Reddit Posts
Top 4 Spinal Injury Stocks for 2024 ((TSXV: NRX, NYSE: NVRO, NYSE: SYK, NYSE: BSX)
Top 4 Spinal Injury Stocks for 2024 ((TSXV: NRX, NYSE: NVRO, NYSE: SYK, NYSE: BSX)
Stock Market News from Today (03/22/2033)
Stock Market News from Today (03/22/2033)
The next explosive stock $KNRLF/$KNR Kontrol Technologies - Airborne COVID Detector, Kontrol BioCloud, Launched by Steelcase $SCS
$KNRLF/$KNR Read below why you need to check it out asap!
$KNRLF/$KNR is a MUST Buy at these levels
SteelCase (SCS)- Hospital and Office Steel furniture. Dividend stock with upcoming ex/EFF date. Still under pre-pandemic price.
Mentions
all these institutions bought HTZ in 2025 * **Pershing Square Capital Management:** Led by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, this firm has made a significant investment in Hertz, holding a stake of nearly 20% in April 2025. * **Knighthead Capital Management, LLC:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **UBS Group AG:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **CIBC Bancorp USA Inc.** * **Cibc World Market Inc.** * **Susquehanna International Group, LLP:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **Cobalt Capital Management, Inc** * **Par Capital Management Inc** * **Gamco Investors, Inc. ET AL** * **Bridgewater Associates, LP** * **Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc** * **Royce & Associates LLC** * **Coatue Management, LLC** * **Graham Capital Management, L.P.** * **SCS Capital Management LLC** * **Steelhead Partners LLC**
all these institutions bought HTZ in 2025 recently * **Pershing Square Capital Management:** Led by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, this firm has made a significant investment in Hertz, holding a stake of nearly 20% in April 2025. * **Knighthead Capital Management, LLC:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **UBS Group AG:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **CIBC Bancorp USA Inc.** * **Cibc World Market Inc.** * **Susquehanna International Group, LLP:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **Cobalt Capital Management, Inc** * **Par Capital Management Inc** * **Gamco Investors, Inc. ET AL** * **Bridgewater Associates, LP** * **Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc** * **Royce & Associates LLC** * **Coatue Management, LLC** * **Graham Capital Management, L.P.** * **SCS Capital Management LLC** * **Steelhead Partners LLC**
I bought 10.000 shares Today This is heavily shorted due to EPS misses for nearly 1.5 years, and is down near 80%. but Latest Q3 2025 beat the EPS with Positive cash income for the first time. investors: As of early December 2025, major institutional investors in Hertz Global Holdings, institutions hold approximately 99.22% of the company's stock. institutional investors: * **Pershing Square Capital Management:** Led by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, this firm has made a significant investment in Hertz, holding a stake of nearly 20% in April 2025. * **Knighthead Capital Management, LLC:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **UBS Group AG:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **CIBC Bancorp USA Inc.** * **Cibc World Market Inc.** * **Susquehanna International Group, LLP:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **Cobalt Capital Management, Inc** * **Par Capital Management Inc** * **Gamco Investors, Inc. ET AL** * **Bridgewater Associates, LP** * **Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc** * **Royce & Associates LLC** * **Coatue Management, LLC** * **Graham Capital Management, L.P.** * **SCS Capital Management LLC** * **Steelhead Partners LLC** * **Vanguard Group, Inc.:** Holds 4.42% of the company's shares, with 13.7 million shares as of November 2025. * **BlackRock, Inc.:** Identified as a major shareholder. Short Interest: 54,708,536 shares Float Shorted: 44.31% → Yes, almost half the tradable shares are sold short. Days to Cover: 15.64 → They can’t exit easily. Any spike = trapped. Dark Pool Short Ratio: 64.24% → Translation: they’re hiding shorts off-exchange to mask the selling. This is one of the highest short-interest setups in the entire market right now. Not meme-level “lol maybe squeeze” — this is legit structural pressure. Shorts have committed a massive position, and it’s not something they can just close in an afternoon without blowing the price upward.
all these institutions bought HTZ in 2025 * **Pershing Square Capital Management:** Led by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, this firm has made a significant investment in Hertz, holding a stake of nearly 20% in April 2025. * **Knighthead Capital Management, LLC:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **UBS Group AG:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **CIBC Bancorp USA Inc.** * **Cibc World Market Inc.** * **Susquehanna International Group, LLP:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **Cobalt Capital Management, Inc** * **Par Capital Management Inc** * **Gamco Investors, Inc. ET AL** * **Bridgewater Associates, LP** * **Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc** * **Royce & Associates LLC** * **Coatue Management, LLC** * **Graham Capital Management, L.P.** * **SCS Capital Management LLC** * **Steelhead Partners LLC**
all these institutions bought HTZ in 2025 * **Pershing Square Capital Management:** Led by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, this firm has made a significant investment in Hertz, holding a stake of nearly 20% in April 2025. * **Knighthead Capital Management, LLC:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **UBS Group AG:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **CIBC Bancorp USA Inc.** * **Cibc World Market Inc.** * **Susquehanna International Group, LLP:** Listed as a major shareholder. * **Cobalt Capital Management, Inc** * **Par Capital Management Inc** * **Gamco Investors, Inc. ET AL** * **Bridgewater Associates, LP** * **Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc** * **Royce & Associates LLC** * **Coatue Management, LLC** * **Graham Capital Management, L.P.** * **SCS Capital Management LLC** * **Steelhead Partners LLC**
GOOG for longer hold results…and VSCO for summer to fall play. Oh and SCS for accidental windfall. I knew it was a good value in the summer! Thank you 2025!
Their diesel electrics are capable of engaging in anti carrier operations within the SCS. Their carrier is having no issues. What issues are you talking about? Beyond that, they are relying entirely on their missile forces to make Taiwan and the USA capitulate whether immediately or within 48 hours. Have you not paid attention to the PLA acquisitions? They are all in on drones and missiles because that is what they are going to use to fully kick the USA out of their backyard and therefore be able to only need to risk a fight with Taiwan 1v1.
