressive growth in the common dividend. That's not a downside - it's just a different type of return.

The company's website says: Steven Roth is chairman and CEO of Vornado Realty Trust. Mr. Roth has been Chairman of the Board since May 1989 and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board since April 1980. He served as Chief Executive Officer from May 1989 to May 2009 and was reappointed on April 15, 2013.

Financial Performance

The last four years have seen a more stable "top line" and volatility in earnings. Revenues have increased from $1.589 billion (2021) to $1.800 billion (2022), then $1.811 billion (2023), before declining slightly to $1.788 billion in 2024. This is important because it suggests that the business has not collapsed in revenue, but at the same time it does not show significant growth that would attract the market on its own. This is because in office, growth often comes only when effective rents and occupancy start to increase steadily.

Operating profit is positive, but fluctuates: in 2024 it was 264 million. USD 301 million in 2023 and USD 301 million in 2023 . USD 288 million in 2022, USD 288 million in 2020 and USD 288 million in 2022. USD 245 million in 2021 and USD 245 million in 2021 . Net profit was USD 70 million in 2024 and USD 70 million in 2024. The net profit was USD 70 million in 2014, USD 105 million in 2023 and USD 105 million in 2023 . The net loss was USD -346 million in 2022 and USD -346 million in 2022 . In 2021 and 2021 the profit was USD 176 million. USD. This is a typical picture of a real estate company: accounting profit can jump due to one-off items and revaluations, so investors have to lean more on cash.

For this reason, looking at operating profitability and cash generation is more important to the dividend debate than EPS (earnings per share). EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in 2024 is reported to be $881 million. USD 881 million and grew slightly year-on-year. This signals that the portfolio "engine" is still running, but the real question is how much of that will be swallowed up by financing and sustaining investments. And that's exactly the bridge to the dividend.

Cash flow and capital discipline

This is where Vornado is most interesting, because cash is what determines the sustainability of the dividend. Operating cash in 2024 was $538 million. USD 648 million in 2023 and USD 648 million in 2023 . USD 799 million in 2022. USD 762 million and USD 762 million in 2021 . USD. We're seeing a downward trajectory from the peak, but it's still a level that allows the company to operate without panicking. According to the report, free cash flow in 2024 also comes out to 538 million. This suggests that capital expenditure has been low or otherwise included - but with real estate you always need to keep an eye out for "maintenance" being deferred.

And now the dividend: the common dividend is $0.74 per share. Roughly converting it to cash, with an average of ~190.5 million shares, that works out to about $141 million. That's about $141 million per year. Versus free cash flow of $538 million. That's a cover of about 3.8 times. That's very strong on paper, and it says one thing: the common dividend is not a "we can't afford it" problem today, it's a "how much room will we have left after debt and investments when the cycle gets worse" problem. For offices, dividend sustainability is always more about financing than the rents themselves.

Vornado's preferred issues are roughly yielding 7.34-7.47% and the argument here is that this is a yield premium to a portion of the sector at "medium" credit risk, with ratings unchanged (Moody's Ba1, Fitch BB+, S&P BBB-). This is important because a preferred stock investor is not buying "growth", but regular income, while betting that the company can manage this payout in a bad period.

Balance sheet and debt

According to the metrics, the firm has debt to assets of 0.50 and debt to equity of 1.30, with interest coverage coming out at 4.82. That's a combination that doesn't look like an acute problem, but it requires discipline. After all, in office real estate, the fundamental enemy is "wasted time". If the market is slow to stabilize and the debt has to be refinanced on worse terms, it gradually eats away at cash that might otherwise go to dividend or quality investments.

At the same time, the warning light is on: an Altman score of 0.50. It's fair to say that some universal models behave worse for real estate funds than for conventional firms, but even that low number signals that the market is seeing increased balance sheet stress. Translated: investors are unsure what the office funding cycle will look like, and therefore want either a valuation discount or a higher yield.

On the other hand, total assets are around USD 15.5 billion and debt around USD 7.94 billion. This view is important because it's a "bottom-up" argument: we're not just looking at the share price, but the value of the assets and the financing structure. If an investor is scared at the brokerage, the balance sheet is where the fear is either confirmed or dissolved.

In terms of dividend sustainability, the balance sheet conclusion is clear: a dividend is sustainable when a company can get through debt maturities without forcing the issue and without interest becoming the dominant item. And that's why it makes sense to monitor interest coverage and liquidity as closely as rents at this stage of the cycle.

Growth catalysts and outlook

The biggest catalyst for office REITs is not a single product, but a change in expectations. The first catalyst is improving leasing at the highest quality end of the market. Once the market believes that the best buildings have stable demand and that tenants are actually signing new leases without extreme concessions, the valuation discount will begin to close. For Vornado, this is critical because the company is perceived as "quality exposure" to Manhattan - and when something breaks in Manhattan, it often changes the mood for the entire sector.

The second catalyst is purely financial: refinancing and interest costs. If a company can manage maturities without making financing dramatically more expensive, investors' biggest fear begins to diminish. This is the point at which the perception of the dividend may also change: the common dividend is now well covered in cash, but sentimentally it is still "tied" to debt. Once debt becomes a "manageable problem", the dividend ceases to be contentious and starts to act as a stabilising element.

Risks

• Refinancing debt on worse terms can raise interest costs and gradually steal the cash that now covers the dividend.

• The office market may remain polarized: the top end will hold, but the weaker end of the market may continue to push sentiment and valuations for the entire segment.

• Higher spending on tenant improvements and upgrades may reduce free cash in the short term, even as they improve the competitiveness of buildings in the long term.

• The low Altman score (0.50) suggests a higher stress profile should the funding cycle worsen.

• For preferred stocks: the yield is high because the price is low. Should the credit profile deteriorate, the price may fall even with continued dividend payments.

• For common stock, the biggest risk is "time": even if the company is stable, the repricing may take a long time.

Investment scenarios

Optimistic scenario

Manhattan begins to show consistent improvement in high-end leasing and the market stops punishing offices across the board. Refinancing will occur without shock and interest coverage will remain comfortable. In such a situation, the valuation discount begins to close and the common stock may react more strongly than the fundamentals themselves as expectations change.

Dividend-wise, this would mean that the common dividend of $0.74 will remain stable and the company will not be forced to cut it. For the preferred shares, an optimistic scenario would mean a double return: an ongoing yield of around 7% plus a potential price rise towards the $25 par value if the required yield falls.

The realistic scenario

The market will improve slowly and with fluctuations. Revenues will remain around current levels, cash will fluctuate but remain sufficient for common dividend. Common stock valuations will close only slowly as investors will want more evidence over time, not one better quarter.

In this scenario, a "combination" approach often works best: the common stock is a bet on revaluation, but the preferred stock makes sense as a patient collection tool because the yield is already high and the company continues to announce regular quarterly payouts on the preferred series. The investor is then not just relying on when sentiment turns, but is getting an ongoing return.

Negative scenario

The office market weakens again and financing becomes more expensive. Interest costs will start to eat up more of the cash and the company will have to choose between maintaining the dividend, investing in buildings and protecting the balance sheet. In such a situation, the common dividend is the first thing the market will start to question, even if it hasn't been cut in real terms yet - because investors will overestimate the risk ahead.

For preferred stocks, a negative scenario would mean higher price volatility. Payouts may continue, but the price may fall if the market starts demanding even higher yields to compensate for credit risk. This is exactly why it makes sense to monitor ratings, interest coverage and liquidity, not just percentage yield alone.

What to take away from the article

• A common dividend of $0.74 is a $538 million dividend on free cash . At USD 538 million, the gross covered is roughly 3.8 times, so the main risk is the funding, not the payout itself.

• At Vornado, the thesis is mainly that the top offices in Manhattan can improve operations faster than the "average office" in the US.

• The balance sheet is not without risk: debt to assets 0.50, interest coverage 4.82, Altman 0.50 - refinancing is a key variable.

• Preferred stocks today carry roughly 7.34-7.47% as they trade below par.

• The company continues to announce regular quarterly payouts on the preferred series, a practical signal of continuity.

• The common stock is more of a sentiment repricing bet, the preferred stock more of an ongoing income bet.

• An investor's best defense is to watch cash, interest, refinancing, and continued preferred dividend payments.

The financial sector is once again taking centre stage for investors in 2026 and is beginning to show relative strength to the broader market after several years of dominance by technology titles. While the S&P 500 Index has been in a very narrow range this year, select banks, insurance companies and other capital institutions have been able to generate above-average performance for shareholders since the beginning of the year. The growth is based on a combination of macroeconomic factors, sector capital rotation and still solid fundamentals.

Interest rates remain a key supportive element. Although the market has been discussing possible monetary easing over the past few quarters, according to Federal Reserve analysis, net interest margins in the banking sector remain above pre-pandemic averages. Indeed, higher rates have supported loan yields faster than deposit costs have risen through most of 2025 and early 2026. It is this effect that has been one of the main drivers of profitability for large US banks, according to S&P Global reports.

Another important factor is the quality of balance sheets. Following regulatory changes and tighter capital requirements after 2008, the major banks are now entering the current cycle with significantly stronger capital positions than in previous decades. Our team's analysis confirms that the capital ratios of large US banks remain above the regulatory minimums, giving investors a higher degree of confidence in the sector's resilience even in the event of an economic slowdown. This type of protection was put in place precisely to prevent a repeat of the scandal of the financial crisis years.

The change in sentiment also plays an important role. Some capital from technology is starting to move towards sectors that can now generate real cash flow and have more stable returns on capital. It is financial institutions, especially traditional banks, that have benefited from this change in recent quarters.

However, this does not mean that the financial sector is completely risk-free. Investors continue to closely monitor the quality of loan portfolios, sensitivity to any faster rate cuts and potential regulatory pressure. Moreover, performance within the sector remains highly selective. While some companies have grown strongly this year, others have lagged the broader market.

So which stocks in this segment have risen the most out of the entire S&P 500 index so far this year?

Equinix $EQIX

Among the best-performing financials in the S&P 500 since the start of 2026 is Equinix, which is benefiting from structural demand for data connectivity, cloud and AI infrastructure. Although the firm formally falls into the REIT segment of digital infrastructure, investors often view it as a hybrid between technology and financial infrastructure in the current cycle. It is this unique position that helps the stock hold its relative strength even in an environment of heightened volatility in the technology sector.

Fundamentally, Equinix continues to grow consistently. According to the company's latest results, revenue is growing at a steady pace, with the interconnection services and hyperscale customer segments remaining key drivers. Margins have remained at high levels over the long term (rising well above 14% in 2025), and the firm is generating robust operating cash flow to support further data center expansion. Moreover, management has repeatedly emphasized that demand for AI infrastructure remains very strong and the firm can effectively capitalize on it.

A big theme of recent quarters has been capital discipline. Equinix has historically invested aggressively in capacity expansion, but in the current environment of higher rates, the market is much more focused on the return on those investments. However, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysis, returns on new projects are holding above the cost of capital, which is a key reason why the company has maintained investor confidence despite the general pressure on capital-intensive segments. As a result, the stock has been rising despite the strong sell-off in IT companies. This year, the price is already up 24.4% and approaching the $1000 per share mark.

It is important to note that Equinix is not a pure interest rate sensitive REIT. Unlike retail real estate funds (like $O), the firm's business is much more tied to the digital economy. This has been on full display in recent months, with some capital rotating out of overheated software titles and into players with visible cash flow. According to our analyst team's data, it is this shift that has helped $EQIX stock outperform the broader market.

Risks remain, however. The biggest near-term factor is the trajectory of U.S. interest rates. If long-term bond yields remain elevated for longer, valuations of all REIT structures could face pressure. The second risk is the capital intensity of AI infrastructure. The sector is entering a very challenging phase where differentiating between high and low return on giant investments will be key.

Overall, however, Equinix has so far confirmed its status as a quality business that can grow even in an environment where the largest companies in the market are selling out.

Franklin Resources $BEN

Franklin Resources has been one of the surprise winners in the financial sector, thanks to a combination of stabilizing capital outflows, disciplined expense management, and gradually improving sentiment toward actively managed funds. The firm, known as Franklin Templeton, was entering 2026 after several weaker years when the entire asset management segment faced heavy pressure from passive ETFs and asset outflows. However, it was the low initial valuations that created room for growth.

From a fundamental perspective, it is key that the company's assets under management (AUM) is starting to stabilize. According to recent quarterly reports, the pace of net capital outflows has slowed and the firm has even seen capital raises in some segments. At the same time, management continues to integrate earlier acquisitions, particularly Legg Mason, which is gradually improving operating efficiencies and margins. While operating margins are still below historical highs, the trend has been slightly upward in recent quarters.

The macroeconomic environment has also played a large role in the stock's performance this year. Paradoxically, higher interest rates and increased volatility in the markets are increasing the attractiveness of active management as investors become more concerned with picking and choosing between titles and managing risk. It is this environment that has historically helped traditional asset managers overcome the period of dominance of passive strategies. Franklin Resources has benefited from this shift so far.

From a valuation perspective, $BEN remains one of the more cheaply valued players among large asset managers. Forward P/E is below the long-term sector average. The market still does not fully trust the firm to return to sustainable growth. But the stock can grow even with relatively modest improvement in fundamentals. According to the Fair Price Index on Bulios, $BEN stock is currently nearly 18% below its fair value, despite the fact that it has already managed to grow 14% this year. This puts it at the top of the segment in the S&P 500.

But sentiment remains fragile. The biggest structural risk is the continued pressure of passive ETFs on industry-wide margins. McKinsey's asset management studies warn that active money managers need to add significant value to justify their fees. The second risk is sensitivity to capital market developments. If equities fall significantly, growth could come under pressure again.

Iron Mountain $IRM

Iron Mountain has been one of the largest price appreciating stocks in the financial segment of the S&P 500 this year. The company, historically known primarily as a provider of physical document management, has been undergoing a major transformation toward digital infrastructure and data centers in recent years. This strategic change is one of the main reasons why the stock has been rising strongly since the beginning of the year (adding 36%) and attracting increased investor attention.

Iron Mountain is showing very stable and predictable cash flow from its traditional document management business. This segment, while growing slowly, is generating high margins and strong conversion to cash. According to company reports, recurring revenue has long been a dominant part of sales, giving the company a solid base from which to fund expansion into data centers. This is key for investors today.

But the biggest growth driver is now the data center segment. Here, Iron Mountain has been significantly increasing CapEx and expanding capacity in recent years to capture structural demand for cloud and AI infrastructure. According to management reports and Wall Street estimates, this segment is growing at double-digit rates and gradually increasing its share of total revenue. The market appreciates this shift as data centers are seen as strategic infrastructure with long-term growth potential in the current AI cycle.

