Eric Fry has a somewhat contrarian “Tech Panic” teaser pitch running for his Fry’s Investment Report newsletter ($49 first year, $79 renewal, 90-day refund period), mostly focused on the fact that he thinks the current AI boom is a mirror of the 2000 dot-com boom, and will similarly crash, leading to disaster for the “Magnificent Seven” stocks…
… and he’s right that there are some similarities (and some differences), and that the stock market is being led by a small number of companies (though that’s pretty often true), and that valuations are “optimistic” for a lot of the big tech stocks. Investors have noticed that large cap stocks have boomed, and now trade at almost-unprecedented valuations — especially NVIDIA (NVDA), which, as we’ve often noted, has a story that rhymes pretty nicely with Cisco (CSCO) in the 1990s, but even giants like Microsoft (MSFT) are valued more richly than they’ve been in 20+ years.
Lots of folks agree that the market is top-heavy and “feels” pretty risky, lots of folks see a crash coming at some point… nobody knows exactly when, or how bad it will be. That’s the sad truth — forecasts of the broad market (or the macro economy) are little more than guesses, flips of the coin… except that a stock market forecast is probably less likely to be right than a coin flip, because there are thousands of different ways the future could evolve. It seems pretty clear that some AI-driven story stocks are in a valuation “bubble”… but if we compare the AI boom to the dot-com boom there’s no way to be at all sure whether we’re in 1996, with huge gains yet to come… or early 2000, with an epic crash around the corner…. or something in between.
Heck, for all we know stocks could stay relatively stable for ten years now — humans don’t get to know the future, all we really know is that we’ll probably overreact to it, with paroxysms of fear and greed, because that’s how we always behave.
More importantly for our purposes, Eric Fry believes that the winners of this next phase will be the “Next-Gen Stocks” who can survive and thrive even if the tech stocks crash… and eventually he hints at one of them, so we can look into that for you.
Here’s how he talks up that bit:
“…. they’re a unique class of stocks — of businesses — that are essential for the growth and prosperity of society, as a whole.
“They are the types of businesses that all Americans use on a regular basis… and they tend to flourish in all economic conditions, even during recessions.
“During the 2008 Financial Crisis, for example…
“While the U.S. economy lost over 8.7 million jobs, Next-Gen companies ADDED over one million jobs.”
And he doesn’t just go back to the dot-com bubble, but to the Great Depression (which, of course, followed the “Roaring Twenties” — lots of folks are drawing those comparisons these days, 100 years later).
“The concentration of tech stocks has now eclipsed — not only — the dot-com boom… but the bubble of The Great Depression in the 1930’s…
“But on the flip side… Next-Gen companies are set to be in a severe shortage of 10 million employees by 2030.
“Can you see where the REAL demand is rotating right now?
“OUT of ‘big tech’ and INTO Next-Gen Stocks…”
“… and while major tech stocks appear headed for a violent reckoning, I believe Next-Gen Stocks stand to create an entirely new generational wave of millionaires in the years ahead.”
And he says he’s done this before… and that the “smart money” is coming to a similar conclusion right now…
“In 2001, I went on public television ‘pounding the table’ to buy a specific Next-Gen Stock, all while the dot-com crash was still in full force.
“Those who listened and invested in that Next-Gen Stock saw it double over the next three years all while the S&P 500 was producing a massive loss for everyone else….
“Nine months after the dot-com crash, tech stocks had plunged over -50% from their highs!
“But Next-Gen Stocks, as an entire sector, were up over 40%….
“So, while your friends, financial advisors, and mainstream media outlets cheer on the “next leg higher” in names like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft…
“The insiders — the true ‘smart money’, they’re all piling into ‘off-the-radar’ Next-Gen Stocks instead.”