The text in question focuses too narrowly on the idea of a "score" yet this article is about the Social Credit System more broadly and the lede should accurately reflect that. Right now, it cherry-picks quotes from the MERICS article, which should be in a lede summary. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @Amigao You can't simply remove anything you want and not give a single valid reason. I see you yet again removed the paragraph and now claim it's outdated despite the sources are from 2022 and nothing major has changed since. As written in MIT technology review, the 2022 draft laws barely changed anything let alone disproven the myth. So saying that 2022 laws have significantly altered things, is simply untrue. The onus is on you to prove it's now either incorrect and truly outdated, or give an extraordinary reason to erase such correct significant information. But the info is undoubtedly correct and not disproven and you have not proven any real proof that things have drastically changed after 2022. Provide at least one reliable source that actually says the information in the current lede is wrong, before labelling it as such. But doubt such a source even exists. 49.186.91.26 (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I am reviewing the second source you provided, the Hou article, and I've already come across this The SCS is not a singular, state‐run scheme since it comprises both official government‐designed schemes and commercial ones designed and implemented by private companies such as Ant Financial - so there are definitional problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) You know since we actually differentiate between the state social credit scheme and Ant Financial's Zhima Credit program. And I think this paper does not which is going to cause problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The paper also says Even though various local government pilots and commercial schemes have yet to be integrated into a single unified national system, the general framework with its guiding principles and criteria have been established at the central level, and the Chinese government is committed to further developing the system into the next phase - notwithstanding how we handle sources that make WP:CRYSTAL claims (they must be attributed and with caution) this still does not contradict the text you want to remove. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) As of 2022, the plan to construct a single and unified national system has not yet been achieved, but multiple social credit projects, including local pilots, have been launched across the country (Kostka & Antoine, [35]; Liu, [42]). Technically, the SCS targets both individual citizens, social organizations, and corporations, with the latter being a major set of actors regulated under the System (Engelmann et al., [19]; Lin & Milhaupt, [41]). However, because the theoretical interest of this study is on citizenship, the scope is limited to that of individual citizens' behaviors. Yeah, I'm ready to call it now. Source 2 does not contradict the text you wanted to remove. It supports it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It isnt just the SCS and it isnt just against the United States unfortunately.
SFIX about to get wrecked. Is SCS today or tomorrow morning?
BB: Put JBL: Call KMH: Call KMX Call (May change to put or straddle later today) SCS: Steelcase is under acquisition, so not really tradable. SFIX: IV crush tomorrow... trying the Nov21 calls, but small position. SNX: Call TORO: Long
$SCS might be a good bet Merger with $HNI Confirmed last Monday and insiders aping like they belong to this sub on Friday.
Insurance margins are incredibly tight and susceptible to changes in regulatory environment, state level insurance law and social factors like recessions and civil disobedience. For insurtech, you’re getting some of the worst insureds most likely to see swings in these behaviors. Autos are also exposed to heavy SCS seasons. Good luck, I do hope it works for you
ASTS is SCS. As in, supplemental coverage from space. It isnt intended to replace traditional infrastructure and provide coverage to densely populated areas. It will provide broadband service to remote areas that otherwise would be economically infeasible to provide coverage, like on top of a mountain, in a national park, or in the middle of the ocean. Dead-spots are dead because they lack population density. ASTS gives MNO’s the opportunity to provide 100% CONTINUOUS coverage. To be more specific, ASTS’s customers are the MNO’s to which they sell bandwidth wholesale to. The MNO’s then bundle the service into the cellular plans they then sell to their customers. At total deployment, the end user wont even notice they are paying for ASTS service, as it will be bundled into their cell plan as 100% coverage.
What's your GPT score? China's Social Credit System (SCS) is a government-led initiative aimed at evaluating and influencing the trustworthiness of individuals and businesses. It assigns scores based on various factors, impacting access to services and opportunities. While lauded by some as a way to promote ethical behavior, the system faces criticism for its potential to stifle dissent and restrict individual freedoms.
Dude, SCS already touched $17.13 at 11:35 ET.
Cashing on $SCS? Didn't see that coming today! But, OK!
Wait SCS shareholders “will receive $7.20 in cash and 0.2192 shares of HNI common stock for each share of Steelcase they own. The implied per share purchase price of $18.30 is based on HNI's closing share price of $50.62”? Am I dumb or is this not $25 for $14.5?
Fundamentally, the big issue for invading is not is their military is large and powerful enough, but does China has a logistical network to provide energy for both the war effort and at home. Its allies are important not for the war effort but for getting China's energy imports, and funnily enough, China's biggest hurdle is it important vast majority of its fossil fuel via shipping and the USA and its allies are just well positioned to embargo China, which is why its so agressive in the South China Sea to both secure fossil fuels in the SCS from it and to project power to maybe protect its imports better. This makes China very different to Russia as Russia is an exporter of energy and has been built up during the Cold War to be mostly self-sufficient and not an economy like China, built from the ground up to be an international trading powerhouse. Hence, Russia can just endlessly wage war while China might only have 6-12 months before it completely collapses. Now, Green energy and electrification provide a great opportunity to extend this window as it reduces the civil and logistical uses for fossil fuels, which would mean a stockpile and local production would last much longer. This is a core part of why nations are going. China can't invade today, but we can plan for it. How long China could actually last is likely to be the unknown factor that will determine when China goes to war if it actually wants to do it. China Invading Taiwan before resolving this energy problem is just not possible without it being the USA and allies starving China of Imports for several months, then demanding complete surrender as the nation collapses. With Ukraine showing just how much a smaller power can stalemate a war with a much more powerful country, and Taiwan has the advantage of being an island, and is constantly worried about China invading, while Ukraine was caught off guard. So, unless China can get an early victory, unless the USA can completely control the sky and just freely blow everything up, in which case the war will also be extremely short. This will likely be a long, drawn-out war, which is the worst possible outcome for China, worse than even a quick defeat.