In a higher interest rate environment, investors are more likely to value companies with stable free cash flow and visible monetization. With its hybrid model, Iron Mountain offers a combination of defensive business and structural growth. In addition, the dividend yield of 3.05% offers solid income for dividend investors.

On the other hand, however, risks must also be mentioned. The biggest short-term pressure remains the capital intensity of the expansion into data centres. Higher CapEx means temporary pressure on free cash flow and increases the company's sensitivity to financing costs. The second risk is the competitive environment. The data center segment is increasingly populated by hyperscalers, who are spending higher investments to develop it.

From a valuation perspective, however, Iron Mountain is still in an interesting position. Although the stock has appreciated significantly this year, some investors still view the company through the prism of its "old" business. If the transformation towards digital infrastructure continues at the current pace, valuations could increase. However, according to the Fair Price Index, it is already high enough.

Interactive Brokers $IBKR

Interactive Brokers is one of the best performing financials in the S&P 500 this year, reflecting a combination of strong client base growth, high interest rate sensitivity and a disciplined cost model. The firm has long benefited from the trend of a shift in trading toward low-cost online brokers and growing retail and institutional investor activity.

Interactive Brokers is a global broker focused on active traders, hedge funds and professional investors. The company's platform offers access to dozens of exchanges around the world, giving the firm a distinct competitive advantage in the active trading segment. According to the latest results, the company continues to see double-digit growth in the number of accounts and client assets, confirming the long-term structural trend of digital investing.

However, the key driver of this year's growth is interest income. Interactive Brokers holds significant client balances from which it generates net interest income. In a higher rate environment, this segment is significantly boosting the firm's profitability. According to company reports, net interest income has made up an increasingly large portion of total revenue in recent quarters, which investors appreciate, especially when compared to traditional brokers that have a higher cost structure.

In terms of profitability, Interactive Brokers has long been one of the most efficient players in the industry. Operating margins have remained at very high levels, according to recent results, and the firm maintains strong profit-to-cash conversion.

Investor sentiment this year has been boosted by the continued rise in market volatility. Historically, higher volatility increases trading volumes and therefore broker revenues (through fees). Data from recent quarters shows steady growth in daily average trades (DARTs), confirming a healthy client base.

However, risks remain here as well. The biggest structural factor is interest rate sensitivity. Should the Fed or other central banks begin a more aggressive rate-cutting cycle, net interest income could begin to gradually decline. Another factor is the cyclicality of trading activity. During periods of low volatility, fee income can fall. In addition, competition remains intense, particularly from low-cost retail platforms. However, Interactive Brokers has long profiled itself as a professional platform even for the big players.

So how are the shares performing? Since 2024, their price has increased by nearly 250%. Since the beginning of this year, they have reached new all-time highs several times. Yet according to the Fair Price Index, which is based on DFC and relative valuations, they are trading well below their intrinsic value.

Interactive Brokers has been a winner in recent years due to higher rates and active trading. If market volatility remains elevated and rates don't fall too quickly, the firm can maintain its relative strength in the quarters ahead.

CME Group $CME

This firm has long benefited from operating some of the most important derivatives exchanges in the world, where futures and options on interest rates, commodities, indices and currencies are traded.

From a business model perspective, CME Group is a high-quality business with significant network effects. Once the market uses a particular exchange for hedging and pricing, competitors find it difficult to displace it. It is this structural advantage that becomes fully apparent in periods of macroeconomic uncertainty. According to the firm's latest results, average daily trading volumes (ADV) remain elevated across key segments, particularly in interest rate futures where investors are actively reacting to monetary policy developments.

Increased activity in interest rate derivatives is a key driver of this year's growth. In an environment where markets are constantly reassessing the rate trajectory of the Fed and other central banks, demand for interest rate risk management tools is growing. CME data shows that the interest rate products segment is one of the fastest growing parts of the portfolio, which translates directly into revenue and operating profit.

From a financial perspective, CME Group maintains an exceptionally strong profile. Operating margins have long been maintained at very high levels (up to above 50%) typical of the stock exchange infrastructure and the firm generates robust free cash flow. As a result, CME is one of the most profitable companies in the financial infrastructure, allowing it to return capital to shareholders steadily through dividends (currently 1.58% per annum).

Investors also appreciate the defensive nature of the business this year. Unlike banks, CME is not directly exposed to credit risk, and its returns are tied more to market activity than to the quality of its loan portfolio. It thus acts as a relatively resilient financial title in an environment of heightened uncertainty.

However, there are risks here too. The biggest short-term factor is a possible decline in volatility. Should monetary policy stabilise and markets move into a calmer phase, trading volumes could normalise. Another risk is the cyclicality of some commodity segments and the potential regulatory pressure on derivatives markets that has occasionally emerged in the past.

With the share price already up 18% in 2026, the company is currently trading very close to its fair value. According to the Fair Price Index on Bulios, its shares are overvalued by just 3%.

Quick note: today the stock is weakening by 3.4% before the opening bell erasing all of yesterday's gains. However, this should bring the price close to its fair value.

The question for the next few quarters is whether the current level of market activity will last long enough to fully justify the current premium.

Conclusion

The financial sector in 2026 reaffirms that its performance is strongly tied to the macroeconomic environment, particularly the trajectory of interest rates, the level of volatility and the overall condition of the capital markets. After a period of dominance by technology titles, some capital is returning to financial infrastructure and selected financial models that benefit from more stable cash flows that investors are now not finding in technology.

Going forward, the pace of monetary easing and the evolution of market activity will be key for the sector as a whole. As long as rates remain relatively high for an extended period of time and market volatility does not fall too quickly, the financial sector can maintain strength against the broader index. In the opposite scenario, some of the current growth could gradually fade.

NVIDIA Corporation $NVDA will release its Q4 fiscal 2026 results today after the market close. This is one of the most important events of this earnings season and could affect not only the technology sector but the entire market for several weeks to months.

The analysts' consensus expects revenue around $65 billion (compared with $39.3 billion a year ago) and earnings per share (EPS) of $1.53 (vs. $0.89 YoY). The key segment again will be Data Center, where roughly $60 billion is expected due to continued demand for AI infrastructure and Blackwell chips. Equally important will be the outlook for fiscal 2027, which currently projects revenue around $311 billion.

Below I outline three possible scenarios depending on how the results compare to expectations:

1. Optimistic scenario – a significant beat

If NVIDIA significantly beats estimates, for example with revenue above $70 billion and EPS above $1.60, the market could react very positively. Such a result would confirm extremely strong demand for AI infrastructure, driven by the rapid ramp of the Blackwell platform and partnerships with hyperscalers.

In that case, the shares could rise 10–15% and lift the entire tech sector. This scenario would likely lead analysts to raise price targets and further strengthen the long-term AI investment narrative. On the other hand, it could also raise concerns about high valuation.

2. Neutral scenario – results roughly in line with expectations

If results match the consensus (around $65 billion in revenue and EPS of $1.53), the market might react with a modest decline of 2–5%, since expectations are already very high. Even with strong growth in the Data Center segment, a lack of a clear surprise could trigger profit-taking. This scenario could also occur as a combination of outcomes—some metrics well above estimates, others in line or slightly below.

The market would likely remain in a sideways trend in that case, and investors would wait for further catalysts, such as new products or announcements at the GTC conference.

3. Pessimistic scenario – disappointment versus expectations

If revenue falls below roughly $63 billion and EPS drops under $1.45, the reaction could be sharply negative. Shares could lose 15–20% in the short term and pull down the broader tech sector and major indices.

Such an outcome could indicate a slowdown in AI infrastructure spending, margin pressure, or supply-chain problems. That could trigger a wider correction and call into question the pace of further growth in the AI sector.

My view:

I'm cautiously optimistic but prepared for increased volatility. NVIDIA's results could either reignite the rally in tech stocks or confirm the need for a short-term correction. The key will be commentary on AI demand and the outlook for the coming year.

What’s your estimate— a significant beat, or more likely a disappointment?

An English version of this post is available on my profile on www.etoro.com. If you want to follow me there or copy my USD portfolio, I’d be glad.

The bigger message is how the company is setting up 2026. Management is preparing to invest more and to bring in capital from more sources. Besides regular share issuance, Realty Income points to a new open-end fund and a partnership with a large long-term investor. The company’s 2026 outlook calls for AFFO of $4.38 to $4.42 per share, and it suggests that investment volume could be meaningfully higher than in 2025.

How was the last quarter?

In the fourth quarter, Realty Income $O increased total revenue to $1.4879 billion from $1.3403 billion a year earlier. Net income available to shareholders was $296.1 million, or $0.32 per share, compared with $199.6 million and $0.23 per share in the same period a year ago. However, from a "cash performance" perspective, AFFO's headline result was $1.08 per share, a level that is directly linked to the sustainability of the dividend.

The operating quality of the portfolio is demonstrated by occupancy and the ability to renew contracts without losing rent. Portfolio occupancy reached 98.9%, and in reoccupying units, the company achieved that new annual rents were higher than the original ones: in the quarter, the "return on rent" came out to 104.9% (new rents of $88.30 million versus the previous $84.21 million on the same units). This is significant for an investor because it suggests that even in an environment of higher interest rates and more cautious tenants, the portfolio still has bargaining power.

On the investment side, the firm invested $2.4 billion in Q4 ($2.3 billion for its share) with an initial cash yield of 7.1%. At the same time, it continued to work with capital through its continuous share sale program: in the quarter, it settled 14 million shares from previously negotiated sales, raising gross proceeds of $817.8 million. The net debt to adjusted annual operating earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDAre) ratio was 5.4 times, still a "mid" level for a REIT of this type, and combined with access to the capital markets, gives the company room to grow in 2026.

• Full presentation with results.

CEO commentary

Sumit Roy frames 2025 as "consistent returns and targeted actions" to amplify the firm's competitive advantages. Between the lines, the key takeaway is that management is consciously shifting the narrative from mere stability towards growth: it highlights the acceleration of investment in the fourth quarter and argues that the active pipeline for 2026 is strong enough for the company to talk about an initial investment volume of around $8 billion. At the same time, it backs the outlook with two "new sources of capital" - an open-ended fund in the US and a partnership with a major investor - which is expected to reduce reliance on a single source of funding and improve its ability to close deals at scale.

Outlook

Realty Income gives AFFO expectations of $4.38 to $4.42 per share for 2026. Management adds an interpretation that this is roughly 2.8% mid-range growth and approximately 9% total operating income (a combination of cash per share growth and dividend). That's a relatively conservative style of communication: the company isn't promising leapfrog improvement, but it's giving investors a clear framework for what a "normal" year should look like if tenants remain stable and the investment plan can be executed.

The second part of the outlook is the volume of investment. Management talks about the initial investment expectation for 2026 being approximately $8 billion, well above 2025 when the company invested $6.3 billion (for its share of $6.2 billion) at an initial cash yield of 7.3%. For investors, this means a simple thing: AFFO per share growth will largely depend on how effectively the firm combines new sources of capital with the quality of acquisitions, and how much the cost of financing is reflected in the results.

Long-term results

Over the long term, Realty Income is the type of firm where it's important to track two parallel lines: the growth in portfolio scale and whether that growth actually translates into more sustainable cash per share. Revenues have grown strongly in recent years: from $2.08 billion in 2021 to $3.34 billion in 2022, $4.08 billion in 2023 and $5.27 billion in 2024. In 2025, revenues have moved further to $5.75 billion, confirming that the firm is still in an expansion phase and can pick up new properties in volume.

Profitability is specific to REITs, however, as net income often "fizzes" due to revaluations, asset sales and one-time items. That's why Realty Income mainly tracks FFO and AFFO. For 2025, the firm reported FFO of $4.25 per share and AFFO of $4.28 per share, with AFFO itself down only slightly year-over-year from $4.19 to $4.28, which is consistent with the year being very much about funding growth and ensuring that portfolio growth doesn't dilute cash per share. From an investor's perspective, the important thing is that management still maintains a moderate growth outlook for 2026 and backs it up with an investment pipeline.

An important detail that is often missed is the handling of the share count. The data shows that the average number of shares has grown significantly in recent years as the company has financed expansion through issuance, among other things. That's why it's critical for investors to monitor whether acquisitions and hiring revenue can "beat" dilution and sustain AFFO per share growth. Q4 2025 has been steady in this regard: the company has been able to increase net income per share as well as maintain AFFO of $1.08 per share, while holding very high occupancy.

News / Strategic shift

The most obvious strategic shift is the expansion of capital sources and geographic reach. The firm launched its first open-end fund focused on stable commercial real estate in the U.S. in 2025 and had raised $1.5 billion in investor commitments by the end of the year. It then announced a strategic partnership with GIC after year-end and a joint framework for "bespoke" projects with combined commitments of over $1.5 billion. These are steps that may increase the ability to do larger deals without the company having to "push" equity issuance to the same degree in every cycle.

In practical transactional news, the expansion into Mexico is also noteworthy: the commitment to buy out an industrial portfolio for $200 million in dollar-denominated long-term leases is Realty Income's first larger-scale entry into the country. And from a financing perspective, it is key that in January 2026 the company issued $862.5 million in convertible notes due in 2029, creating additional financial flexibility for refinancing and investment.

Shareholder structure

Realty Income is a distinctly institutional title: the institution holds roughly 80.9% of the stock and nearly 81.9% of the free float, while management's stake is approximately 1.24%. This typically means two things: first, high liquidity and a stable shareholder base, and second, sensitivity to interest rate movements, as large money managers often rebalance weightings in the real estate sector as bond yields change.

The largest holdings are dominated by the largest passive and broadly diversified fund managers: Vanguard holds roughly 16.35%, BlackRock 11.50%, State Street 6.91% and Geode 3.17%. For the firm, this typically reinforces the pressure for long-term dividend predictability and disciplined growth funding.

Analyst expectations

For Realty Income, analysts have often agreed in recent months that it is a stable "dividend" title, but there is limited room for significant repricing unless the interest rate environment changes or the company surprises with the pace of AFFO per share growth.

Fair Price

The unusual part is how the deal is designed. AMD is offering Meta an equity-based incentive tied to performance, up to 160 million shares, released in steps as AMD meets delivery milestones. The first portion is linked to delivering the first 1 gigawatt of capacity. For investors, this cuts both ways: it pushes AMD to deliver on time, but it also introduces possible dilution and shows how intense the competition is when hyperscalers negotiate for AI supply.

What does "6 gigawatts" mean and why it's big news

A gigawatt is a unit of power. In this debate, what it means in practice is that $META is not buying "a few thousand units" but planning a giant scaling of computing capacity across data centers. By comparison, even a shift of units of hundreds of megawatts in AI clusters is already considered a significant step. Six gigawatts is therefore a signal to the market that Meta $META is building infrastructure in "industrial production" mode while diversifying suppliers alongside Nvidia $NVDA.