So what are those “Next-Gen Stocks?” Really just, “healthcare stocks” — which until recent years were always considered to be relatively safe places for “widows and orphans” to stash their money, in steady leading companies like Johnson & Johnson. This is often a sector folks look to when they get nervous about other stuff, if only because of the demographic shift in the world’s most profitable healthcare market (U.S. baby boomers are getting to those “max healthcare spending” years), though it’s not always a “sexy” enough market to inspire a lot of teaser pitches — I think the last big healthcare sector pitch we looked at, aside from all the “AI drug discovery” and “next hot biotech” pitches, was Dr. David Eifrig’s “Healthcare Singularity” pitch a couple years ago.
But Eric Fry is also trying to sell a newsletter, so they’re not just healthcare stocks… they’re “AI-Healthcare” stocks. From Fry:
“I believe “AI-Healthcare” investments could create more wealth than we’ve ever seen in the sector….
“It’s a total transformation…
“From surgical procedures…
“To medical diagnostics…
“To medical education…
“And that’s just scratching the surface.”
Finally, then, we get to the “#1 Next-Gen Stock”, and the hints from Eric Fry about which one is his favorite. He does talk up all the AI stories we’ve heard many times over the past year — the fact that “AI Drug Discovery” companies are cutting drug development time in half, or that AI systems are getting to be better (and faster) at finding tumors than radiologists… but really, he seems to be leaning on the “defensive” argument for health care stocks…
“The critical point here is…
“Healthcare is an evergreen necessity, in any market condition.
“‘Healthcare Stocks Offer Resilience, Plus Growth’ — BlackRock, $10 Trillion Asset Manager”
That particular quote is from a BlackRock Health Sciences analyst, in a note last year about the appeal of the sector — and that might be right, we’ll find out in the fullness of time, but we should note that the manager of a sector fund (BlackRock Health Sciences Opportunities Fund (SHSAX), in this case) is always incentivized to tell us that their sector is cheap and appealing. For what it’s worth, that BlackRock fund has pretty much exactly mimicked the total return of the S&P Health Care Sector over the past decade…. and the health care sector outperformed the broader market for much of the past decade, but has, no surprise, trailed the market over the past year.
Then we finally get to the specific pick:
“The Next 1,000% Investment
“I’ve compiled everything into a new guide, called: The #1 Next-Gen Stock.
“What I believe could be my fifth 1,000% winner in this sector….
“Because this stock allows you to ride the entire next wave of innovations in this sector — from ONE simple investment.
“Kim, think of this company as a toll road…
“And virtually any historic innovation in this sector that comes to market, may go through this particular company.”
Hmmm… that’s a particularly lawyer-chosen phrase there, “may go through.” The investment metaphor of a toll road, of course, usually implies that you pretty much have to use it if you want the most convenient path, and therefore you have to pay. That might not be the case here.
Other clues:
“Essentially, this company is a bank — providing financing for all kinds of new innovations, in exchange for permanent royalties.
“We’re talking investing in what will become the biggest advances of the 21st century, in ONE single stock.
“In fact, this company has already secured the largest royalty portfolio in this sector’s history — and growing.
“So instead of investing your money into one, two, or three different stocks in this sector, that could potentially rise…
“With this company, you can get paid for a generation of innovation that’s being built… without having to own more than ONE single stock!”
OK… so some kind of healthcare royalty stock. And since we’re talking up a stock that will survive Fry’s impending tech collapse, we have to assume that he means a stock that’s got some royalty revenue now — not just, like the AI drug discovery stocks, the potential for royalty revenue perhaps 8-10 years from now, when their first wave of AI-discovered drugs might be commercialized.
And one final crop of clues…
“It’s no surprise that the world’s financial elite are already in.
“Morgan Stanley owns 46 million shares of this company.
“Vanguard 37 million shares.
“BlackRock (the world’s #1 asset manager) owns 21 million shares.
“Not to mention State Street, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and more.”
So… hoodat? This is the largest publicly traded pharmaceutical royalty company, Royalty Pharma (RPRX).