Totally…. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1861622/000164117225010861/form10-q.htm Going Concern and Management Plans The Company has limited operating history and has incurred losses from operations since inception. These matters raise concern about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. During the next twelve months, the Company intends to fund its operations with capital from its operations, drawdowns under its Share Purchase Agreement with GEM Yield LLC SCS and GEM Yield Bahamas Limited, proceeds from the exercise of warrants contemplated under the terms set forth in a term sheet entered into with Hexstone Capital LP (“Hexstone”) in February of 2025 (as further described in Item 2 of Part I of this Quarterly Report), and other sales of debt or equity securities. Additionally, the Company may explore other potential sources of outside capital. The Company could, if necessary, reduce cash burn to preserve capital. There are no assurances, however, that management will be able to raise capital on terms acceptable to the Company, or that the transactions contemplated by the term sheet with Hexstone will be consummated on the terms agreed to in principle, or at all. If the Company is unable to obtain sufficient amounts of additional capital, the Company may be required to reduce the near-term scope of its planned development and operations, which could delay implementation of the Company’s business plan and harm its business, financial condition and operating results. The consolidated balance sheets do not include any adjustments that might result from these uncertainties.
LMAO Yeah they are there to blow up merchants. Lol It’s like saying you have no idea why they are doing it without actually saying it. Hint: China did not build that $50 billion artificial island at SCS for the goodness of their hearts. Lol
These tariffs apply to the date on water. So there will be a mad rush in the next weeks to get everything onto ships. That said, quite a few of the ships have been contracted out to SCS or Indian Ocean routes. So now companies have to pay premiums against each other to get available vessels.
That's the party line nonsense I'd expect. It's everyone else's fault because if they were smart, they just wouldn't deal with you. No one thinks they have an obligation to take care of us. And no one is trying to force China to submit to US policies. They do believe like most of the civilized world that Taiwan should be free to make it's own decisions. And the world does believe that China's claims to the SCS are nonsense. What actions do you believe the west didn't take accountability for? You mean like opening trade with China and expecting them to become a reasonable nation instead of an authoritarian dictatorship that tramples on whoever they feel like. Only now they're strong enough they're fine with bullying more than just their smaller neighbors.
Ships still matter because weapon systems still have ranges and other countries have defense systems that generally function better the sooner they are able to figure out the strike is coming. It's way better to strike the SCS from forward deployed positions in the Asia-Pacific theater than to try and fire a long range missile from kansas lol.
It’s weird seeing so much pro BYD and Xiaomi electric car posts. Like these people are so eager for the western market to be flooded by cheap Chinese cars just so they can see Tesla fall but they don’t realize this will also destroy domestic car companies in Europe like Volkswagen or union manufactured cars at American car companies. And what happens when China invades Taiwan and these idiots are all stuck driving around the new Chinese Adolf Hitler’s electric Kubelwagen. China is already doing a peaceful military annexation of other country’s EEZ in the SCS. It’s just like invasion of Crimea and Europe being addicted to Russian gas all over again. Redditors have to be complete fucking idiots pushing for this shit.
China will likely ask for removal of chip sanctions in exchange will invest xxx billions in the US to kickstart US manufacturing. If Trump is desperate enough they might even throw the Taiwan issue in to the mix in exchange for backing off a bit on SCS. Will not pursue the Diaoyu issue in order to make friends with Japan.
Xi is already thinking so many steps ahead of the US. Whatever trade deals can be changed at any time in the future. What Xi really wants is Taiwan and the SCS. He can ignore trump till he becomes desperate and start yelling at his own trade negotiators who will become even more desperate to get something to show for 1month of tariff threats. Xi agrees to import whatever amount of US goods or buy US treasuries, in return Trump recognises China’s ownership of Taiwan and some of SCS. 4 years later China walks back on the promised imports and their soldiers would be all over Taiwan.
China will gladly take a 5% loss to scare Trump into abandoning tariffs. It is possible Japan dumped the treasuries to get rid of the tariffs, and if so - they were successful. China would take 100% loss of dollar assets if this means USA implodes like USSR once did. Sure, they lose a lot of savings, but they can recover, and will not have to fear US interventions again. They can take Taiwan, SCS and practically vassalize all neighbors.
The logic your presenting doesn’t really add up. South Korea and Japan will team up with China, a country that has no respect for their territorial claims or sovereignty when it comes to the SCS, and the sole backer of hermit kingdom that continually threatens both nations with military action, to counter one of their oldest allies who is being aggressive in trade?
It’s so dumb because it would have been so easy to permanently attach Japan, Korea, the Philippines and the EU to the U.S. just like Canada and Mexico. Chinas aggressiveness around Taiwan and the SCS coupled with Russias war in Ukraine… all Donald had to do is not be himself and everyone would have gladly come right on in. Biden had the thing teed up for him, all Donny had to do was say “let’s make this a business deal” and all the opposition would have imploded. Nope. Full fucking thunderdome now. Chinas going to be on top. Japan is going to get paranoid and at some point decide they need to have their own nukes. So then the s Koreans will. On the other side of the world the Poles are already fanatically paranoid of Russia. So that’s a time bomb. The rest of Europe will get extra insular. Poor Africa is gonna get raided like it’s a Costco on Sunday. If they’re lucky all the little mini hegemons will at least pay for what they take on their way out. All so fucking stupid.
China's Social Credit System (SCS) is a data-driven system that aims to assess the trustworthiness of individuals and businesses, using data from various sources to assign scores that can impact access to services and opportunities. While the system is often portrayed as a dystopian "social credit score" that dictates citizens' lives, it's more accurately described as a system of credit evaluations and incentives, with punishments for "untrustworthy" behavior and rewards for "trustworthy" conduct. Your claims are just verifiable untrue dude.
Interesting idea - I like the idea of investing into my conviction though I'd probably customize the heck out of this. Like IBM or AAPL seems like a weak link whereas adding something funny like SCS or MLKN doing the furniture for offices. Just writing this out - I may even be more inclined to just invest in something in the middle...hmmm
Defense. Trump is no near of being an antiwar president, he's only saying that for favorable ratings and votes. This solid republican senate could push higher DoD budget (would be new senate leader support 5% GDP budget lol), new weapons (aka drones powered by AI) need new counter weapons, old navy need new ships (more burkers /virginias) now that US Navy has a near peer in the SCS... we are in a pre war period like early years of 1900 or 1929-1938. Aside of that, I bet on gold miners, gold, BTC. In the short term, air carriers and banks.