Moreover, both AMD and Meta are talking about multiple generations of chips. The first wave is to consist of MI450 series accelerators to be deployed in the second half of the year in so-called "rack" systems (simplified whole computing enclosures assembled as a single unit). This is important because AI is no longer just about the chip itself, but about how well the cooling, interconnects and software - the whole "package" - are handled.

Why Meta is also paying with AMD stock

The stock instrument (warrant) is set up so that Meta only gets shares if AMD actually delivers what it promises. In practice, this is a "pay for performance": AMD gets a huge subscription and Meta insures that deliveries will be top priority. At the same time, this puts a financial "tether" on Meta to make AMD succeed - if AMD meets the milestones and the stock goes up, Meta can profit.

But for AMD shareholders, there's also the issue of risk. If the entire facility is released, it could mean dilution (more shares outstanding). And it also shows how extremely valuable certainty of supply is today: when companies are building tens of billions of dollars worth of data centers, "not having the chips on time" is more expensive for them than paying substandard terms.

AMD gains validation, Meta breaks down dependence on Nvidia

Just a week ago, Meta announced a multi-year deal with Nvidia to supply millions of Blackwell and Ruby generation GPUs, as well as a large deployment of servers with Grace processors. In sum, this says one thing: Meta doesn't want to stand on one card. Nvidia remains key, but AMD is opening the door to a segment that has long been seen as "Nvidia territory".

In addition to GPUs, processors are also mentioned in the text. Meta mentions CPU purchases from AMD (including new generations) because AI is no longer just about training models, but increasingly about running them on a day-to-day basis. That's the part where CPUs and the whole infrastructure around them are rising in importance alongside accelerators - and AMD has traditionally been strong in CPUs.

Context: Meta raises AI investment to extreme levels

The whole thing makes sense the moment one puts Meta's budget next to it. The company said in earnings that it expects capital expenditures of roughly $115 billion to $135 billion for 2026, primarily due to AI infrastructure. That's a pace that shifts the entire sector - because when one of the biggest players starts spending like that, it forces others to keep up or risk losing ground.

And here's why some investors have become nervous: spending is growing faster than the certainty of return. Meta has held sentiment the best of the big "AI spenders" so far, but the question remains the same for everyone: when will this translate into higher profits, not just bigger data centers.

What to watch next

There are three things that will be crucial with this deal. First, how quickly AMD can realistically deliver the first "1 gigawatt" and unlock the first part of the reward. Second, if the MI450 proves itself in practice to keep the Meta picking up power draws towards 6 gigawatts. And third, how the supplier mix at Meta will evolve alongside Nvidia and its own chips - because diversification is a deal breaker for Meta, but for suppliers it's a competitive pressure on price and performance.

Industrial scale compute reshapes the ai power balance

Six gigawatts of GPU capacity is not incremental expansion. It represents industrial scale AI training capability capable of powering frontier language models, recommendation engines, generative AI tools, and immersive digital environments. As AI workloads expand exponentially, compute capacity is emerging as the defining constraint in innovation cycles.

Why the scale of compute suddenly matters more than ever

Artificial intelligence models are growing larger, more complex, and significantly more energy intensive. Training and deploying advanced generative AI systems requires enormous parallel processing capability, and hyperscalers are racing to secure reliable supply. Meta’s infrastructure expansion reflects this competitive urgency. Companies that control compute capacity control innovation velocity. The broader AI chip demand cycle has already fueled extraordinary growth across semiconductor leaders, with hyperscalers competing for allocation and long term supply agreements. This latest commitment reinforces the thesis that AI infrastructure spending is not slowing but entering a deeper capital investment phase.

AMD strengthens its datacenter credibility

For $AMD, the deal represents a defining strategic milestone. The company has steadily gained traction in high performance computing and datacenter markets, challenging entrenched competitors and expanding its AI accelerator portfolio. Securing a hyperscale partner of Meta’s magnitude validates AMD’s roadmap and strengthens revenue visibility across future quarters. The competitive AI chip landscape remains intense, with multiple players vying for dominance in training and inference workloads. However, long term supply commitments of this size suggest that hyperscalers are increasingly diversifying vendor relationships rather than relying on a single dominant supplier.

Meta’s ai ambitions extend beyond social media

$META's AI strategy has evolved far beyond social platform optimization. The company is embedding generative AI into content creation tools, recommendation systems, advertising optimization, and immersive experiences within its broader ecosystem. Expanding GPU infrastructure supports not only model training but also real time inference at global scale. Heavy capital expenditure into AI signals that Meta sees artificial intelligence as foundational to future revenue streams rather than experimental. The integration of AI across consumer and enterprise layers positions the company to compete aggressively in the next generation of digital services.

Capex expansion fuels investor debate

Large scale infrastructure investment always raises questions about returns. While investors have largely rewarded companies accelerating AI capex, concerns persist around efficiency, power consumption, and monetization timelines. Building gigawatt level GPU clusters requires massive energy coordination, datacenter expansion, and cooling solutions, introducing execution complexity. At the same time, sustained hyperscale demand has reinforced bullish sentiment across semiconductor equities and AI exposed technology stocks. Markets are effectively pricing in a prolonged AI infrastructure cycle, where capital intensity today translates into durable competitive advantage tomorrow.

The broader ai compute arms race intensifies

Meta’s move fits into a broader competitive escalation among global technology giants. Cloud providers, enterprise platforms, and consumer tech leaders are all increasing AI related capital expenditures. The race is no longer limited to model quality alone. It now includes compute ownership, vertical integration, and supply chain resilience. As hyperscalers diversify hardware sourcing strategies, the AI silicon ecosystem becomes more complex and strategically interlinked. Vendor concentration risk, geopolitical considerations, and power grid limitations are now central investment variables.

Execution risks remain under the surface

Scaling GPU infrastructure at this magnitude is not without operational challenges. Deployment timelines, fabrication constraints, component logistics, and grid capacity all influence how quickly theoretical compute translates into deployed AI systems. Any bottlenecks in production or integration could impact rollout speed. Investors will closely monitor quarterly disclosures for signals on deployment cadence, utilization rates, and AI driven revenue contribution. Sustained capital discipline alongside innovation velocity will be critical in maintaining market confidence.

A defining moment in the ai investment cycle

The Meta AMD 6 gigawatt GPU alliance underscores a defining shift in the technology sector. AI infrastructure is becoming the new oil field of the digital economy, with compute capacity functioning as the essential energy source powering innovation. For equity investors, this development reinforces several themes: hyperscale AI spending remains robust, semiconductor competition is intensifying, and capital allocation toward compute dominance will shape market leadership for years. As the AI buildout accelerates, the companies that secure capacity early may determine the pace and direction of the next decade of technological transformation.

A major 2026 step is strategic, not overnight growth. Nu has announced conditional approval to form a US national bank. This does not mean a full US launch tomorrow, but it is an important signal. A national bank path can lead to cheaper funding, a broader product set, and a stronger reputation as a full-service bank. If Nu executes, it also increases competitive pressure on US banks, especially where pricing and user experience matter.

Top points of analysis

• The nearest catalyst is earnings day on February 25, 2026 and market expectations around earnings per share of approximately $0.18.

• In the last reported quarter, the company delivered record net income of $783 million. USD, revenue of USD 4.2 billion and ROE of 31%, which raises the bar for Q4 as well.

• Growth is no longer just about adding users: Nu has 127 million customers and is increasingly pushing for "relationship deepening" (more products and higher revenue per client).

• Mexico and Colombia are increasingly important: they are boosting growth but also raising the demands on risk management and credit quality.

• Conditional approval for US bank charters is a long-term story for 2026-2027: capital, regulatory process, and only then opening a bank.

What the market expects from Q4 and why it matters

Q4 results will be all about whether the "rapid growth + high profitability" combination holds up for investors. Indeed, in Q3 Nu has already shown that it can grow big while maintaining a superior return on capital: an ROE of 31% and record profits create pressure for Q4 not just to be seasonally "decent" but to confirm the trend.

For a preview like "Nu is going after US clients", it is key to understand that the market is not just concerned with the pace of growth itself, but also the quality of it. Nu may add millions more customers, but the critical question is whether revenue per client is growing at the same time, whether good client acquisition costs are being maintained, and whether credit quality is deteriorating as the firm extends credit to a broader population.

Why it is going after US clients

In the U.S. banking world, it's hard to maintain both high growth and high profitability without a massive branch network. $NU shows that the digital model, given enough scale, can work as an operating leverage machine: costs don't grow as fast as revenues, and ROE can be high over the long term. Q3 is a good benchmark in this: record profitability and client base expansion at the same time.

The second thing is financing. In Q3, the firm had deposits of $38.8 billion and a loan portfolio of $30.4 billion. This suggests that loan growth is not just built on expensive external funding and that the deposit engine is real. In practice, this is important because it is the cost of funding that determines whether fintech can compete with banks even when the cycle turns bad.

US: what bank conditional approval means in real terms

News that investors shouldn't pass off as PR: Nu has announced conditional approval from the OCC to establish a US national bank. The firm itself describes the next steps: entering the so-called "bank organization phase", meeting regulatory conditions while still needing approvals (typically FDIC and Fed). Also included is a timeframe - capitalizing the institution within 12 months and opening the bank within 18 months if regulatory conditions are met.

This is important because of what it can change in the economics of the business:

• Cheaper and more stable funding: the bank structure usually expands the options for deposit handling and liquidity management.

• Broader product offerings: a path to full-fledged banking products in a market where ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is significantly higher than in LatAm.

• Reputation and partnerships: bank charters often increase the trust of large partners and corporate clients.

At the same time, it is fair to say that it is not a catalyst for the next quarter. It's a 2026-2027 project, which can be akin to an "option" from an investor's perspective: more about cost and process in the short term, and opening up a whole new addressable opportunity in the long term.

First step into the US: why it's not PR, but a game changer in the economics of business

The fact that Nu has received conditional approval to set up a US national bank is qualitatively in a different league to "we've launched an app in the US". It is a ticket into a system where the most expensive and important things in banking are decided: the cost of funding, the breadth of products and the trust of the regulator. Nu self-describes that it is now entering the organizational phase and needs additional steps/approvals in parallel; at the same time, the regulatory framework typically requires full capitalization within 12 months and opening of the bank within 18 months if conditions are met.

For the investor, the bottom line is that the US banking license is not "one more country". It is a market where high margins, huge volumes of deposits and loans are at stake, as well as fee income that is often comfortable and stable for traditional banks. Nu enters this with a digital model that has already proven it can scale: the firm has 127 million clients in Brazil, Mexico and Colombia and has shown record profitability in 2025 (e.g. ROE of 31% in Q3). That's no guarantee of success in the U.S., but it's proof that Nu is not a "small fintech" that's just finding product-market fit.

How exactly it is putting pressure on US banks: five places where margins are breaking

The pressure that Nu can create is not about taking JPMorgan's $JPM million clients tomorrow. It's about forcing banks to react in segments where the economics are sensitive to price, fees and simplicity.

1) Fees and "silent" sources of profit (overdraft and co.)

U.S. banks have long collected significant sums from various fees. But regulation and public pressure are escalating: for example, the CFPB has worked with a framework of savings of up to ~$5 billion per year for consumers in capping overdrafts. The digital challenger has one advantage: it can position the offering as "transparent and cheaper" and thus force banks to discount or change fee structures. Even if Nu doesn't get a giant share, it just needs to impair banks' ability to monetize marginal fees - that goes directly to margins.

2) Deposit: the cheapest fuel for banks

The moment a digital player gets a banking license, it can theoretically enhance its ability to collect deposits and fund loan growth more cheaply (and thus compete on price). Well it can already do this at LatAm: in Q3 2025 it reported deposits of ~$38.8bn with a loan book of ~$30.4bn. In the US, the battle for deposits is tougher, but the principle is the same: whoever can attract stable deposits cheaply has a better economy.

3) Credit cards and consumer credit: the market is huge and expensive

US credit card interest rates are high - for example, the FRED shows around 20.97% (November 2025) for commercial bank credit cards. This creates space for a player that can offer a "fairer" alternative, or at least a better user experience, through data, scoring and product design. Either doesn't have to be the cheapest to take share. It just needs to be faster, friendlier and less fee-based - and banks need to respond with promotions, benefits and margin discounts.

4) Cost structure: digital model = different acquisition economics

Much of the traditional banking economy relies on branches, legacy IT and complex processes. Nu has a chance to push banks by offering a "mobile bank" with lower customer service costs and faster product iteration. This is exactly the type of pressure that will manifest itself in the US not as "Nu wins" but as "banks need to invest more in digital", which will push their efficiency in the short term.

5) Simple product bundle: attacking segments where banks live off complexity

In practice, share is best taken where the customer is frustrated: complex fee schedules, fees, slow processes, uncertainty. Nu can start in segments that don't need heavy infrastructure and where onboarding (adoption) and trust make the difference: account, card, simple credit, personal finance management. Banks are then faced with an unpleasant choice: either they discount and simplify (lower yield per customer) or they cede part of the market to challengers.

Where Nu can realistically take a share in the U.S.

The most likely places where Nu can "take a bite" in the US are not the wealthiest segments from day one. They are segments where there is high volume, high frustration and relatively low barriers to entry:

• Mobile mainstream banking for mass retail (emphasis on simplicity, transparency, fast onboarding).

• Cards and short-term credit for fee and UX sensitive clients (especially when interest rates on cards are high).

• LatAm diaspora and cross-border needs (if Nu builds on what it can do in LatAm - there is a logical synergy here, though market impact will depend on the product).

• Gradual upsell into a broader product set as the bank gains trust and data (this is the model Nu has demonstrated in LatAm by scaling to tens of millions of clients).

LatAm wind in the sails: the infrastructure for digital finance is growing fast

Nu is benefiting from the fact that Latin America is still in a phase of rapid digitization of financial services. In Brazil, this is helped by the Pix instant payments system, which is estimated to process up to half of e-commerce transactions by 2028 and may already be heading for a ~45% share by the end of 2026. This is pushing the market towards digital behaviour and lowering the barriers for Nu-type players.

At the same time, the "infrastructure" layer around banks and fintechs is also growing: for example, open banking in LatAm is estimated to grow at a high rate (a CAGR of ~28.8% for 2025-2030 is cited). For Nu, this means better opportunities for client acquisition, data-driven scoring and product expansion.

And competition is sharpening: global fintechs are going to Mexico and the region is becoming increasingly attractive. For Nu, this is both an acknowledgement of the opportunity and a reminder that staying ahead will be about execution, not story.

What to watch in Q4?

To ensure that the preview doesn't just become a "customer count" debate, it's useful to have a simple dashboard:

• Net customer additions and growth rates outside Brazil (Mexico, Colombia).

• Net interest income (NII) and NIM: in Q3 NIM was 17.3%, but more important is risk-adjusted NIM ( 9.9% in Q3) as it filters out credit risk.