Which is a bit of a buzzkill for yours truly, I’m sad to say, because I owned this one for a few years after their IPO, and I generally love the strategy of investing through royalties… but they just haven’t been able to replace their expiring royalty cash flow at reasonable enough prices for me to hold on, which means there hasn’t been any revenue growth, which means investors never really got interested. Kind of like a toll road… but a road that has to be rebuilt every ten years, with most of those tolls going to pay for the rebuilding.
That doesn’t mean I’m an expert on this company, to be clear. Here’s what I wrote to the Irregulars when I finally sold my RPRX position last Summer:
I’ve been really wrong about Royalty Pharma (RPRX), which has tried to build a growing royalty portfolio, and in some ways has succeeded, mostly replacing their expiring drug royalties with new investments in drugs that are either selling well or in advanced development and likely to be approved… but it’s been a slog, their costs are high, and the short lifecycle of drug royalties makes the churn substantial enough that replacing their revenue is increasingly difficult. I’ve held on because they’ve paid a solid dividend and kept growing that, gradually, and because they do seem to be making intelligent decisions in drug acquisitions and financing deals… but this is both a less-steady business and a slower grower than I anticipated when I started buying shares shortly after the IPO. What pushes me to think more negatively about it now is that we’re also seeing increased insider selling, at the same time that they’re also facing increased borrowing costs for their substantial debt balance, and a share count that continues to gradually climb higher.
It’s time to recognize that I was probably just wrong about Royalty Pharma — the valuation looks quite rational to me, but the business hasn’t really improved in the way I thought it would, and that means we’re either in an unlucky dip here that could recover, or I’m just thinking wrong about the value of the stock. Increasingly, I think it’s the latter, and I’m not willing to hold through more meaningful losses if that’s the case, so I’ll take my 20% loss and cut out of this holding. RPRX leaves the portfolio at just under $30 per share, for a total loss of about 21% since I started buying about three years ago.
And that’s actually just about where RPRX sits a year later, too — it’s been bouncing around between $27 and $30 since I sold but at the moment it’s at the lower end of that range, down another 8% or so, while the S&P 500 has climbed 24%. And it looks fundamentally cheap, at about 7X expected adjusted earnings and 13X GAAP earnings, with a 3%+ dividend yield… but there’s still not a ton of hope that they can really create levered per-share returns anytime soon. So far, since their 2020 IPO, they’ve grown their top-line revenue at about the same rate as they’ve grown their share count (revenue per share has been shrinking since 2021), and that may turn if they’re really building future royalty streams that will be larger than their past deals, which is entirely possible, but that’s not guaranteed.
Right now, analysts expect them to grow from $2.35b in revenue in 2023 to $2.64b this year and $3.2 billion in 2026, which is decent 10% growth that should lead to at least 10% EBITDA and earnings growth, with good cash flow, but both the EBITDA growth and the GAAP earnings per share growth estimates for that same three year period (2023-2026) is only 5%. So you can see why the stock is trading at a pretty low valuation — analysts expect the business to grow reasonably, but to have disappointing earnings growth over the next few years.
This is a royalty company, essentially run by a handful of healthcare analysts and bankers, so their margins are extremely high and almost all the revenue drops to the bottom line, and they have good economies of scale… but no real way to substantially improve the economies of scale from here. And it’s also financing expensive drug development projects that take at least a few years to turn into revenue, at pretty hefty cost (some royalties are bought when the drug is promising but in mid-stage development, with some uncertainty about approval… some when the drug is already approved, and the drugmaker just needs capital to commercialize the drug — investing in manufacturing, a sales force, marketing, etc.), so the value of those potential future revenue streams is heavily impacted by interest rates (since every long-term investment is driven by interest rates… and since they use some debt), which I’m sure has also put some pressure on the stock over the past year.