Ukraine are running out of men. I wish it wasn’t true but Russia are in a stronger position unless there is more direct military support from the west. Iran’s missile strike on Israel was effective. It showed it could penetrate Israel’s air defense and hit military targets, they sent a message without giving Israel too much grounds for further escalation. Israeli strike on Iran was a bit meh. Iranian air defense was more effective than expected and rumors of a second wave of strikes aborted. It took Israel to the edge of their capabilities and needed US air refueling for it to work. The messaging from Israel afterwards is mainly for internal propaganda, personally I think it displayed strategic weakness. Similar to how they have declared victory on the Lebanese border after initially stating they were gonna drive to the litani river, the reality is they have been driven back by Hezbollah and the IDF is struggling with discipline. Not sure about NK. No fixed opinion on china although they have been aggressive in the SCS for at least 15 years. In terms of Taiwan I have no idea, seems like a lose lose situation for everyone but as china rapidly ages they might decide better sooner than later.
Capture of the largest and most capable semiconductor producer on the planet, and therefore an effective monopoly on production of said semiconductors until the west can build an industry to rival it. Control over trade routes through the SCS, effectively granting an autocratic regime the ability to control prices of many things that they will leverage against their regional enemies (our regional allies). The CCP would then leverage all of this against the west in all matters of trade. This would probably destabilize the region much more than it already is, and if it wouldn't already kick off a regional or global war, we would effective go into another bonafide cold war where China is set on gobbling up anything it wants because it knows it has no meaningful resistance. Geopolitical realities change drastically, the US is no longer as powerful a voice in the Asian Pacific and can't do much about it. So yeah, mildly higher prices for junk you could live without, and much higher prices for things you can't live without. Those are just the immediate things, you'd also see a fractured world where capitalism's open market philosophies are slowly whittled down.
What is the consequence of China owning Taiwan and SCS for those in the West? Mildly higher prices for goods?
The US has supported Taiwan since the end of the Chinese Civl War. Before that the US supported the KMT against Imperial Japan. Our support continued through the Cold War for obvious reasons—communism. That was all before TSMC, so you're categorically incorrect. The SCS is one of the busiest waterways on earth, about 1/3 of the world's shipping goes through it. For our allies in Japan and South Korea, about 90% of their oil comes through the South China Sea, and more than 50% of all their trade passes through it. To surrender Taiwan, the Malacca Straights, and the larger South China Sea to the CCP would cripple their geopolitical happenstance and severely weaken our own position in the region. So no, it's not just about TSMC.
Chips aren't the only reason the US has an obligation to protect Taiwan, it's also a matter of keeping the SCS trade routes open for our allies in the region. Without that they are in big trouble. TSMC is simply one piece of the puzzle.
Here’s my response to this. On the top level—Yes U don’t deny that PLTR is a very special company. The clearance the company has is pretty unique and thus the revenue quality is quite high.My thesis is that right now PLTR is overpriced. The price justifies the stock, not the other way around. 1 Yes and No. I think it’s agreed upon that insider transactions consistently outperform the market whether long or short. The magnitude at which Thiel, the biggest insider by far (owns 10x more than Karp who is at 2nd place) as well as seasoned investor, has been selling should absolutely be a concern. Specifically: “Peter Thiel has sold over $600 million worth of the company’s stock [in October], bringing his total disposals this year to over $1 billion.”. No one in the world has better exit timing than Thiel due to information asymmetry. 2 Microsoft and Amazon have the same clearance and larger contracts than PLTR. Yet on an earnings adjusted basis are much cheaper. Additionally, saying PLTR is different from Nvidia is like saying a BMW M5 is different than a GT3 RS. I mean yes–but one is cheaper than the other for a reason (Nvidia has higher growth, a stronger business model, better margins, better everything). An M5 is a great car just like PLTR is a great business–I (among many others) just wouldn’t pay 200k for it. 3 Not only is revenue retention down, ACV (Average contract value)—another key KPI that I didn’t mention is down as well. You always want to upsell (because customers love you so much) and cross sell customers, making ACV key. This inability reflects on poor leadership and doesn’t bode well for the future prospects of the company. 2nd, you mention the long sales cycle. This is one of PLTR’s biggest issues, which is the fact that their deal velocity is extremely slow. Slow deal velocity means customers with more drawn out problems and less revenue and satisfaction for PLTR. Switching costs is true but it’s a double edged sword–because the process is so intensive the TAM is cut significantly 4 I do agree that margin compression isn’t the strongest point. This is a more temporary compression and why I think they will miss on the bottom line this earnings call. I will say that the GTM strategy hasn’t been proven for this new field (although PLTR’s history has been strong) which poses another risk (Also Amazon and Microsoft have larger and stronger moats in the government space than PLTR) 5 I think people over emphasize government contracts here. It’s sticky, I’ll give you that but it’s less than half of PLTR’s total revenue. Further, on the commercial side, SNOW and Databricks have the EXACT same functionality as PLTR–in fact PLTR builds upon these platforms. Some companies however just don’t have the in-house capability to create foundry-level platforms and they hire PLTR. That is a small percent (300 commercial customers at PLTR vs 10,000 at databricks). 6 My DCF is pricing in future assumptions for growth. To justify 100B MCap, PLTR in 2027-2029 needs to be growing at 30% YoY. That is not happening. To justify a 70-80B market cap, PLTR needs to beat sell-side consensus (that’s higher than management expectations) for the next 5 years by 2%! That’s insane. I do agree if SCS ramps up that poses a risk but that’s a 2027 onwards timeline and my short pitch is on a shorter timeframe.