• Credit quality: short delinquencies (15-90 days) and 90+; in Brazil in Q3 15-90 NPLs 4.2% and 90+ 6.8% (seasonality).

• Deposits vs. loans (funding stability): in Q3, deposits USD 38.8 billion, credit portfolio USD 30.4 billion.

• ROE and efficiency: in Q3 ROE 31%; question is whether Q4 will confirm that scale still adds profit.

Risks that can spoil the "coming for US" story

• The biggest risk is the credit cycle. The more the firm moves from "prime" clientele to the broader masses, the more the market will question whether credit growth will bring a worsening of delinquencies.

• The second risk is regulation: a U.S. bank charter is potentially a big plus, but regulatory processes are slow and costly, and may bring capital requirements that reduce flexibility in the short term.

• The third risk is competition in Mexico and the broader LatAm. The region is attractive and more players are coming. This can increase client acquisition costs and reduce margins over time if the market gets into a promotional war.

Investment scenarios 2026-2028

Optimistic scenario: scale + expansion + stable credit

Nu maintains high ROE near 2025 levels, Mexico and Colombia grow without significant credit deterioration, and the US bank project progresses as planned. In this scenario, the market may gradually shift valuations towards a "quality digital bank" rather than a pure fintech. Consensus earnings per share expectations for the next few years (e.g. Zacks) suggest continued growth, which could be significantly outperformed in the optimistic scenario.

Realistic scenario: solid growth but with margin pressure and more regulation

Customer growth will slow as the business is already huge, but there will be revenue per client growth. NIM will remain volatile but risk-adjusted NIM will hold quality. US bank charters will progress but costs and regulatory requirements will temporarily reduce momentum. The stock rises in this scenario mainly as the firm "works off" results and the market gradually trusts it more.

Pessimistic scenario: credit deterioration + competitive pressure

Credit quality will deteriorate faster than expected, especially with credit expansion outside Brazil. Competition in Mexico will increase acquisition costs and margins will tighten. US bank project will be slower and more expensive. In this scenario, the market will knock down the growth premium and start looking more at the risk of losses than the potential for expansion.

What to take away from the article

• Q4 (Feb 25, 2026) is a short-term catalyst: the market will be watching to see if high profitability and credit quality are maintained; EPS expectations are around $0.18.

• Nu already has the parameters of a "big player": 127m customers, Q3 profit of 783m. USD 787 and ROE of 31% set a high bar.

• The biggest long-term shift is the US bank charter - not as an immediate revenue growth, but as an opportunity to change the economics of financing and open up a new market.

• LatAm digitization and Pix are shifting market behavior toward digital payments and banking, which supports the long-term environment for growth.

Recent years have brought significant performance divergence to global markets. While the US S&P 500 index continued to be heavily driven by a narrow group of technology giants, previously less-tracked markets in Europe have surprisingly begun to dominate due to their specific sector composition and macroeconomic environment. One of the most notable examples is Poland's WIG20 index, which has managed to outperform its US counterpart in the form of the S&P 500 several times since the beginning of 2025.

This development is not due to chance or short-term speculation. According to data from the Warsaw Stock Exchange and our team's analyses, growth was driven by a combination of several structural factors:

• the strong performance of the banking sector,

• the recovery of the energy sector,

• the inflow of foreign capital into the CEE region

• and the relatively low starting valuations at which Polish equities were positioned after the weaker 2021-2023 period.

Meanwhile, the WIG20 index, which brings together the largest and most liquid companies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, is sectorally distinct from the US S&P 500. While the US index is heavily concentrated in technology and communication services, the Polish index is dominated by banks, energy, mining companies and traditional industries. It is this different structure that has proved to be a key advantage in the environment of higher interest rates and capital rotation, which has become increasingly evident in the markets this year.

As a result, the WIG20 has significantly outperformed the S&P 500 by several times since the beginning of 2025. Over this time, the Polish index has risen by 55.2%, while the S&P 500 has gained "only" 13.3%.

Investors, who have been used to following mainly the US megacaps, especially this year, are once again turning their attention to regions that have long remained outside the mainstream of capital.

It is important to add, however, that the strong performance of the index is not due to an across-the-board rise in all its components. On the contrary, as with most markets, the scissors between winners and losers are beginning to open up significantly. Some WIG20 titles have risen sharply this year, dragging the index higher, while others remain under pressure from weaker demand, regulatory risks or structural problems in their sectors.

Index analysis

The strong growth of Poland's WIG20 index since the start of 2025 is consistent with a textbook example of regional capital rotation in an environment of higher interest rates and slowing US technology sector growth. While the US market remains heavily concentrated in tech megacaps with high CapEx investments and sensitivity to discount rates, the WIG20 is structured very differently. The index has a significantly higher weighting to banks, energy and the traditional economy, segments that have historically outperformed technology at the very stage that global markets are now in.

From a macroeconomic perspective, Poland is helped by a combination of several factors. The domestic economy remains relatively resilient within Central Europe, inflation is gradually declining from the extremes of previous years and interest rates are still at levels that support bank profitability. According to data from Narodowy Bank Polski, the banking sector's net interest margins remain above the long-term average, which translates directly into profits and dividend potential. At the same time, the financial sector has a much higher weight in the WIG20 than in the S&P 500.

The European context also plays an important role. After several years in which global capital flowed almost exclusively to the US, some investors are beginning to reassess valuations between regions. European stocks, including Polish ones, were entering 2025 at significantly lower multiples than US technology titles. As the market's sensitivity to free cash flow and return on capital increased, cheaper value segments naturally began to gain a relative advantage. The WIG20 is structurally much better prepared for this type of rotation than the tech-heavy US index.

The biggest winners in the WIG20 (as of early 2025)

Index growth has been driven by a relatively narrow group of titles, primarily in the banking and energy segments. The three strongest stocks were:

• PKO Bank Polski $PKO.WA (+55%)

• Bank Pekao $PEO.WA (+70%)

• Orlen $PKN.WA (+129%)

These companies are united by high profitability, robust cash flow and relatively low initial valuations. Thus, exactly what the market is rewarding at the current stage of the cycle.

Biggest declines in the index (over the past 12 months)

At the other end of the spectrum are titles more sensitive to consumer demand and the industrial cycle. Equities have seen the largest declines:

• Allegro $ALE.WA (-5.18%)

• Dino Poland $DNP.WA (-14.7%)

• Zabka Group (-3.3%)

It is this dispersion in performance that confirms that the current WIG20 rally is not across the board, but selective and strongly tied to the macro environment.

Stock Heatmap - WIG20 (1Y)

Although the performance of the WIG20 looks very compelling at first glance, it is no guarantee of future returns. In fact, the history of regional rallies has repeatedly shown that this is how indexes can be highly sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic environment. Current growth is largely based on high bank profitability, strong energy sector cash flow and relatively low initial valuations. Should any of these pillars begin to erode, index dynamics could change quickly.

Risks

The first key risk is the trajectory of interest rates in Poland and the euro area. The banking sector, which forms the backbone of the WIG20, is currently benefiting from above-average net interest margins. However, should central banks move towards more aggressive monetary easing (which is gradually but so far slowly happening), there may be gradual pressure on bank profitability. In the past, it has just been shown that falling rates are reflected in bank titles with some delay, but all the more pronounced.

The second factor is the cyclicality of the energy segment. Oil and traditional energy-linked companies have significantly improved their capital discipline and free cash flow profile in recent years, which has helped them to reprice their valuations. However, the sector remains sensitive to commodity price movements and global demand. A potential slowdown in the European economy or a decline in oil prices would impact the performance of the WIG20 more quickly than more diversified indices.

The nature of the Polish market itself is an equally important risk. The WIG20 is a highly concentrated index with a relatively small number of dominant titles. This means that performance is more dependent on a few key players than, for example, the broad S&P 500. While higher concentration helps to drive significant growth in periods like this year, it also increases volatility when sentiment changes.

Other developments

From an investment perspective, the key question now is whether we are seeing the beginning of a longer-term structural repricing of the region, or rather a classic intermediate phase of capital rotation. The data so far tends to suggest the latter. While the fundamentals of Polish banks and the energy sector are currently strong, much of the positive surprise has already been reflected in share prices. The valuation discount to the US, while still not completely closed, has narrowed significantly relative to 2023.

Thus, the current environment resembles a phase where the market is transitioning from a rotation between sectors to a much more selective approach. As long as the global situation remains stable and rates fall only gradually, the WIG20's relative strength can be maintained for some time to come. However, should strong momentum return to technology stocks in the US or rates fall more rapidly in Europe, historical data suggest that some of the current growth could be gradually lost.

EU interest rates from 2026 (%)

Conclusion

The further development of the Polish index in the coming quarters will depend mainly on several variables that have a direct impact on its sectoral composition. The first and quite crucial one is the development of interest rates in Poland and the euro area. If the monetary easing process is gradual, the banking sector may maintain above-average profitability for longer, which would provide further support to the index. Conversely, a more rapid decline in rates would start to gradually squeeze net interest margins and thus one of the main drivers of current growth. Investors should therefore monitor central bank comments, inflation developments in Central Europe and the first signs of a change in credit dynamics very closely.

The second key area is energy and the evolution of the commodity cycle. The WIG20 is more sensitive to this factor than most Western European indices. If oil prices and mining company margins remain relatively stable and global demand does not weaken, the energy segment may continue to support the index's gains. Otherwise, weakness would manifest itself relatively quickly. The third factor is the flow of global capital itself. In recent quarters, the WIG20 has been helped in part by the fact that some investors have started to look for cheaper stocks outside the mainstream again after years of US dominance. However, if the US tech euphoria were to kick back into full swing, or if US bond yields were to fall significantly, some capital may return.

The current phase is very unlikely to represent the classic start of a long structural bull market. This does not mean that the rally must end immediately, but it does increase the sensitivity of the index to changes in surrounding conditions. History shows that similar phases can continue for some time if bank profits remain high, energy remains stable and global liquidity remains relatively benign. At the same time, however, the longer intense growth lasts, the more the bar for further positive surprises is raised.

It thus becomes crucial for investors to monitor not only the absolute growth of the index, but more importantly the quality of its drivers and the environment that supports them.

On Monday IBM experienced its worst session in more than 25 years, with the stock falling about 13% — the market apparently reacted to reports that Anthropic, with its tool Claude Code, can significantly accelerate COBOL modernization. And COBOL is precisely one of the reasons why a large number of banks, insurers, and government bodies still rely on IBM mainframes. Investors read it simply: if the “rewriting” of old systems becomes cheaper and faster, it could, over time, weaken one of IBM’s traditional pillars.

What I find important about this is the broader context. This isn’t just a single headline about COBOL. By February IBM was already down roughly 27%, and the entire “legacy” technology spectrum takes a hit whenever someone shows a new AI tool that makes cheaper the work that historically supported consulting budgets, licenses, or long projects. The counterargument is also strong: customers have had various ways to migrate off mainframes for years, and just as often they stay, because reliability, security, and the risk of change are more costly to them than the hardware or licenses themselves.

The bigger issue is the story Novo has been selling. Wegovy made the company a leader, but investors were looking for proof that the next wave would keep Novo ahead as Lilly gains momentum. CagriSema was supposed to be one of the clearest pieces of evidence. When the competitor looks better in a key study, the market treats it as a signal about the future line-up, not just one disappointing data point.

What the study showed and why the difference is painful even without the "catastrophic" numbers

$NVO described in its official announcement that when evaluated "under ideal conditions" (when all patients adhere to treatment), CagriSema achieved a 23.0% weight loss after 84 weeks, while tirzepatide achieved a 25.5% weight loss. In the second evaluation, which takes more account of reality (including the fact that some people do not complete the treatment or do not follow it exactly), CagriSema came out at 20.2% and tirzepatide at 23.6%.

On paper, this may not look like a gap. It's just that in practice, it's a difference that can make the difference in what doctors will prefer and what care payers will be willing to reimburse without undue restrictions. Moreover, the market for obesity drugs is rapidly professionalizing: gradually, there is less forgiveness for "second-best" products unless they have a clear advantage elsewhere - perhaps in tolerance, dosing, availability, or price. And a number of analysts are now saying that as it stands, it's hard to find a reason why a patient would get CagriSem instead of tirzepathide if both are on the market.

Another important detail that has investors worried is the reputational moment: some analysts mention that it's unusual to hear management essentially admit that a competitor came out better in a study Novo sponsored and designed. To the market, it's a signal that while the company may push CagriSema to approval, the commercial story will be tougher - and that will be recalculated in the valuation faster than the regulatory decision itself.

Why the stock's reaction is so extreme: it's a valuation built on an "obesity option"

This slump isn't just about one study, it's about how Novo has been priced in recent years. Reuters describes how, after Monday's sell-off, the stock erased the gains of the era when Wegovy made Novo an investment star, and the title has fallen to levels where it last was before the "Wegovy era." From the market's perspective, this means one thing: investors have taken a haircut because they're not sure Novo can maintain the same momentum in the next product cycle.

When a company is priced as a clear market winner, "just" slightly worse data is enough and valuations can collapse quickly. That's because the market isn't just deciding whether CagriSema will pass approval, but whether it will be able to take share from competitors - and whether Novo can once again dictate terms in a segment where huge money is rolling in and where volumes, production capacity, reimbursement and marketing pressure will decide the next few years.

That's why the question of strategy comes to the fore: if Novo doesn't have the most effective next-generation product, it will have to fight harder with other tools - price, availability, combinations, form of delivery - while trying to piece together further growth outside of a direct battle with Lilly "on strength".

What this means for the $LLYfight and why the acquisition plan is starting to be addressed

After this data, analysts are much more confident in saying that Zepbound is now the clear leader and Lilly has room to continue to gain share in the coming years. J.P. Morgan, for example, expects a longer "runway" for Zepbound's share growth beyond 2026, and several banking houses agree that it will be hard for Novo to erode Lilly's market position unless it has a clearer advantage.

The second part of the story is psychological: investors will start putting more pressure on management to show it has a Plan B. And here comes the topic of acquisitions. Jefferies mentions that investor attention may shift to how Novo will handle its financial strength, with estimates suggesting the potential to spend as much as $35 billion this year. An important detail is that some investors would prefer to buy beyond obesity and diabetes to "buy time" for the company and reduce dependence on one battleground.

This is not an academic debate. If the market for obesity drugs were to gradually move towards maximum efficacy (and for that matter availability and reimbursement) being the primary deciding factor, the second strongest player may be pushed into price concessions in the long run. And in such a scenario, even a very good product may become "commercially weaker" because it will be harder to sell or sell at a smaller margin.