The challenge comes from the fact that they’re not really stockpiling future potential blockbusters — they’re cycling through high-probability drugs, as some go off-patent every year, and they use the cash flow from their royalty and milestone payments to fund the investments they make in the next crop of deals that should replace that cash flow, usually with a lag between the royalty investment and when it starts actually contributing to cash flow (they invest about $2 billion per year in buying more royalties, buying ~8 new drugs per year, about half of which are “development-stage” and probably many years from generating revenue… though about 2/3 of their development-stage drugs do end up getting approved for commercial sale).
This is the best portfolio manager in drug royalties, I would argue, certainly the biggest, and they’re more likely to get the best deals and build a strong portfolio over time… but unlike, say, mining royalties, time really matters — drug patents expire after 20 years, and take about ten years to get through regulatory approval, so for the most part these up-front investments by Royalty Pharma require a company to have great sales during their ~10 year commercial patent-protected phase, which sometimes fails to happen, and I think that means they really need at least one or two of the drugs they finance to grow into larger-than-expected blockbusters every few years, otherwise the financial model doesn’t have much potential for wealth-building. It’s a tough business, and a hit-driven business, and I still find the idea of it compelling… but my experience with this stock tells me that I don’t have the insight to risk my money here… even though they do find those hits sometimes (their partnerships/royalties with Immunomedics and Biohaven turned into great returns, with an improved probability of more long-term success, when those companies were acquired by big pharma, for example).
Which isn’t to say it won’t work out, over time. It’s a good business model, and they’re arguably better at it than anyone else, particularly when it comes to large-scale deals, and it’s a pretty efficient platform — if you want a more detailed overview, they have a recent Investor Presentation. They think they can compound at a “low teens” internal rate of return, maybe more than that if they use more debt, and that’s pretty attractive for a company that trades at a low-teens earnings multiple and pays a solid dividend. They just haven’t been able to prove that over the past couple years, so we’ll see if they turn that around.
Because I always find these royalty stories tempting, I’ll leave you with the less-tempting chart of their performance so far — since the IPO, they’ve had falling per-share free cash flow, earnings and EBITDA, and have lost about 39% for early investors… the only positive line there, at the top, is the 23% growth in their share count.
Bottoming out now? Building for the future? Or just in decline? That’s your call to make… it is, after all, your money. Please let us know what you think with a comment below.
Disclosure: Of the companies mentioned above, I own shares of NVIDIA and have stop-loss trades entered for NVIDIA that could trip at any time. I otherwise will not trade in any covered stock for at least three days after publication, per Stock Gumshoe’s trading rules.
Nice catch Travis.
It’s a decent alternative indeed to be diversified in biotech and get the dividend while waiting for the next big thing.
Many thanks, as always, for sharing your research with the community.
just red Fre’s itchandwas surprisedhow quickly you answered it. What I took away from the pitch is that if he’s right Dow and S&P puts could pay out big bucks. Boy am I glad you do this for a living!
I subscribe to Fry’s service, and you are right about the stock. I also subscribe to Chaikin Analytics, which rates RPRX “very bullish.” All four measurements look quite good: Financials, Earnings, Technicals and Experts. This rating is an upgrade from what it had been recently — Neutral or Neutral+. Here’s the summary comments: The Chaikin Power Gauge Rating™ for RPRX is Very Bullish due to attractive financial metrics, strong earnings performance, strong price/volume activity and positive expert activity. RPRX’s financial metrics are very good due to a relatively high cash flow. RPRX’s earnings performance is strong as a result of an upward yearly earnings trend.
“I decided they’d had enough time to prove that they could build and compound per-share value, and had largely failed to do so”
Doc – This business has “compounded” from inception to +$20B today & they have increased Non GAAP EPS from $2.44 in 2020 to $4.83 last year…Because this is considered a PFIC and the nature of using Effective Interest Rate GAAP accounting, GAAP is ineffective & misleading for analyzing this business. You can simply analyze the CF Stmt to give you the real story. Legoretta conservatively sees the business getting to +$5B Sales by 2030, which would put EPS close to $7.50. RPRX is trading today at 7x non gaap earnings, growing 10-12% a year. With a mid 3% div and a reasonable 12x multiple, the CAGR would be +20% from todays levels. The business has fundamentally improved every year since the IPO, while the valuation has fallen. The cf’s are very predictable and defensive and w/ 85-90% margins, they can self fund/compound their growth for many years. They now own 15 Blockbuster drugs, they seem to be highly skilled in analyzing drugs and deal structuring in terms of risk mgmt.