I am far from a technical expert on Satellites and learning what I can since 2021 from the ASTS thread - [https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/new/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/new/) This is the best place to do DD, although now growing in awareness and popularity, the thread gets overwhelmed by impatient traders looking to score and get out. Community Book Marks on the right include the Kook report for technical analysis among others for great sources of dd for a deep dive. [https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/comments/t5uem4/the\_science\_and\_economics\_behind\_asts\_in\_laymans/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/comments/t5uem4/the_science_and_economics_behind_asts_in_laymans/) I use this source to work valuation models based on an accumulation of information from the company, trading firms, market makers: [https://transhumanica.com/asts/model](https://transhumanica.com/asts/model) : You can tweak this based on other research longer timelines, user conversion, cost of service etc. However, as i understand it. 1. ASTS is purpose built Satellite to address SCS (Supplemental Coverage from Space) with the MNO's (mobile network operators) Globally, like ATT, Verizon, Rakuten, Vodafone, Telefonica, with Terrestrial band width to service uncovered areas (basically the entire planet, including Oceans, unserved urban markets, villages, mountains, deserts, where it is inefficient or impossible to build cell towers. the Satellites (the largest 700sq meter when unfolded) can get complete global coverage with less than 200 satellites and closer to 100 in total). 2. The offer, 5G Broadband, and is adaptable for 6G and beyond. Very desirable with the above mentioned MNO's, and American Tower ( a large investors in ASTS) Starlink can hardly do texting. 3. Starlink is adapting existing tech from the satellite company the bought, to do their Sat to receiver broadband services that was appealing for people with boats or mountain houses etc. But ASTS provides this service as a supplement to unmodified cell phones right out the box. as an add on service. 4. The ASTS satellites were designed for this purpose working in conjunction with the MNO's, Starlink is a pivot in response to this new model. and the tech can't compete, (again, to get into that, is better for the experts posting in those places, than me, I understand what they are saying, but not the intricacy's of the tech. 5. Most global MNO's, FirstNet, Govt agencies, are recognizing this achievement and they have deals with over 50 global mno's and making progress toward government contracts. FirstNet is managed by ATT one of ASTS original partners and funding is expected to be announced soon. 6. SpaceX keeps using these as talking points, SOS and TEXT etc. but no broadband. The satellites are far smaller, not purpose built much weaker satellites which have band width interference issues, which the have asked FCC for a waiver for because the can't satisfy the current requirements. ASTS meets these with far more powerful satellites and worked in conjunction with everyone to build the system to work in the framework. There is a lot more, but the real research is there on the AST thread mentioned earlier. Read the Kook report CATSe - go back and research. I personally am 100% convinced by the dd that this is the next evolution in communication pioneered by this sick company. Because the work as partners, as a service (supplemental) to terrestrial networks, they have a revenue share model. They do not need to acquire consumers, but the MNO's are their customers and the MNO's customer becomes customer of ASTS through them. so the sales numbers and net margins are extremely high. It is a global cell tower space based company. The opportunity is enormous, and they just launched, after years of development, their first 5 commercial satellites which have all unfurled into their full space waffle configuration. will begin testing then commercialization then add more satellites and build it out. It's pre revenue, so this is longer term, but a lot shorter than when i first got in. It's happening now. Funding was an issue so it got knocked down to $2 which i kept buying and then rebounded with prepayment announcements from ATT and then Verizon (a surprise) for the two largest US MNO's , which the need the band width and spectrum to operate through. So then financial concerns to build out the constellation became far more in our favor. Now everyone sees that the tech works, tech works far better than any other solution at the moment and they have over 3500 patents or pending. sorry if this gets scattered, but I am not the best at explaining in detail or in order. Hope this helps some, but the tech analysis is out there. Some of these contributors on the AST thread are so good at explaining the tech, watching satellites in space, documenting use cases and differences in tech, it's ridiculous.
5g works by using very large phased arrays that use beam forming to pick up signal from cellphones and low power devices. For the frequencies AST partners up with MNO around the world to use their spectrum. The FCC is actually finalizing the framework for spectrum reuse from space, called SCS (supplemental coverage from space). So AST does not have to acquire spectrum or spectrum rights.
Look the longer China can keep Russia in the Ukraine war the longer europes manufacturing is on life support. For now china enjoys singular dominance. TANAP/SCS + Caspian + US/OTHER LNG is not going to be enough long term or european bank supported. This intermediate equilibrium is unstable due to who profits (russia, bp, iran, other) considering almost half is banked by the opposition (china/russia). This gives hella leverage with russia/iran/turkey. The longer the Ukrainian war conitnues the further europe is from long term cheap gas (which is key in some manufacturing so it's not just about power). Chinas banks are already starting to produce investment in caspian LNG/stans due to the money from SCS. US/europe cannot tip the balance too far in Ukraines favor because they have not secured an europe/us banking gas source and because of their argument about not moving borders. Everything is stalled until that conversation ends. France is praying that they can force iran to give their south pars contract eventhough china snaked it from sanctions scare. It's immoral as all hell to continue the war and some third parties are making bank helping to perpetuate the war. Nobody realizes how easy it is for 3rd parties to keep a war going if they profit off of it. The highly regarded 'game change' to nuclear is already going to be a failing game. They cannot build quick enough and the technology/expertiese is not there for most locations. you're going to want people to have their entire job caring for their reactors for their entire life. It's a bit like building railroad tracks while the train is moving. It's going to be messy as we have already seen in china multiple times.
Got SCS puts but only spent $30 because it was a random gamble at 3:58. Mad
This is why we can’t have nice things… why are you selling? Did you not see AST? This has a setup 10x better. The difference is AST investors are so delusional and will never sell claiming it’s the next “Tesla” Lunr half the float size of AST. Both shorted 20% +. Lunr actually shorted more 25%. Lunr last ER had 40m rev to AST 1m. Lunr $0 debt to AST 200 million. Lunr got a guaranteed deal half their value. 150m. With potential value of 5 billion over 5 years. AST got 10 million and pat on back from ATT for successful BB1 launch. They haven’t got all of Verizons $ because it’s contingent on getting “all fcc” approvals. But here’s the kicker they need Verizon to give up/let ATT use their billion $ spectrum. Which lets ATT claim “1st 🛰️ coverage to market” and steal subs aka not happening. Aka ATT/AST have no spectrum and getting no SCS approval.
You don’t understand… ATT doesn’t have compliant spectrum to get SCS approval. It’s why First Net and Verizon are so important. If ATT had the spectrum then they wouldn’t try to bring Verizon in. FN is for public safety so crossing with general public is no go. Now it comes down to Verizon. Let’s see.. like I said… is Verizon going to let ATT use their billion dollar spectrum to run to market and claim 1st 🛰️ coverage and steal market share and subs from Verizon? LOL no! They already went elsewhere with Skylo to get voice/text and keep up with the market. They have ATT/AST by the balls and playing them. No spectrum from Verizon and ATT/AST literally have nothing… they can’t get SCS approval.