Risks and what to watch next

The biggest risk is that CagriSema, while approvable, will enter the market with a "weaker than leader" label. This is exactly the situation where commercial success breaks down to whether the product either has a clear advantage in tolerance or can make a case for itself on price and availability. Barclays, for example, admits that CagriSema may be approved, but warns that winning users will be difficult against a more efficient established competitor, and Novo is then left with few arguments other than price.

At the same time, it remains to be seen how Novo communicates the next steps in its clinical programme: the firm is already hinting that it wants to keep looking at the "full potential" of CagriSema and explore higher doses. The market will want to see whether the gap to tirzepatide can realistically be made up - and more importantly, whether it can be done without compromising tolerability.

One last thing: whether an acquisition strategy will really take off and how quickly. If investors believe Novo can find other growth pillars, some of the damage to confidence may be healed. But if weeks go by with no clear moves, while Lilly continues to push the lead, the stock may remain vulnerable to every other clinical number.

Earnings expectations and valuation pressures weigh heavily

Part of the pressure on CRWD and PANW stems from the interplay between lofty market expectations and tightening financial conditions. Both companies have enjoyed premium valuations in recent years, driven by strong subscription revenue growth and the secular tailwinds of rising digital threats. However, as interest rates remain elevated compared to earlier years and tech multiples contract, investors are demanding greater near-term certainty in revenue and margin execution. When forecasts or guidance wobble even slightly valuation multiples can compress quickly, which is precisely what we saw today in the pullbacks.

CrowdStrike’s growth story collides with execution scrutiny

CrowdStrike’s reputation as a market leader in cloud-native endpoint security has been a cornerstone of its premium stock valuation. The company has consistently delivered strong growth in subscription services, and its platform has expanded into identity protection, workload security, and extended detection and response (XDR). Yet, today’s price action reflects a broader risk environment where weak macro signals or even modest deceleration in billings can trigger disproportionate reactions. Investors are increasingly differentiating between companies that can sustain expansion through economic cycles and those whose growth could slow if corporate IT budgets tighten.

Palo Alto Networks battles cloud transition costs and competition

Palo Alto Networks has been navigating its own transition from traditional firewall hardware toward software-defined security and cloud-centric solutions. This shift is critical for long-term competitiveness but also introduces near-term cost pressures as the company invests heavily in R&D, sales capacity, and integration of recent acquisitions. The market reaction today suggests that investors are scrutinizing the pace at which these strategic shifts convert into free cash flow and long-term margin expansion. With crowded competition from both pure-play cloud security startups and established enterprise vendors, any softness in financial outlook can amplify downside risk in the stock.

Macro headwinds amplify sector-wide vulnerability

The cybersecurity sector does not exist in a vacuum. Broader market conditions including rising yields, inflation data, and global economic uncertainty have made growth stocks more sensitive to shifts in sentiment. When economic indicators signal slowing growth or tighter financial conditions, sectors with the highest expected growth rates often register the largest drawdowns. Today’s traders appear to be rebalancing portfolios toward low-beta and defensive assets, reducing exposure to stocks like $CRWD and $PANW that have historically outperformed in risk-on environments.

Investor psychology: from fear of missing out to fear of loss

Investor psychology plays a significant role in episodes like today’s sell-off. During periods of strong momentum, buyers can develop a fear of missing out (FOMO), bidding stocks up on a nearly unquestioned belief in future growth. Conversely, when cracks appear in earnings forecasts or macro signals sour, the market can swing to a fear-of-loss mindset, where selling accelerates as traders seek to lock in gains or cut exposure. This behavioral flip-flop is especially acute in sectors like cybersecurity where valuations reflect long-term growth assumptions.

Technical patterns signal caution and possible support levels

From a technical perspective, both CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks stocks were trading at historically stretched valuation multiples relative to moving averages, and today’s break below key support levels may have triggered additional selling from systematic strategies and trend-following algorithms. While such technical breakdowns don’t determine fundamental value, they can exacerbate intraday moves as stop orders and automated trading amplify selling pressure. Traders watching these patterns closely will be looking for potential support near prior consolidation zones as possible entry points.

Looking ahead: differentiation and execution will matter most

Despite today’s volatility, the long-term secular demand for cybersecurity solutions remains intact as digital transformation and cyber threat activity continue to accelerate across sectors. For investors evaluating $CRWD, $PANW , and peers, the key focus will be on quarterly execution, customer retention metrics, progress in cloud migration, and margin discipline. Stocks in this sector are likely to remain sensitive to macro shifts and relative valuation trends, but companies that continue to demonstrate resilient growth and effective capital allocation should attract renewed interest once sentiment stabilizes. In the interim, tracking earnings calls, guidance revisions, and competitive product adoption will be crucial for assessing risk/reward dynamics in cybersecurity equities.

- Bollinger Bands are a technical indicator that measures volatility and the relative “expensiveness” of a price compared to its average. They’re mainly used to estimate whether the market is short-term overbought, oversold, or preparing for a larger move.

They also mention that in the short term large growth names – mega-caps and growth ETFs – can make sense: they’ve pulled back to the rising 200-day moving average and are holding support there for now, which some view as a “decent entry.” On the other hand, they warn about one weakness: software – if this part of the market doesn’t convincingly recover from the recent wobble, it could drag the entire index down.

Are you currently in “buy-the-dip” mode (mega-cap/growth), or do you prefer to wait for confirmation of a breakout above 7,000 – or perhaps for a fake-out and a better price?

For investors, the key point is that ASML is not describing a lab demo. The company says the system can deliver 1,000 watts of EUV light power under conditions that match real customer use. If that holds in the field, it can lower the cost per chip at the most advanced nodes. It also helps ASML defend its lead at a moment when new competitors in the US are trying to catch up and China is pushing hard to build its own capabilities.

What ASML actually announced: 1,000 W instead of 500-600 W

The crux of the news is simple and hard to measure: ASML researchers have raised the EUV power of the light source to 1,000 watts from roughly 600 watts today. In lithography, this is not a detail - higher power means shorter "illumination" time on the wafer, i.e. faster production rates with the same quality requirements.

Meanwhile, ASML is still the only company in the world that supplies commercial extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines - a technology that the most advanced computing chips from companies like TSMC $TSM or Intel $INTC cannot do without.

Why source performance matters: speed, cost and factory capacity

In practice, the economics of all semiconductor manufacturing are at stake. When one key step (illumination) is made faster, the number of wafers a machine can handle per hour goes up. ASML directly mentions the target that customers should get to about 330 wafers per hour by the end of the decade, compared to about 220 wafers per hour today.

This then translates into the price of each chip: the same factory can produce more, and with no need to add as many expensive machines, the unit cost goes down. For advanced processes, where the investment in equipment is extreme, such a change is one of the few levers that can move costs down visibly.

How it technically works: tin, laser and "plasma"

ASML $ASML produces EUV light in a way that is itself technologically frontier. Tiny droplets of molten tin are fired in a chamber, which are then hit by a powerful laser, turning the tin into an extremely hot state (plasma) and emitting EUV light with a wavelength of 13.5 nanometers in the process. This is then collected through high-tech optics and fed into a machine where it "draws" structures onto the wafer.

The specific shift to 1,000 watts is to be based on two changes: ASML has increased the number of tin droplets to about 100,000 per second, and instead of one "shaping" laser pulse, it uses two smaller pulses to better prepare the material for the main hit. The result is higher stable power and a path to further scaling.

Why it's news for the competition, too: The US and China are pushing for the emergence of alternatives

EUV machines are so strategic that there has been a geopolitical battle around them for years. The U.S. has long pressured the Netherlands not to ship the most advanced systems to China - and China has simultaneously invested massively in domestic attempts to build an alternative.

What's new is that alongside Chinese ambitions, a US effort to create competition directly at a critical part of the system - the EUV light source - is beginning to take shape. Reuters mentions at least two startups working on this that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, direct government support is also visible: xLight, for example, has announced a "letter of intent" type agreement with the US Department of Commerce for up to $150 million in support to develop an alternative approach to the EUV source.

ASML's message with this shift is simple: even if someone once builds a competitive "foundation", ASML wants to be several iterations ahead. And the company itself says it already sees a realistic path to 1 ,500 watts and beyond in principle, in addition to 1,000 watts.

What this may mean for ASML's results: demand, pricing and the investment cycle

In the short term, there is no immediate jump in sales from this. Rather, it is a strengthening of the "product roadmap" and an argument for customers to plan EUV capacity going forward. In the ASML business, several effects play a role at once: when throughput (wafers per hour) goes up, customers can get some of the capacity "cheaper" on the same basis, but it also makes EUV even more attractive for a wider range of production - and that can support long-term demand for additional systems and upgrades.

Context is also important: China has in recent months been trying to increase performance even on older machines, as EUV technology is virtually unavailable to it due to constraints. This shows two things - how huge the motivation to catch up with the top is, and also how strong ASML's position is at the most advanced nodes.

What to watch next: 3 specific signals

• First, when and in what form ASML will start to take the 1,000-watt resource from internal demonstration to real installations, and how it will talk about stability and availability of power "at the customer".

• Second, whether expectations around EUV system throughput (target of 330 wafers per hour) will start to change in the specific production plans of the big foundry players.

• Third, how quickly the US pursuit of alternatives (xLight and others) will move and whether additional public funding or partnerships with large players will be added.

The next growth wave may come from a place that is steady rather than trendy. If security and defense spending rises, satellite data is often pulled into multi-year programs and repeat contracts. The company reported roughly $672 million of contracted commitments that have not been billed yet, which shifts the key question to execution: how quickly signed work turns into revenue.

Top points of the analysis

• Gross margin around 58.9%, but operating margin still negative.

• Revenue for the fiscal year was $244.4 million. USD 244m and +10.7% year-on-year.

• Unbilled Accounts Payable (AOP) at end of Q3 FY2026 approx. 672mn. USD 672 million and significantly higher y-o-y.

• Annual Contract Recurring Value (ACV) at Q3 FY2026 97% and a large proportion of contracts are annual and multi-year.

• Cash and short-term investments at the end of Q3 FY2026 approx. 677mn. USD.

• Largest contract in history: $230 million. USD 230 million for Pelican high-detail satellites (deliveries from 2026).

Company introduction

Planet Labs $PL is a company that makes money by taking pictures of the Earth from orbit and delivering data and analysis from those pictures to customers. Its revenue model is primarily based on subscriptions and long-term contracts - customers typically pay not for "one photo" but for access to regular updates of the area of interest, plus additional services (such as automatic change detection).

At the core is a combination of two worlds. The first is "wide coverage" - frequent imaging of large areas, which is useful for tracking changes over time. The second is "higher detail"(Pelican), which targets cases where finer detail needs to be seen and where budgets are significantly higher, typically with government and security customers.

Customers are a mix of public sector (security, mapping, crisis management) and commercial companies (agriculture, energy, insurance, logistics). Repeatability of revenue arises because once a customer plugs satellite data into their processes, they begin to use it repeatedly, and leaving means not only changing vendors, but also reconfiguring internal processes and data flows. An indication of a more stable model is that the company itself reports a high proportion of repeat contracts.

Business and products

Planet Labs' key competitive advantage is a combination of frequency and scaling. For many customers, the most important thing is not to have the sharpest single snapshot on the market, but to be sure that the site is updated regularly and that the system can evaluate changes automatically. This creates scope for 'pricing power' (the ability to increase price) as the company is not just selling a raw snapshot but access to continuous monitoring.

The second layer is the shift from "data" to "solutions". The more a firm sells specific results (e.g., change detection, alerts, infrastructure monitoring), the easier it is to justify the price and the more likely it is to get to better profitability. This is important because the main weakness today is still the high level of operating costs versus revenue.

The third layer is strategic: the contract for Pelican's highly detailed satellites shows that the company can not only deliver data for the customer, but also "build capacity to fit". For government clients, this addresses the sensitive issue of data control and access - and this is where the biggest budgets are often opened up.

Core business in numbers

Planet Labs is based on a simple principle: having a big "data factory" in orbit that can regularly cover the same ground and make the data a usable output. The basis is PlanetScope, which is medium-detail imaging with very frequent refreshes. Planet directly states that already in 2017 their "Dove" fleet has achieved virtually daily land coverage, which is exactly the feature that makes them a tool for tracking changes over time, not just "photo for photo's sake".

The other leg is high resolution and targeted imagery, where the customer demands a specific location and a specific time. For high-resolution, Planet describes the SkySat constellation as a fleet of 15 satellites that can rephotograph a given location repeatedly, even several times a day, for more precise "tasking" scenarios. This is especially important in security and infrastructure applications where detail and speed are often needed, not just wide coverage.

The third layer, which is most important to the investment story, is the move into the next generation of high resolution Pelican. The company has already struck a $230 million commercial deal to build out Pelican's capacity, and in doing so has strengthened its "mix" towards larger contracts and more expensive orders. In presentations and press releases, Pelican is associated with the goal of reducing data delivery times and moving the service closer to real "operational" use.

Translating this into money, in the last closed fiscal year (FY25) the company made about $244 million, while showing that the business is no longer unilaterally dependent on one type of customer. According to their presentation, in FY25, defence and intelligence accounted for 48% of revenue, civil government 29% and commerce 23%. Geographically, it was 49% North America, 29% Europe, Middle East and Africa, 17% Asia Pacific and 5% Latin America. This is a good insurance against the failure of one region to "knock down" the whole story.

And now the main thing to talk about the company at all: in fiscal Q3 2026 (December 2025 report) Planet reported record quarterly revenues of $81.3 million, up +33% year-over-year. But even more important is the growth in contracted work ahead: an RPO (contracted forward commitments) of $672 million, +361% y/y, and a backlog of $734 million, +216%. These are exactly the type of "hard" numbers that can change the perception of a company from a story to a business with visibility.

Market and addressable potential

The market for satellite data is growing mainly because of the increasing number of applications in practice: security situations, more frequent natural extremes, pressure on infrastructure monitoring, and the advent of automation that can process data cheaper and faster than before. The key point is that satellite data is not a "pretty picture" but a decision-making tool - and this is attracting both states and big business.

The addressable potential is huge but uneven. The fastest opening budgets are usually in the public sector, where security, defence and territorial surveillance are addressed. On the commercial side, it is more about whether a company can translate its products into clear savings or customer returns (e.g. faster damage detection, better harvest planning, control of illegal mining).

In the context of catalysts, the argument of a possible significant increase in the US defence budget in the coming years, which could lift the demand for satellite data and contracts, also appears in investment theses. But this is a scenario, not a certainty - the important thing to watch is whether this translates into real orders and growth in contracted work.

Competition and market position

Competition is fierce and comes from three directions. First are the traditional players with highly detailed imagery and a strong position with government clients (typically Maxar). The second direction is newer companies trying to break through with speed of delivery and connections to security applications (such as BlackSky). The third direction is European competition and government programs, where Airbus Defence and Space $AIR.PA has a significant position, as well as publicly available data from programs like Copernicus, which is pushing up prices in some segments.