This to me, is a true value investor play….which is not the hype kind of stock that is rewarded in this market. The tide can/will eventually change.
The accounting does obscure the value to some degree, I’m sure, so perhaps I’m too short-sighted when looking primarily at the falling revenue and free cash flow per share — didn’t dig into PFIC or other issues with that.
They’ve compounded cash flow, in theory, by using it to buy assets that should be valuable in the future, and I agree that they seem to be doing a good job of picking drugs to buy into… but it hasn’t grown the book value or earnings per share yet, so investors are mostly stuck with the dividend and waiting for the top-line growth to pick up enough to grow free cash flow.
Maybe I was too impatient, it’s a ln idea that seems like it should work, we’ll see how it plays out.
Their I/S does not screen well, but really irrelevant imo. In fact, the FD Share Count is generally incorrect on most sites. As a result of +$300M in buybacks last year, the Share Count has declined from 607M in 2021 to 597M today – so they haven’t actually been dilutive at all. And, they still have $690M left in buybacks. Also, what is not mentioned is the fact that they have no income tax burden…so effectively 20% better cash efficiency that big pharma or BDC’s don’t have – EV/EBITDA comps vs peers won’t reflect this.
My issue is having a hard time understanding their share lockup structure. As you mentioned, the insiders have put a lot of selling pressure on the stock price as a result of heavily gifted shares before/into the IPO. With +600M share count at IPO, the insider ownership was fully baked in rather than quarterly/annual SBC payouts. I think they had shareholder friendly intentions by pushing the insider lockup out to 5 yrs (what is usually 6 months) from the IPO but this could now be more of an overhang, if I understand it correctly. The lockup would occur in Feb’25.
All in all, I’d say the business itself in terms of fundamentals has been hitting on all cylinders…cf performance, capital deployment & overall portfolio quality. And the valuation nearly half the growth rate. But, the market has not seemed to appreciate it.
Book Value is also distorted by Effective Interest Rate Accounting. They have to mark to market the CF’s and subsequently the ‘Carrying Value’ of their assets per Consensus Analyst Projections, which we all know are unreliable.
As for apples to apples revenue growth, royalty receipts excl milestones were up 10% from 2023 vs 2022. In Q1’24, royalty receipts ex milestones were up 14% yoy…..These are in-line with Mgmts long term guidance of 11-15% per year which does not take into account future milestone payments from deals like Imunomedics or Biohaven. I would suspect CYTK will be similar deal as some point in the next few years.
Thanks tiger5, great feedback on the accounting.
23% increase in number of shares. This has got to be the dumbest question you’ve seen here since my last question, but why is this considered a good thing? Doesn’t that dilute share price?
Thanks for your hard work, Travis. I will ask my wife to allow me to be a paying customer (in a few months).
In general, yes — part of the challenge is that this was essentially a private royalty fund before going public, so they had investors in the fund who became shareholders, but there is also dilution. See tiger5’s comments in this thread for some ameliorating factors, and reasons why the GAAP accounting might hide some of the growing value in RPRX.
I used to value Fry’s investment recommendations, but have not had a good run with his current portfolio. Out of 47 tickers in his portfolio, 21 are down and it appears percentagewise that the negative tickers outweigh the positive percentages of investment $$$. Even RPRX is down 9% from when he recommended it.