No. Read the details they don’t get majority of that until they get ALL FCC approvals. But here’s the kicker, AST can’t get SCS approval without Verizon’s spectrum which they will never give up to let ATT run to market and say “1st true SAT coverage” So it’s never happening…
SCS and MLKN are going to crash due to revenue misses and weak guidances.
For SCS, I might have to do a strangle instead of straddle for liquidity reasons; 12.5P, 15.0C. Fedex Ill buy what's close to the money on wednesday or Thursday.
Ever notice the amount of “if”’s and “could”’s that are thrown around when discussing ASTS? “If” the launch is successful, “If” the birds unfurl correctly, “If” their service works with these new sats, “IF” they get further FCC approval….THEN… They: “Could” start building more sats, “could” get more contracts with other MNOs, “COULD” provide global SCS coverage… The stock was a SPAC. The CEO has hidden delays in manufacturing causing launch delays (and subsequently massive stock drops when its reveals in an ER call). The amount of risk associated with this is astronomical (pun intended). The stock already vaulted 15x and the Spacemob call for $50! $100! 🤦♂️ Y’all who held for 3 years, took it from $2 to $30+….if you haven’t sold a significant portion of your gains, you’re fucking regarded. Hence, you belong here. :)
No, I am talking about nuking US navy blockade forces few hundred miles away in SCS, I don't think China will nuke Kinmen island. China likely can capture Taiwan conventionally, it will only go nuclear if US directly intervenes. I also don't think China expects to capture fabs (see US comment about hitting TSMC fans so China can't capture them). It is true China likes the status quo and prefers trade. The current situation is quite stable for now, let's hope it stays that way.
Too bad you didn't buy more. FCC just ruled on SCS. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-858A1.pdf
Guys, FCC just ruled on SCS. ASTS to the moon. https://x.com/CatSE___ApeX___/status/1827056316285923650
bullish news dropped (essentially, starlink can't provide SCS services with their current satellites so ASTS is the only company currently approved to do so)
Doubt that. Just rumours based on FirstNet having a meeting about funding SCS in general. A decision wouldn't be made, drafted, and announced on the same/next day.
No, well almost certainly no. Starlink has sent in a waiver to the FCC to be able to operate at limits above RECENTLY set limits of radio interference. AT&T, Verizon, Dish network and Omnispace, among others have all submitted filings to deny StarLink these permissions, if the FCC was even considering them. The FCC stated in its recent order that SCS (satellite based) frameworks are secondary to terrestrial (earth based) networks, and they must retain the service quality of terrestrial networks. Basically the satellite based frameworks are cool, as long as they’re not causing interference to earth based networks. Starlinks applying for a waiver of that because they are almost 9x over that limit (numbers based on AT&T’s likely biased study) that number may be overstated, but they are certainly over the limit or they wouldn’t apply for the waiver, and will likely cause radio interference to tower based networks. They will likely have to rework their own radio frequency transmissions, or convince the FCC to change an order they filed with SpaceX’s estimates in mind. They then ended up going way over their own estimates in the amount of interference they would cause. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely that the FCC raises the interference limit again, especially when satellite services are supposed to be supplementing current cell phone systems already in place, not harming them and the brands that offer them.
Basically, because the space towers cover lots of territory and users. I think it takes like 3 to cover the whole of US, 40 for continuous coverage, and 90 for near-global coverage. Of course this is SCS (supplementary coverage service) not meant to replace terrestrial which will always be faster and higher capacity but to connect the last 40% it's much, much cheaper to build these sats that's why it's such an opportunity.
19. Effective May 30, 2024, amend § 25.202 by adding paragraph (k) read as follows: § 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits. * * * * * (k) Space station downlinks operating as SCS under the provisions of § 25.125 and § 2.106(d)(33)(i) of this chapter are subject to the following rules. (1) Out of band emission limits. Notwithstanding the emission limitations of paragraph (f) of this section, the aggregation of all space station downlink emissions outside a licensee's SCS frequency band(s) of operation shall not exceed a power flux density of −120 dBW/m2 /MHz at 1.5 meters above ground level. (2) Interference caused by out of band emissions. If any emission from a transmitter operating in the SCS service results in harmful interference to users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater attenuation of the emission than specified in this section.
SpaceX and T-Mobile scrambling to have power limits raised for their D2C satellites. It's important to understand that the FCC's Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) was established as SECONDARY to terrestrial mobile service. **Satellite companies are required to ensure SCS deployment doesn't interfere with existing terrestrial mobile networks.** Recently, SpaceX and T-Mobile have pursued a FCC waiver on the aggregate out-of-band omission (OOBE) power-flux density (PFD) limits and requested an almost nine-fold increase in the already allowed limit by regulations. Why? Because SpaceX is coming to the realization that its Direct-to-Cellular satellites that were quickly slapped together utilizing technology from SpaceX's acquisition of Swarm, a low bandwidth IoT LEO satellite startup that became infamous for becoming the first US company to have deployed satellites without regulatory approval in 2018, **CAN'T WORK UNLESS THE FCC POWER LIMITS ARE INCREASED.** Swarm's technology was never designed to work with unmodified mobile phones utilizing terrestrial cellular spectrum. Now SpaceX and T-Mobile find themselves in the unenviable spot of convincing the FCC that the power limits, that **THEY HELPED CREATE** to protect terrestrial networks, be raised so that their D2C satellites can work. **These power limits were developed as part of the SCS regulatory framework that both SpaceX and T-Mobile helped shape along with other industry players a year ago!** **Yes you read that right, SpaceX and T-Mobile agreed to these limits, but are now coming back hat in hand asking the limits to be increased.** You can't make this up. While some SpaceX supporters may brush this off as a move by industry incumbents to stifle innovation and block out a potential new competitor, it's important to note that T-Mobile raised interference concerns with the FCC about AST SpaceMobile's application for its new D2C service in November 2020. T-Mobile stated in 2020: "AST’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling is ultimately unnecessary to achieve many of the stated public interest benefits, as T-Mobile is already addressing the issues AST seeks to address with the instant request, specifically the deployment of affordable wireless broadband service to unserved or underserved rural areas and enhancing competition in these areas. Rather than bridging the Digital Divide, granting the Petition for Declaratory Ruling could exacerbate deployment to these areas by impeding a well-established, well-funded and technologically sound deployment **due to harmful interference.** " AST has addressed these concerns through multiple interference studies and test results, and from the beginning architected its solution to work with existing terrestrial networks and subsequently meets the FCC SCS interference requirements. Imagine that! AST SpaceMobile and other satellite operators are all working within the regulatory framework **EVERYONE AGREED TO**, but SpaceX and T-Mobile are now asking for the rules to be changed because their technology doesn't work.