Planet Labs has two strong cards to play against the competition: the regularity of large-scale imagery and the ability to deliver "monitoring over time". There it often wins without having the absolute sharpest image. Conversely, it can lose where maximum detail is critical and where the customer is buying the "best image on the market" regardless of price.

From an investment perspective, the key is whether the company can increase the proportion of higher value-added contracts (solutions and analytics) while maintaining its technological edge in the new generation of satellites. If not, competition may push it into the role of a cheaper data supplier, which would worsen the path to profitability.

Management and CEO

The CEO is Will Marshall, the company's co-founder. The company presents him as a leader with a strong technical background and experience in space mission-related projects. Prior to Planet Labs, Will was a NASA/USRA scientist where he was a systems engineer on the Lunar Orbiter "LADEE" mission, a member of the science team for the Lunar Impactor Mission "LCROSS", and served as a researcher on PhoneSat.

Importantly, from a capital discipline perspective, management has recently emphasized balance sheet strengthening and long-term contracts. On the other hand, the company has financed the move to a new generation of satellites despite convertible debt (debt that can be converted into equity under certain conditions), which may mean dilution in the future. The issuance of roughly $460 million in convertible debt boosted cash, but investors should understand the terms of the conversion and the risk that some of the value will "dissolve" over time into more shares.

Management's credibility today rests largely on whether it can translate contract growth into revenue while taming operating costs. Indeed, the company is already showing improving gross margins, but the pace of improvement in operating losses will be critical.

Financial performance

On the revenue front, we can see that the company is past the "steep rebound" phase and is moving into a quieter growth phase. The fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2022 brought in revenue of $131.2 million. USD 191.3 million a year later. USD 220.7 million, followed by USD 220.7 million in the second quarter of 2012. USD 244.4 million in FY2025. The problem is that at this level of sales, the company is still in a deep operating loss.

The positive signal is gross profit, which is growing faster than sales. Gross profit in FY2025 was $139.7 million. USD 113.0 million compared to USD 113.0 million in FY2020. FY2024's gross profit was USD 139.6 million, showing that unit economics (how much is left after direct costs) are improving. At the same time, the cost of sales fell year-on-year, which is exactly the type of "operating leverage" (when the business is growing but costs are not growing as fast) that investors want to see in this type of business.

The biggest drag is still the operating level. Operating expenses in FY2025 were $255.8 million. USD 250.5m, and although down year-on-year, the operating result remains -USD 116.1m. The net loss is - USD 123.2 million. Loss per share is USD -0.42 and loss per share is increasing (USD 292.1mn average in FY2025 vs. USD 279.6mn in FY2024). In other words, the company is improving gross margins, but has not yet "bitten" enough off the cost base while diluting investors with share count growth.

Cash flow and capital discipline

Here it is important to separate two things: cash from operations and cash from financing. The company reported a significantly higher cash position in FY2026 (Q3) of around $677m. This increases resilience and reduces the risk of having to issue new shares at inopportune times.

At the same time, we know that some of the balance sheet strengthening is coming through convertible bonds. That's a rational move at a time when the company doesn't want to sell shares cheaply, it's only fair to say that this just pushes the "cost of capital" into the future - and investors should keep an eye on the conditions under which dilution can occur.

Capital discipline in such a business relies on contract growth going hand in hand with operating costs growing more slowly than revenues. In practice, it is a good idea to monitor whether the business can turn longer contracts into more predictable revenues, while at the same time ensuring that the cost base is not rising due to new satellites and business expansion faster than what is "flowing in" in revenues.

Balance sheet and debt

From a survival risk perspective, the balance sheet is more of a positive story today: high cash and relatively low conventional credit debt. The biggest item on the debt side is convertible debt (0.50% by 2030), which has brought hundreds of millions of dollars of cash to the company, but could mean future dilution.

For a retail investor, a simple rule of thumb is essential: if growth stalls, a cash-rich company has time to adjust costs and survive the cycle. If the cash wasn't there, it would be left to issue shares at an inopportune moment. Today, it has the time and space.

The second thing is refinancing: with convertible bonds, the investor looks at whether the company is moving towards a point where it can finance itself from its own operations rather than the market. The closer it is to operational balance, the less risk there is that the debt will become a "trap".

Valuation

This is where the investment psyche breaks down. You can't yet measure a company on traditional P/E (price to earnings) ratios because it is in the red. Therefore, the market mainly uses P/S (price to earnings) and to a lesser extent EV/EBITDA (enterprise value to EBITDA). However, EBITDA is still negative, so the interpretation is limited here as well.

By the metrics, the valuation looks extreme: P/S ~29.9, P/B ~18, P/CF ~242. That in itself doesn't say "don't buy", but it does say one thing: the market is already paying the price for future success. To make the case, a company must demonstrate two things: (1) sustainable revenue growth and (2) a clear trajectory of loss improvement toward profit.

The meaning of this valuation only becomes apparent once the market is convinced that the contracts are long-term, repeatable, and will actually flow revenue at a good margin. This is where the increase in RPO and backlog helps - it is a "harder" indication of future revenues than mere promises.

Growth catalysts

1) "1.5 trillion"

The main macro thesis is built on the scenario that US defense spending could move to $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2027, and this could accelerate new contracts for satellite data and services in the second half of 2026. It is important to think of this as a potential accelerator, not a certainty. The real catalyst for action comes not from the headline in the budget article, but from the company starting to announce new multi-year contracts, higher contracted commitments and possibly raising its outlook.

Practically: if the security environment continues to tighten, the public sector typically buys two things - "coverage over time" (knowing what is changing) and "quick interpretation" (what it means). This plays into a model where data is sold continuously and where the customer pays for the ability to make decisions faster. The biggest impact on valuation would come when satellite monitoring becomes a routine item in budgets, not a one-off contract.

2) RPO as the toughest signal: the market values certainty, not promises

The strongest internal catalyst today is the rapid growth of RPOs (unbilled contracted commitments - work signed but not yet passed through the sales report). In Q3, the company reports RPO of 672 million. RPO of USD 672 million and +361% year-on-year. This is exactly the type of metric that can "spin" a story from growth speculation to growth with visibility, and this tends to be the point where the market sometimes tolerates higher valuations.

Quality of revenue: 97% of recurring annual contract value and 83% in annual and multi-year contracts. When an investor sees that a large portion of revenue is recurring and signed up front, they start to worry more about "how quickly margins will improve" than "if growth will come at all."

3) Pelican: moving to higher price levels and bigger budgets

The big concrete catalyst is the biggest contract in the company's history: $230m. US$230 million to build and deliver Pelican's capacity of highly detailed satellites for a long-term commercial partner in the Asia-Pacific region. This is important for two reasons:

1. It shows that the company can make a contract that in itself changes the size of future revenues.

2. it moves the company closer to a segment where it usually pays more for detail and services around operations.

In addition, Reuters described the follow-up context over SKY Perfect's investment in JSAT: the Japanese group is to invest around $230 million in the company's services and services. USD 230 billion in observation satellites in partnership with Planet Labs, leveraging the "Pelican model". This supports the thesis that Pelican is not a one-off episode, but could unlock other similar contracts.

4) "The market is growing" is not enough: what matters is which part of the market is growing faster

The problem with these companies tends to be that different studies give different broad definitions of the market. We therefore give three views:

• A conservative framework - "Earth observation" as a whole: Grand View Research puts the market at around $5.10 billion in 2024, with a projection to $7.24 billion by 2030 and growth of around 6.2% per year. This is a solid but not "explosive" rate.

• Middle frame - "satellite earth observation": Mordor Intelligence estimates a market size of US$4.30 billion in 2025 and US$6.29 billion in 2030, equivalent to around 7.9% per annum.

• Fast-growing framework - Earth observation small satellites: MarketsandMarkets reports the "earth observation small satellite" segment growing from USD 2.64 billion (2025) to USD 5.52 billion (2030), at a rate of 15.9% per annum. That's a pace that already makes sense as a "repricing story," as the fast-growing part of the market typically fetches a premium in multiples.

Risks

• Valuation risk: with a P/S around 30, all it takes is a minor disappointment in growth and multiples can shrink quickly.

• Execution risk: failure to launch satellites, Pelican delays, technical problems or lower data quality.

• Competition: players with the highest detail (Maxar), fast-growing security players (Blacksky), and government programs with cheap data can push up the price or slow growth.

• Concentration on the public sector: much of the "big money" is in government budgets, and these are changing in policy and priorities.

• Dilution: convertible debt may mean more shares in the future if converted.

Investment scenarios

Optimistic scenario

Contract growth is sustained, RPO continues to increase rapidly and Pelican starts to visibly add higher value-added revenues in 2026-2027. The company will maintain gross margins around today's levels, but more importantly tame operating costs so that the rate of cost growth is significantly lower than the rate of revenue growth. In this case, the operating loss will begin to shrink rapidly and the market will stop worrying about "losing today" and start pricing in "profitability tomorrow."

In numbers, this means, for example, a return to a significantly higher rate of revenue growth (e.g. 25-35% per annum) over several years and a gradual approach to operational balance. If a wave of procurement in the security segment actually comes into play, the multiple may stay high or even continue to grow, as investors typically pay for visibility and "locked-in" revenues at such companies. But this scenario requires that the growth in RPO and backlog is not a one-off blip, but the new normal.

A realistic scenario

The company will continue to grow, but at a more "medium pace". Contracts will gradually translate into revenue, Pelican will add a new source of growth, but it won't explode overnight. Gross margins will remain solid, but operating costs will fall more slowly, so the path to profit will be more gradual.

This is a scenario where the investment can work, but the return will be sensitive to what price the investor buys at. As long as the growth holds and the loss shrinks, even a high multiple can be sustained for some time. But if the market sees a slowdown or deterioration in cost discipline, a downward repricing may come, even if the company is not fundamentally "bad." For this reason, in a realistic scenario, it is crucial to watch the KPIs(key performance indicators) and take valuation as a major risk.

Negative scenario

RPO and backlog may look good, but conversion to revenue will be slower, some orders will be delayed, Pelican will hit delays, and at the same time costs (development, operations, sales) will rise. In such an environment, the company can continue to grow, but the loss won't shrink fast enough - and at today's valuation, that's a recipe for a hard revaluation.

In this scenario, the investor will see the "story" still sound good, but the stock will fall as the market starts to insist on concrete results: better operating margins, more stable cash flow, and a clear trajectory to profit. If at the same time there is more dilution (debt conversion or new issuance), the negative impact on price can be twofold: both because of lower multiples and higher share counts.

What to take away from the article

• Planet Labs has improving unit economics (gross margin around 59%) but still a high operating loss.

• The key shift is the growth in "locked-in" future revenues via RPO and backlog.

• Pelican and "bespoke" capacity orders can open up higher price levels and bigger budgets.

• Valuations are tight, so even a small slowdown in growth can mean a hard downward repricing.

• Convertible debt has boosted cash but carries the risk of future dilution.

• The entire investment thesis is that revenue and contract growth will outpace cost growth and the company will start to approach profitability.

• A retail investor's best defense is to track specific KPIs: RPO, backlog, margins, costs, and share count.

Cybersecurity has been one of the absolute stars of the technology market in recent years. The combination of increasing digitisation, the advent of cloud, remote working and the exponential growth of cyber threats has created an environment in which security software has seen above-average growth in both revenues and margins. According to Gartner 's long-term projections, global cybersecurity spending should continue to grow at double-digit rates in the coming years, which has long supported very high valuations for the sector as a whole.

However, 2025 and early 2026 have brought a significant change in sentiment. Investors have become much more sensitive to price-to-earnings ratios, especially in an environment of higher interest rates and increasing capital intensity in the technology ecosystem. The Software Companies Index has seen increased volatility, according to Goldman Sachs data, and many of the segment's former leaders have undergone and are still undergoing a correction of tens of percent from their highs. Yet, for some cybersecurity titles, revenue and earnings multiples are still above historical sector averages.

What scares investors today is the emergence of AI, which could replace the systems and products of these and other software companies. Another problem lies in the timing of expectations. The market today is in no doubt about the long-term demand for security solutions; it remains structurally strong. The question is whether the growth rates of individual companies can justify valuations that are still based on very optimistic scenarios for part of the sector. As Morgan Stanley's analysis points out, investors in 2026 are significantly more focused on free cash flow and the path to sustainable profitability, not just growth projections.

However, the largest and most prominent companies saw another hard wave of declines in their share prices late last week. Some of them approached their fair price, some still remain well above it. So are opportunities forming in this sector, or do the following companies have other reasons why their share prices should fall further?

CrowdStrike $CRWD

CrowdStrike has long been one of the most respected players in endpoint security and cloud-native cybersecurity. The company has built a strong position with its Falcon platform, which combines endpoint protection, threat intelligence and an ever-expanding suite of security modules. It is the ability to sell customers multiple modules within a single platform that is a key pillar of its growth strategy.

From a fundamental perspective, CrowdStrike continues to show very solid growth. Both revenue and ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue) are growing at double-digit rates and the company is gradually improving its operating leverage. According to recent management reports and our team's analysis, demand for cloud-native security solutions remains strong, especially from enterprise customers. Moreover, CrowdStrike generates positive free cash flow ($1.07 billion in 2024), which differentiates it from some of its smaller SaaS (Software as a Service) competitors.

But the problem starts with valuation. Even after a significant correction from all-time highs (the price is currently 31% below ATH), the stock has long traded on revenue multiples that remain above the broader software sector average. Thus, the market continues to price in a scenario in which CrowdStrike maintains a high growth rate for a number of years. At the same time, Goldman Sachs analysts point out that maturing SaaS firms typically experience a gradual normalization of growth and multiples once ARR exceeds a certain size. The Fair Price Index on Bulios confirms this reasoning. According to this index, which combines DCF valuation and relative valuation, $CRWD stock, even after its significant decline since the November 2025 peak, is 34.6% above its fair value.

Another factor is increasing competition. Endpoint security has become one of the most competitive segments of cybersecurity. In addition to traditional players, large platform companies and hyperscale and AI ecosystems are aggressively expanding here. This may put pressure on the company's pricing power and pace of new customer acquisition in the longer term. In addition, studies note that enterprise clients are increasingly consolidating security tools into broader platforms, which may favor the largest ecosystems.

What was behind Friday's nearly 8% drop in the stock?

Shares of CrowdStrike fell 7.28% on Friday, February 20, 2026 (closing at $388.60), primarily due to concerns about new competition in the artificial intelligence space. The main trigger was the debut of Anthropic's "Claude Code Security" tool, which can autonomously scan code and suggest vulnerability fixes. Investors worry that these AI tools could replace specialized security software from traditional players like CrowdStrike in the future.