Thank you for this reply u/Raveen396. I'd point out that not only did SpaceX and T-Mobile agree to these limits when the SCS regulatory framework was developed, both parties actually helped form these rules as part of the NPRM!
The AST filing with the FCC on July 19th made it clear how superior their design was. They clearly meet the FCC requirements and included a bonus section showing how they don’t cause meaningful interference to Omnispace. Starlink has multiple design challenges beyond just this issue. Not too surprising given they didn’t design for SCS from scratch. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The key aspect of the FCC's new SCS initiative is that all satellite solutions must NOT HARM existing terrestrial cellular networks. SpaceX is utilizing T-Mobile's 1900MHZ PCS spectrum which unfortunately will present interference issues with adjacent spectrum bands when used in this application. SpaceX will likely have to go back to the drawing board to architect a better solution and perhaps use different terrestrial spectrum.
It was from the [AT&T claim](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1), "Although SpaceX has provided an analysis showing that a single satellite could meet the -120 dBW/m2 /MHz PFD limit, it has also indicated it was not “practically achievable” for its constellation to meet the aggregate limit." And went on to mention that SpaceX doesn't include an aggregate analysis based on "realistic operational assumptions" and "has not shown why application of the Commission’s existing aggregate PFD limit would be inequitable, unduly burdensome, or contrary to the public interest". But then after reading the SpaceX[ analysis from February](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1) - "Even in this unrealistically conservative worst case and considering 3 dB of polarization loss, SpaceX’s aggregate out-of-band interference from 7,500 satellites in the PCS G Block—i.e., between -109.9 and -107.7 dBW/m2 /MHz—would still fall below the -107.5 dBW/m2 /MHz noise floor of the idealized UE that AT&T recommends. Of course, because this situation would never happen in practice, these results dramatically overstate the risk of harmful interference to any terrestrial user." - and making sense of a -120 limit being better yet harder to reach than -110, it made more sense. I find it curious that having no rule for SCS operations prior to this submission, the new limit was set well out of what they knew to be achievable range for the SCS system as well as the original UE AT&T recommendation... if I'm understand this correctly.
Piqued. Customer acquisition for irdm was two fold: 1) price per minute for cell coverage globally ($2-5 per minute depending on location) 2) initial investment in the sat phone ASTS solves this by: 1) opt in as needed or on a monthly basis on your existing plan ($2 day pass or $10 per month) 2) works with the phone in your pocket. Spectrum is part of it in that the FCC is developing SCS rules (supplemental coverage from space). But aside from growing pains IRDMs problem was never the tech just the sales. They only had maritime applications, war, some remote villages. They needed to find those customers 1 by 1. Now it’s just VZ and T pitching it as an upsell that they are wanting to do since it’s just a free 5 bucks per customer times 40% or so sell through. No downside to them save for a commercial and a text message. Idk what else since I’m drunk on champagne. Read Eccentric Orbits about Iridium if you care.
It's a new era. Lower launch costs. Global D2D SCS is a great product. Everyone wants 24/7 connectivity. Selling to 45 MNOs unlocks 2.8B potential customers day 1. Really positive about this company. 🚀
AST now has a strong base of support, increasingly institutional. In addition, AST has funds contingent on their launching and deploying, so the execution doubles as an equity unlock. Execution is also tied to regulatory catalysts, putting pressure on the FCC to release SCS frameworks lest they delay businesses. There will be a pump and a correction, but not like when BW3 launched.
20.5-21 soon. Bounced right over support in the reaccumulation trafing range. Very bullish sign. The commercial license is a huge positive catalyst got one before Starlink d2c which have been plagued by interference concerns. $ASTS Clearly first mover advantage on commercial d2c / SCS now with both VZN and AT&T partnered and first to commercial license.
I've had this Steelcase chair for years and I've only learned today that you can adjust the back rest tension. These types of chairs have so many levers and shit. Great durable chairs though. Calls on SCS.
I think the move is calls on $MLKN, their competitor $SCS beat earning last week. Plus I’ve seen some streamers with their chairs lol.
SCS earning tonight
>"Monopoly" LOL. The FCC is creating a framework for the SCS provider industry to follow. But AST, with one satellite in testing, and the bluebirds behind schedule, is somehow going to be a monopoly? You seem to not understand how this works. You cannot provide D2D unless you are partnered with a telecom provider that owns spectrum, so let's review the state of the market. AT&T (29.77% of the market) and Verizon (37.64% of the market) have signed on with AST Spacemobile giving AST Spacemobile 67.41% of the US market. More than 2/3rds. T-Mobile with 31.43% of the market is aligned with Starlink giving them that much of the US market. US Cellular is being bought by T-Mobile, so add their 1.17% of the market to Starlink which gives them 32.60%. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-wireless-carriers-in-the-us-by-subscriptions/ Yeah, so not a monopoly, it's a duopoly with Spacemobile coming out on top at more than 2/3rds of the market. But go ahead and tell me about the artisanal mom and pop D2D companies that are going to spring up.
Anyone playing SCS earnings?
"Monopoly" LOL. The FCC is creating a framework for the SCS provider industry to follow. But AST, with one satellite in testing, and the bluebirds behind schedule, is somehow going to be a monopoly?
What happens to SCS considering the market is closed?
T-Mobile is starting to deploy their version, operating via Starlink, to phones. Some users have satellite texting available. The T-mobile subreddit has some reviews. The SCS tech is going to be implement by every terrestrial cell operator thru some satellite provider. It will be a crowded market. It won't provide general roaming yet. It's intended to serve isolated areas and be supplemental to existing networks. You may be able to switch transparently, when matching satellites are deployed over your area, but not via any provider yet. SCS roaming rules are undefined, and existing roaming rules are still in place. There are no rules on how to prioritize roaming (terrestrial vs space) at this time, but they recommend using terrestrial networks for 911 calls, and giving preference to terrestrial networks, even including WiFi. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401208A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-28A1.pdf
Puts on SCS for having the nerve to release earnings on Juneteenth.