But from an investment perspective, CrowdStrike remains a quality company with a very strong product and a healthy growth profile. The question, however, is not the quality of the business, but how much growth is already priced in. Should ARR rates gradually normalize over the next few years, which is historically common for SaaS companies, there may still be room for further multiple compression.

Currently, however, the $CRWD per share price has reached a very interesting point. The situation is discussed in detail in this status, where everything is clearly explained. You will also find reactions from the community and other investors.

SentinelOne $S

SentinelOne entered the market (in 2021) as one of the most ambitious challengers in the field of autonomous cybersecurity built on artificial intelligence. Its Singularity platform focuses primarily on endpoint protection, cloud security and automated threat detection without the need for human intervention. It is the emphasis on AI-powered protection that has been one of the main reasons why the company has earned very high valuations in the tech euphoria. But sobering times soon came.

In terms of business growth, SentinelOne continues to show solid revenue momentum, which our analyst team's consensus is that it remains above the average for the security software segment. At the same time, the company is gradually improving gross margins and working its way toward operating profitability. In fact, margins are still negative and the company continues to lose money as a result. It hasn't made a single dollar since going public. But management has repeatedly emphasized a focus on efficiency and cost control in recent quarters. But they are still a few years away from profitability.

The key problem, however, is structural: SentinelOne is still in a phase where full profitability is not firmly anchored. Unlike more mature players, free cash flow remains more volatile and the market is significantly more sensitive to this factor in a higher rate environment. So it is not surprising that a company that is not making a profit is being pushed lower by the market in the current situation when it is happening to giants like Microsoft $MSFT.

Another pressure is the competitive environment. Endpoint security and the XDR (Extended Detection and Response) segment are among the most crowded parts of cybersecurity. SentinelOne is competing here not only with pure security firms, but also with large platforms that can bundle security into a broader service offering. Analysis from Bulios' analyst team points out that consolidation of security tools among enterprise customers may favor players with a broader ecosystem and disadvantage players like SentinelOne with fewer products.

From a valuation perspective, while the stock has weakened significantly since the peak, even after the decline, the market is still pricing in a relatively optimistic long-term growth and margin improvement scenario. Should the path to sustainable profitability extend further and take longer than the market expects today, the stock may continue to fall.

According to the Fair Price Index on Bulios, stocks that can be acquired on the exchange today slightly below $13 are still trading above their intrinsic value, and by quite a bit. Their fair price is now calculated at $7.7.

SentinelOne thus remains a typical example of a company with a technologically strong product and an attractive long-term market, but at the same time with a valuation profile that is still sensitive to any disappointment in scaling pace and profitability. Investors thus need to be prepared for higher risk and much higher volatility in this stock.

Palo Alto Networks $PANW

Palo Alto Networks presents a significantly different profile within the cybersecurity sector than younger SaaS players. It is an established leader with a broad portfolio of products covering network security, cloud, SASE and XDR platforms. The company has undergone a strategic transformation in recent years towards moving to a proprietary platform and consolidating security tools, a trend increasingly favoured by large enterprises in recent years.

Fundamentally, Palo Alto Networks continues to show solid revenue growth, but the pace is gradually normalizing, which is natural for a company of this size ( $PANW s current market cap is $121 billion). In recent quarters, management has emphasized long-term contracts, broader platform adoption, and expanding the base of customers that use multiple products as part of the company's services. According to comments from Morgan Stanley analysts, it is this strategy that is helping the firm stabilize growth and margins in a slowing IT segment environment.

But this is where one of the key moments of the past year that has impacted the stock price has arisen. The market has reacted very sensitively to the change in business strategy towards larger product bundles and platform contracts, which dampen growth in some metrics (especially billings) in the short term, even though they can boost customer retention in the long term.

This change that management has undergone has shown how strained investor expectations are across the cybersecurity sector. Goldman Sachs analysis points out that for mature security firms, the market is increasingly focused on the quality of growth, not just the pace of it.

From a valuation perspective, while Palo Alto Networks is not as extremely overvalued as some rival firms, even here the stock trades at a premium to the broader software market. The market gives the firm a premium for its strong platform, high customer retention, and relatively advanced profitability. But the question remains whether this premium will remain fully sustainable in an environment where investors are more likely to penalize any slowdown in growth.

According to the Fair Price Index on Bulios, the stock is trading 10% above its fair value thanks to a decline since the peak, which has widened to 33% in recent weeks.

The risk for the next few years is primarily the continued consolidation of the market and the push by large AI-related cloud ecosystems to gradually expand their own security offerings.

Thus, Palo Alto Networks remains a quality and relatively more mature player in the sector, but even here, some of the optimism is still priced into the stock price and the room for any further share price declines is open.

Fortinet $FTNT

Fortinet is one of the longest established players in network cybersecurity and has long benefited from a strong position in firewalls and secure networking solutions. Unlike pure cloud-oriented competitors, Fortinet's business is significantly more hardware and software based, which has historically delivered very solid operating margins and strong conversion to cash. Operational efficiency has been one of the reasons why the company has long been one of the most profitable companies within the security sector.

In recent quarters, however, the company's image from an investor perspective has begun to become more complicated. Fortinet faces a gradual slowdown in growth, particularly in sales, which are more sensitive to corporate budgets and investment cycles. Wall Street analysts point out that part of the market is structurally shifting toward cloud-native security and online models, where some rival firms have stronger momentum. That doesn't mean Fortinet is losing relevance, but the growth profile is becoming less linear than in years past.

Another factor that the market has been addressing recently is the normalisation of demand following the post-pandemic boom period. Morgan Stanley comments that large customers are returning to a more cautious pace of orders and are optimising security budgets more. This has translated into weaker momentum in billed parts as well as increased stock volatility. Investors are now much more sensitive to any sign of a slowdown, which is evident across the cybersecurity segment. This is clearly evident on the $FTNT stock chart. The company saw its biggest recent decline in early August 2025 when the stock weakened 22% after the release of its quarterly results. Since then, it has moved more or less sideways.

Despite the fact that Fortinet stock has gotten significantly cheaper due to the declines, it still trades at up to a 12% premium according to the Fair Price Index. The market continues to give the company a higher valuation for its strong margins (27.26% in 2025), large customer base and robust free cash flow ($2.23 billion in 2025). The question remains, however, whether the growth rate can fully justify this premium in an environment where investors are starting to differentiate more between hyper-growth and more mature security players. With pressure on the entire software segment still lingering in the market as of early 2026, this may make it difficult for $FTNT stock ahead of any potential upside.

Going into the next few quarters, it will be key to monitor the evolution of demand for secure networking solutions, the company's ability to expand in the SASE (Secure Access Service Edge) segment, and the stability of operating margins. Should large companies' IT budgets remain under pressure for longer than currently expected, Fortinet may also be vulnerable to further valuation re-pricing. This would have a direct impact on the share price.

Conclusion

The cyber sector thus enters 2026 in a difficult position. On the one hand, structural demand for data protection, cloud infrastructure and AI systems remains very strong and long-term growth fundamentals have not fundamentally changed. On the other hand, the investment environment is changing. The greater emphasis on free cash flow and the overall rotation of capital away from the most expensive growth titles is leading to a reassessment of valuations across the entire software space. Added to this are growing concerns about the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence and associated models that current investor thinking suggests could replace many of the services of companies in this segment.

However, the current volatility does not necessarily indicate a structural problem in the sector, but rather a transition to a more mature phase of the cycle where the market is beginning to differentiate more between players. In the short term, sentiment may remain sensitive, especially to further AI developments. In the longer term, however, the ability of companies to translate demand growth into actual cash flow and return on capital will be critical. This is likely to determine which players emerge from the current phase as long-term winners.

This is what my watchlist looks like — I'm waiting to see what happens in the market. For example, Nvidia's results this Wednesday could significantly affect the market direction; maybe we'll continue the trend "strong results = stocks down" :D, so I'll wait a bit longer but will gradually start buying.

Which stocks from my or your watchlist are you planning to buy?

The timing matters because Netflix is already trying to get a major Warner Bros. Discovery transaction approved, with shareholder and regulatory steps underway. When political threats enter a process that is supposed to be judged on antitrust and economics, uncertainty rises and timelines can stretch. For investors, the risk is not only legal review, but also a higher “political discount” on the deal until the path becomes clear.

What exactly did Rice say and why is Trump addressing it?

The trigger was Rice's podcast debate, where she claimed that some businesses, media, and law firms have begun to accommodate Trump and cave in to the pressure for loyalty. She also suggested that if the Democrats return to power, they will not let such actions go unchallenged and will deal with them more harshly than before. Trump and conservative commentators are therefore framing this as an indirect threat of political retaliation and an argument that people associated with Democratic administrations have influence even within big business.

Importantly, Rice is not a spokeswoman, but a board member. Netflix $NFLX reappointed her to the board in 2023 and she also serves on the nominating and corporate governance committee. This turns the statement into a corporate governance issue: the political firestorm is no longer about opinions, but about whether a president can publicly push for personnel changes on the board of a private company.

Why it's coming now: Netflix and the "war" on Warner

Behind the scenes, a transaction is underway that could change the map of global entertainment. According to both the Financial Times and Reuters, Netflix's plan to buy Warner Bros. Discovery $WBD is facing political and antitrust pressure, while there is a competing bid from Paramount and Skydance. This is exactly the type of situation where even a vague threat of "repercussions" will start to be taken seriously by the market, because in the real world it can take the form of prolonged approvals, tougher terms, or increased reputational costs for those who will decide on the deal.

In other words: Netflix doesn't need anyone to "ban" streaming. All it needs is for the biggest strategic move of recent years to get significantly more complicated, and the value of the entire bet starts to recalculate. And that's exactly the lever that some of the commentary in the US media is aiming at - that the pressure may be directed mainly at the transaction and the regulatory process, not the Netflix product itself.

What "consequences" are realistic for Netflix

Unlike TV stations, Netflix does not need a traditional broadcast license, so a direct "license revocation" does not make sense. Still, there are three practical ways in which the pressure can translate into business:

The first risk is that merger approvals will start to be handled mainly politically, not just according to competition rules. In large media mergers, decisions are made not only on legal arguments, but also in an atmosphere that affects the willingness of regulators to go into litigation, demand more information and stretch out time.

The second is reputational pressure on partners: banks, insurers, counterparties in a deal and large advertisers for content brands may act more cautiously in a politically toxic environment.

The third is a broader signal to the sector that "right staffing" can be a political issue - and that's the type of risk for investors that is hard to model but quickly increases the discount.

What Netflix can do and why each choice is expensive

Netflix essentially has two paths, and both carry costs. Should Rice recuse himself, part of the market may see this as an effort to "clear the hurdle" at the most sensitive moment and reduce the headline risk around Warner's endorsement. But it also sets a precedent: you show that the board's staffing is negotiable under political pressure, opening the door to other similar demands.

If Rice doesn't recuse, Netflix will retain its position as an independent company, but risks cycling the issue back into the media, increasing volatility and adding gasoline to the fire around the deal. In an environment where a deal can still be dragged through antitrust procedures, this is an uncomfortable extra burden.

Conflicts of interest

Another interesting detail is that Trump, according to his year-end financial filings, bought bonds of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, securities whose value and riskiness also depend on how stable their business is and how smoothly large transactions in the sector go. It's not the stocks, but the bonds also create a direct financial interest in keeping the company from getting into unnecessary chaos that raises the cost of financing or worsens the perception of risk. That's why this detail has quickly become part of a wider debate about where the political criticism ends and where the pressure begins, which can have financial overtones.

What to watch next

Three signals will be key. First, whether Netflix will issue a formal statement on Rice and whether the topic will spill over into further calls toward regulatory authorities. Second, what the next steps in the process around Warner will be, and whether there will be indications that the approval process is becoming politically complicated (more requests for information, extended deadlines, tougher public commentary). Third, whether other players in the media ecosystem will weigh in, because at that point one dispute over a board member can become a broader test of the power between politics, regulation and big business.

Why This Chip Launch Matters: The AI Arms Race Intensifies

Nvidia’s newest architecture isn’t just about faster math cycles it is built to handle extremely large models, complex multi-tenant workloads, and integrated AI services at scale. As demand for generative AI grows across industries from healthcare diagnostics to autonomous systems and financial services the need for specialized hardware is exploding. Nvidia’s strategy of coupling hardware with comprehensive software support (including CUDA, cuDNN, and AI model libraries) creates an ecosystem that competitors find hard to replicate. Analysts cited in Fortune and Reuters suggest this gives Nvidia a durable competitive advantage as tech companies and cloud providers expand AI deployments.

Cloud Demand: A Tailwind for Nvidia’s Compute Engines

One of the most interesting aspects of this launch is the symbiotic relationship between Nvidia’s chips and cloud demand. Major cloud providers including Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud are already scaling their AI instances built on $NVDA silicon. Nvidia’s latest processors are designed to drive the next wave of cloud-based AI services, enabling customers to train larger models faster and at lower relative cost. This trend not only deepens Nvidia’s revenue streams but also ties its growth directly into the growth curve of cloud AI adoption.

The Enterprise AI Boom and Nvidia’s Addressable Market Expansion

At the enterprise level, corporations across sectors are investing heavily in AI transformation. Nvidia’s new chips come at a moment when companies are shifting from proof-of-concept experiments to full production AI deployments in customer service automation, predictive analytics, cybersecurity, and more. The expanded addressable market means Nvidia is no longer just selling processors — it’s selling infrastructure-level capability. Analysts featured on MarketWatch note that enterprises are increasingly prioritizing AI compute ROI over traditional IT budgeting, which boosts demand for high-performance GPU clusters.

Competition and Strategic Positioning: Can Anyone Catch Nvidia?

Despite its dominance, Nvidia isn’t without challengers. AMD, Intel, and emerging players like Graphcore and Cerebras are vying for niche segments of AI compute. Meanwhile, some cloud providers are exploring custom silicon designs to reduce dependency on external vendors. However, Nvidia’s entrenched ecosystem anchored by widespread developer adoption and robust toolchains makes it exceptionally difficult for competitors to gain meaningful market share quickly. Research at semiconductor industry forums confirms that transitioning workloads to alternative hardware often requires significant engineering effort.

Tariffs, Trade Policy, and Geopolitics: External Forces Shaping Nvidia’s Path

Nvidia’s landscape is shaped not just by raw technology but by global trade policy as well. As U.S.–China tariff dynamics and export control regimes evolve, Nvidia’s ability to access key markets and supply chain components is influenced by policy decisions. Recent export controls on advanced chips have restricted certain high-end GPUs from entering China, which can create both challenges and opportunities for Nvidia’s global sales mix. While some analysts worry about lost markets, others see opportunities as geopolitical shifts spur domestic chip strategies in other regions.

Market Reaction: Stocks, Valuations, and Investor Sentiment

The market’s response to Nvidia’s chip announcement has been striking. Shares rose on launch news, signaling investor confidence in continued revenue expansion and structural dominance in AI workloads. Yet the valuation conversation remains nuanced. Growth is priced aggressively into Nvidia’s multiples, and some institutional investors express caution around execution risk and capital intensity. Retail traders, conversely, often view Nvidia’s AI leadership as a once-in-a-generation growth story, driving robust trading activity and sustained interest in derivatives markets tied to Nvidia stock. (Read Barron’s analysis on market sentiment.

Looking Forward: Nvidia’s Role in the Next Decade of AI Innovation

In summary, Nvidia’s latest chip release isn’t just another product cycle it’s a strategic landmark that underscores the central role of high-performance silicon in the age of artificial intelligence. With industry demand outpacing supply, cloud integration solidifying recurring revenue streams, and global adoption accelerating, Nvidia’s technology could define the economics of AI compute for years. For stock blog readers and tech investors alike, this week’s developments highlight how hardware innovation and ecosystem dominance remain competitive differentiators even in a software-driven era. As Nvidia navigates competitive pressure, geopolitical headwinds, and extraordinary growth opportunities, it stands at the intersection of AI’s most transformative trends and the market is watching closely.

$SOFI is an interesting fintech name that over the past few years has transformed from a company focused on student loan refinancing into a full-fledged digital bank. Today it offers banking services, investing, lending and other financial products within a single app. It primarily targets millennials and Gen Z and positions itself as a tech disruptor and innovator of traditional banking.

On the other hand, there are reasons to approach this stock very cautiously.

Why SOFI is interesting:

SoFi Technologies, Inc. is building an "all-in-one" financial platform. Integrating multiple products into a single app increases customer engagement and cross-selling opportunities. In Q3 2025 the number of members reached 9.4 million (+35% YoY), which supports revenue diversification.

The company is also expanding into fast-growing areas—cryptocurrencies, private markets and international banking. Analysts expect revenue growth of around 25% for 2025, which is very dynamic for the banking sector.

Why be cautious:

Valuation is relatively stretched. At roughly 46x forward P/E, the stock is priced with significant expectations for further growth. Any slowdown could lead to a sharp correction, as we've seen in the past.

At the same time, it's a company highly sensitive to the economic cycle. As a fintech with significant exposure to consumer lending, SOFI is vulnerable when interest rates rise or during a recession. Competition is also intense—from traditional banks as well as digital players like Robinhood Markets, Inc..

Performance over the last 2 years (Feb 2024 – Feb 2026):

SOFI roughly +90% (from ~$10 to ~$19), but with very high volatility. In 2025 the stock gained more than 70%, however YTD 2026 it is roughly −27%, reflecting the volatility of the fintech sector.

For comparison: $^GSPC approximately +43.5% cumulatively (2024 +23.3%, 2025 +16.4%). NASDAQ 100 approximately +50–60% over the same period, with higher consistency thanks to the strong weight of tech leaders.

While SOFI can outperform indices in bull phases, long-term stability remains lower.

My view on a potential entry:

Personally, I would consider buying below $12, where a margin of safety against overvaluation increases. Conversely, I would view the area above $22 as a potential zone to take profits if the rally continues and valuation starts to limit further gains. I also add that I've never traded this stock and only became interested in it when investors on social media started presenting it as a "must-have" stock.

This stock fits rather into the more dynamic part of my USD portfolio. The potential is there, but the risk is significant in the current environment.

This post is only meant to share my personal market view and does not constitute investment advice. Every investor should do their own analysis and consider their investment horizon and risk tolerance before making a decision.

I also traditionally share the English version of this post on eToro for my followers and copy traders.

What do you think—does SOFI justify taking the risk, or is it better to stay away? Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions.

For investors, the weak point is not the factory. The weak point is whether the software and the legal approvals catch up fast enough. A robotaxi business needs permission to operate without a human driver, and it needs a system that can drive reliably in real traffic. Until those two parts are in place, a vehicle that is ready to build is not yet a vehicle that can generate large, recurring revenue.

Tesla $TSLA is betting that a purpose-designed car without physical controls is a better and cheaper route to robotaxis than modified conventional cars. The Cybercab is a two-door, two-seat electric car with a minimalist interior and everything subordinated to autonomy, i.e., no way for a human to "take over the wheel" in an emergency. This is a major difference from previous tests of the robotaxi concept, which in practice often relied on existing models and assumed human supervision. From Tesla's perspective, this makes sense technologically and cost-wise: if you remove the steering wheel, pedals and some of the traditional systems, you can optimize space, weight and manufacturing for a single purpose. From a market perspective, however, it increases the demands for proof of safety, because neither the customer nor the operator has a "safety brake" in the form of a human behind the wheel.

Ambitions around price and operating costs also come into play. Elon Musk and Tesla have repeatedly worked with a price target of around $30,000 and the idea that total operating costs could fall to around $0.20 per mile. If such parameters are indeed close to reality, it changes the math of urban transportation: autonomous driving could be cheaper than conventional taxis and in some situations competitive with car ownership, especially in cities. But here's a detail worth noting: Tesla isn't just aiming for "own app and own fleet". It also mentions demand from commercial operators while acknowledging the possibility of private ownership. This would theoretically broaden the addressable market, but at the same time make it even more regulatory intensive, because selling a driverless car to ordinary customers is in a whole different league from limited testing in terms of approval and liability.

The biggest problem is not on the factory floor, but in the software and the legal framework. Today, Tesla presents its Full Self-Driving system as an advanced driver assistant that still requires human supervision. To jump from "supervised" assistance to a mode where the human in the car doesn't even have the ability to intervene is a leap that no one has yet clearly delivered on a mass consumer scale. Into this comes regulatory reality: US safety standards have historically counted on the car having human controls. There are paths through the exceptions, but they tend to be slow, conditional, and often limited to demonstrations or specific deployments. An example is Zoox, which received an exemption from NHTSA for purpose-designed autonomous vehicles without traditional controls, but only after a long process and with specific conditions.

At the same time, Tesla is hinting that the ramp-up of production will be gradual and that full production is targeted for later in 2026, with mention in the space of a full production start in April 2026. This is typically the stage where the reality of production goals meets the reality of approvals and safety verification: even if the car can be produced quickly, deployment can be hampered by the permitting process, insurance and liability rules.

Risks and potential impacts

The biggest risk is: either Tesla succeeds in pushing autonomous service in a mode without human drivers, or the Cybercab will be trapped in limited testing and pilot programs for a long time. In the first case, a new source of growth opens up, with potentially higher margins than traditional car sales, as revenue would come from running the service and from high asset utilization. In the second case, it may be a capital intensive project that will generate more costs, pressure on market confidence and further delays.

The second layer of risk is reputational and legal. With a robotaxi program, perceptions of security tilt extremely quickly on an incident-by-incident basis and on how transparently the company shares data. For Tesla, there have been recent media comparisons of incidents in autonomous testing versus normal driving, which may increase pressure from regulators and the public, even if these comparisons are partial and methodologically questionable.

The third risk is competitive: Waymo and Zoox are already running in a different deployment and regulatory regime, often with a different technological philosophy and with different safety data collection and publication. Tesla is betting on a camera-based approach and scaling through its own platform, but if it turns out that regulators prefer a more conservative, slower path with stricter conditions, this could slow Tesla's momentum no matter how many cars it can produce.

What to watch next

• What specific approval regime Tesla will choose for operating a vehicle without a steering wheel and pedals, and whether it will apply for exemptions similar to those already granted by NHTSA to other projects.

• Whether Tesla will release quantifiable safety data from the Austin tests and what the insurance and liability requirements will look like.

• Whether production ramp-up dates and especially commercial deployment dates will be confirmed, not just "first off the line".

• How Tesla will communicate a price target of around $30k and whether it will be a realistic starting point or a long-term goal tied to volumes.

I know this stock was often at the center of discussions and in stock news headlines when it was growing at a rocket pace in recent years. But the current decline (the stock is already 34% below its peak) isn’t being talked about much.

The company really did well in recent years, that can’t be denied. The stock rose by hundreds of percent, was added to the S&P 500, and delivered many investors truly spectacular returns.

I bought shares back in 2022, but at the beginning of last year I completely sold my position. So I didn’t ride it all the way to the latest peaks, but the return on the position was still very nice. However, I don’t plan to include $PLTR in my portfolio again.

It's clear that tensions between the US and Iran are growing. From what I've seen on X, the US has moved a fairly large portion of its military to the Middle East, including aircraft carriers. I can't predict whether it'll be the same as with Venezuela, because Iran has a much stronger military. So far I haven't made any changes to my portfolio and I probably wouldn't change anything even if the conflict breaks out. I might start making changes if the conflict drags on for a long time or escalates into something bigger, which I don't think will happen.

What's your take? Are you preparing your portfolio for this in any way?

Court Ruling on Trump Tariffs Briefly Boosts Tech Stocks

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to block large parts of Trump’s tariff schedule briefly lifted stock prices of digital advertising and cloud companies like $GOOGL and $META , demonstrating how closely markets track trade policy risk and legal rulings.

Apple’s China exposure makes cost structures more sensitive

Few tech firms illustrate tariff vulnerability better than $AAPL. The company’s iPhone assembly and many of its components are manufactured through a sprawling Chinese and East Asian supply chain. Tariffs on certain imported components or finished devices or potential future levies can squeeze margins, force price increases, or accelerate supply chain shifts.

Apple has already responded to trade pressure by expanding manufacturing in India and Southeast Asia as part of its “China+1” strategy, reducing some concentration risk (India Briefing on Apple’s supplier expansions. Yet full diversification takes time, and partial tariff reinstatements or spillovers can still lead to near-term cost pressures and inventory decisions that affect earnings.

Nvidia and semiconductor frictions: a particularly tight knot

For semiconductor companies like Nvidia a bellwether of the AI boom tariffs intersect with export controls and geopolitics in a way that goes beyond duties on physical goods. China imposes tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. chip imports, and Washington has restricted the export of advanced chips and chip-making equipment to China. Nvidia’s flagship AI GPUs, for example, have been at the center of U.S. export controls aimed at limiting access to high-performance computing for certain Chinese entities (explained in depth by Reuters coverage on chip export rules. Such export barriers a sibling to tariff policy can reduce addressable markets for Nvidia’s most lucrative products while increasing geopolitical supply chain risk.

If Trump-era tariff measures return or expand including on intermediate semiconductor products Nvidia could see input costs rise (for chips assembled outside the U.S.) or face even tighter market segmentation. Either scenario influences growth expectations baked into the company’s premium valuation.

Intel’s ‘national champion’ potential benefits, but competition still looms

Some U.S. tech firms may benefit from tariff-induced reshoring incentives particularly those supported by policy initiatives like the CHIPS Act. Intel, which has invested heavily in domestic semiconductor fabrication facilities, could be viewed as a strategic beneficiary when tariffs make imported chips more expensive and incentivize onshore production.

Reports on Intel’s $5 billion collaboration with Nvidia on chip capacity signal how tariff and export control environments could reframe the competitive landscape, pushing companies toward domestic partnerships instead of cross-border supply chains (analysis of semiconductor funding moves.

However, Intel still faces competitors like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company ($TSM). If tariff pressures drive chip fabrication back into the U.S., the capital intensity of building global-scale fabs means that policy incentives alone can’t guarantee market success. Multi-national partners and investment flows will continue to shape sector competition.

Amazon and Google: software giants not immune to hardware friction

Mega tech companies that are primarily software and services oriented such as $AMZN and $GOOGL are often seen as more resilient to trade friction because their products are less reliant on imported physical goods.

Yet even these giants depend on costly datacenter hardware, networking gear, and AI accelerators. If tariffs push up the cost of imported server components or networking switches, companies like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud could face higher infrastructure costs. Some of these might be passed onto customers, but margin compression is a real possibility in price-competitive cloud markets.

Moreover, tariff-driven hardware cost pressures on downstream customers can reduce overall technology spending, dampening demand for cloud, advertising, and enterprise services. Reuters technology reporting has highlighted how broad tariffs and trade uncertainty have historically affected tech equipment markets and investor sentiment.

Qualcomm and network equipment — tariff ripple effects

Qualcomm’s business supplying chips for mobile devices, IoT, and automotive illustrates how tariffs can affect component makers embedded deep inside long value chains. Tariffs on intermediate goods can increase the landed cost of $QCOM chips in consumer devices assembled abroad. While some tariff exclusions have helped, the continued possibility of reinstated duties or expanded tariff lists keeps planning difficult for companies that design globally but manufacture abroad.

Industry trade groups have repeatedly called for greater stability in tariff policy because unpredictability even without active duties harms long-term capital investment and inventory decisions.

Investors price in policy risk

Tariff risk is now a standard input in macro and sector models used by institutional investors. Policy uncertainty contributes to higher discount rates, wider implied volatility, and risk-off repricing in earnings multiples for companies with high exposure to cross-border costs.

History provides vivid examples. Broad tariff escalations in 2018 – 2019 once triggered significant sell-offs in U.S. equities, particularly tech and consumer electronics. When tariff rounds paused or exclusions were granted, markets rallied sharply illustrating how policy expectations alone drive substantial sentiment swings (historical tariff market reaction overview.

Long term structural shifts: China+1 and supply chain diversification

Trump’s tariff regime along with export controls and geopolitical tension accelerated the China+1 strategy in tech supply chains, where companies build additional manufacturing capacity outside China, often in Southeast Asia, Mexico, or India.

This trend isn’t merely about avoiding duties; it’s about strategic risk mitigation. Apple’s diversification into India and Vietnam, semiconductor assembly moves to Malaysia and Thailand, and even Amazon and Google supply chain adjustments all reflect a new era of multi-pole manufacturing footprints that reduce concentration risk and political exposure (China+1 supply chain strategy overview).

Such structural reconfiguration can improve resilience over the long term but also entails near-term capital expenditure and coordination costs. These are fundamental shifts, not quick fixes and they will continue to influence competitive dynamics long after any single tariff round ends.

Tariff uncertainty as a permanent investment risk factor

Even as courts strike down specific tariff provisions, and as some duties are scaled back or negotiated away, the underlying lesson for investors and companies is clear: trade policy and geopolitics are now core strategic risk factors for mega tech.

Tariffs can influence:

• Operating margins through cost increases or forced supplier shifts.

• Capital allocation decisions as firms weigh reshoring costs.

• Valuation multiples via sentiment and risk premium adjustments.

• Competitive positioning across hardware, software, and semiconductors.

• Investor psychology through episodic volatility tied to policy shifts.

For diversified portfolios, exposure to these risk channels means that tariff policy is no longer a remote macro variable it’s a feature that directly influences earnings forecasts, supply chain decisions, and strategic planning across the world’s largest tech companies.