It is very unexpected news. It is also good for the parties involved in several ways. It adresses a waiver AST asked for SCS services a waiver from a rule saying spectrum must be contigous for a geographic area. So the spectrum holdings of Verizon and AT&T are spatially complementary and solves a regulatory and a coverage issue. A win-win-win deal. Also with First-Net spectrum, Verizon has adjacent spectrum there that is adjacent to AT&T spectrum and so this adds up to large continous chunks of lowband spectrum. The way cellphones currently work they can’t carrier aggregate slivers of lowband but they can use single continous wide chunks of spectrum. And so this partnership will allow a much better user experience a better quality of service and true broadband speeds. No one else comes close. In a way it is yet another confirnation from a major player they belive in the tech. And then there is the funding risk / dillution fear that this deal obliterates. They bring USD 100 Mn to the table. That buys a lot of very profitable satellites. In the US American Towers will build the gateway sites for AST. AST will lease them. This terrestrial infrastructure needs not to be duplicated to serve both carriers. The only thing doubling is the revenue stream for AST. Not the costs.
SCS calls 
> The US occupies Syrian oil fields as we speak. The US annexed the Phillipines outright. Do you need to pass through US border control to enter these regions? No, you wouldn't, which means it doesn't pass the bar. Let's give Tibet independent elections and their own immigration borders like the Philippines, since you seem to think it's the same thing. The US needs to clear out of the middle east, but people also need to stop making excuses for Chinese belligerence or we are just going to have US+1 doing this nonsense. We also know what China does with unfettered power - people get disappeared with no recourse, like the journalist who was killed recently in police custody. This is not better than US behaviour, it's just a different flavour of shit sandwich. > seem to struggle with the concept of soft power Imperialism You can't seem to get your definitions straight. If China exerted soft power over Tibet, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The idea of US going in and re-educating Afghanistan Uighur style is horrifying, not something you should be wishing the US had done. Stay in your borders, no excuses, no 'it used to be my territory in ancient times' or 'its for your own good'. > Poland denies it had collaborators in the Holocaust, they're not the best judge when it comes to Fascism. They know a nazi problem when they see one, and they're infinitely more trustworthy than Russia who collaborated with the nazis while invading Poland. > Forcibly opening up a regions markets via military intervention for resource extraction is Imperialism Which is what's unfolding in the SCS dispute, and Russian military in parts of Africa. US needs to clear out as well, not giving them a free pass - France needs to clear out of Africa as well. I am betting you think opinions on Chinese diplomacy are deteriorating due to US propaganda, without being critical of the absolute rubbish the Chinese foreign ministry publishes week to week. Wolf warrior diplomacy is seriously damaging their image, it's a mystery why they persist with it - then point the finger at the US for deteriorating attitudes towards the CCP.
> You mean the war I referenced, 40 years ago You mean the war China never apologised for, or even admitted fault for? Same applies to the US, they haven't reformed, or made any effort to. Does anyone believe US wouldn't pull the same stunt again? Of course not, same applies to China. > As for Imperial expansion, NATO can be considered US territory Ah military alliances, a concept apparently too difficult for China leadership to wrap their head around. Tibet and NATO countries are basically the same right? Maybe Cuba is a Chinese territory also? > I have no sympathy for slavers That's the US's whole shtick, liberating people from the communists and dictators - and here you are repeating it almost verbatim. Pretty incredible. > choose the one that doesn't lie to the world to kickstart wars. At least they made a token effort (as shameless and deceptive as it was) - China skipped that step and just invaded without a pretext. Ukraine being full of Nazis is a bald faced lie, that China amplifies. Philippines claims in SCS being baseless, also a complete fabrication - the ruling by the court is a solid base. US is full of it as well, in case I needed to clarify that. Look at the water cannon nonsense. This is how China behaves when they still have some accountability for their actions - I don't much want to find out how they behave when all constraints are removed. All Philippines concerns are dismissed out of hand, zero attempt to understand their grievances.
> Are there any consequences for not listening to them? Yes there are, ask Vietnam what the consequences were when they invaded Cambodia. > Name one time China has attacked another country for not listening in the last 40 years Can you list the amount of territory acquired in the past century through imperial expansion, China vs US? Not letting US off the hook here, their behaviour is unacceptable - but their borders aren't creeping larger. SCS is latest expansion. > Name 1 time they've instituted sanctions that weren't in retaliation to sanctions placed on them. Australian sanctions for asking for an investigation into covid. > China doesn't demand the world bend to its will with the threat of sanctions or force Are water cannons force or not? > not also hate the US for funding Israel's genocide How do you know I don't? I certainly don't approve of it, and I support Palestine's sovereignty. We can actually have this discussion in public, which is more than can be said for opposition to Chinese state policy.
July SCS 15c 😭 I’m telling yall
All they do is steal US technology and IP. (And of course sable rattle, threaten shipping in the SCS and threaten Taiwan.) We should be forcing anti-Chinese divestment as much as possible.
DD on SCS 
SCS 😔 calls for July and sell before June earnings for free 50%
SCS July calls ❤️👌👈
SCS or PATH calls and sell before earnings. Then continue just to do this with random companies like 2 months out from their earnings and sell day before. It’s safe and cheap
SCS hold till earnings 15c
Here's the makeup of my portfolio at close today: 34.01% -- $VOO 12.64% -- $LVMUY (LVMH) 11.56% -- $AXP 11.47% -- $DTE 10.00% -- $CROX 5.83% -- $FSELX 5.69% -- $H 4.32% -- $KO 3.63% -- $SCS I try to play it safe with two thirds of my portfolio: a minimum of 33% of my portfolio stays in VOO, and I try to keep another \~33% in stable blue chips like AXP, KO, and LVMUY (LVMH). That last third gets split up between between stable speculative plays (DTE and SCS due to yield with some strong upside potential as well) and more volatile speculative plays like semi-conductors with FSELX, retail/apparel with CROX, and luxury and business travel with H.