Travis: I’ve been reading about TPL’s pilot development project using fractional freezing to desalinate “produced water” from fracking of oil bearing rock in the Permian Basin. TPL has acquired interests in over 800,000 acres of land in Texas and has formed a subsidiary Texas Pacific Water Resources (TPWR) to provide produced water disposal services in the Permian Basin- which has become a growing problem for the O&G producers. TPL has invested substantial CapEx in developing a proprietary fractional freezing desalination method that offers energy saving advantages compared to other methods of produced water treatment in a joint venture with a corporate partner with expertise in industrial refrigeration technology. TPL issued public statements that the fractional freezing process reduces the 75% of dissolved solid content, heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals in the produced water: every barrel of oil produced by fracking in the Delaware basin is associated with 4 barrels of brackish water with much greater salt content than ocean water. Permian basin Oil production is about 6 million bpd. A TPWR pilot plant to desalinate 10,000 bpd of produced water is planned for 2025 with subsequent expansion to double the output of fresh water. This seems like an interesting and potentially valuable source of royalties for TPL as well an attractive solution to a major environmental issue in the oil patch re: produced water disposal. My question is what is the name of the industrial partner that TPL is partnering with to develop fractional freezing desalination process? And if you think TPL or the industrial JV partner is the better choice to invest in the idea?
Do you know if AI will speed up most drug research with a benefit to RPRX?
Shouldn’t benefit RPRX much, the speed-up part of AI drug research is the “discovery” part, it makes it faster to identify compounds that will make good drugs. So far there’s no indication that it will speed up the actual clinical trial process (8-10 years) of evaluating those drugs in human beings much, if at all. RPRX generally buys royalties on drugs that are either approved or are well along in the clinical trial process and likely to get approved.
AI may change things more in the future, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t expect RPRX to be a meaningful beneficiary in the next few years.
Below is a good summary of RPRX cf’s since IPO from their latest May Investor Presentation
Following the feedback, I went back and checked the Q’s and K’s — yes, it turns out most of the apparent dilution was the conversion of Class B shares into Class A, so the real shareholder count is relatively unchanged since the IPO in 2020 (was slightly above 600M, now about 600M)… so that’s $4.50 in adjusted EBITDA per share now, per the company’s presentation, which means they’re valued at roughly 6X adjusted EBITDA.
They also have this strange “Deferred shares” line that I do not understand — once the insider Class B shares are converted to A’s (and therefore get “economic rights” and the dividend, which Class B shares theoretically do not), those Class B shareholders also get “Deferred shares”, which don’t seem to really exist but might preserve some kind of insider advantage in a takeover or something. Nut super clear from their last 10-K what that’s all about, but yes, the current numbers look better than they did in my first (recent) look.
Yes, you nailed it. They have 597M FD SO as of Q1’24. Note, 2022-23 EPS are a bit inflated from the Immunomedics and Biohaven buyouts & subsequent milestone pmts, so YoY comps do trend down slightly this year. But they certainly should not be penalized for what appears on the surface to be ‘slowing growth’.
They are valued below pharma peers which are at 10.5x EBITDA, meanwhile RPRX is non-cyclical, more capital efficient, & has no D or T below the EBITDA line….So from $2.44 EPS in 2020 to $7.50E in 2030, that is a 12% CAGR. For context, Markel in their Annual Report reflected an 8-9% CAGR from 2003-2023, meanwhile the stock nearly 5x. So, at a Peter Lynch Fair Value of 1x PEG, $7.50 * 12 = $90/share & getting ~3.5% dividend/yr is +22% CAGR …trading today at nearly half the growth rate for a very defensive business in an uncertain economy. And I could argue based on the characteristics above & what other royalty businesses get, they actually deserve a slight premium.
I believe the B Shares are the Legacy Shareholder interests from the PE Fund & they have rights to convert B to A Shares. I have some trouble understanding the share structure/compensation, specifically the Feb’25 Lockup expiration and Pledging from Insiders who own 30% of the ordinary share count. Their continued selling, along with the turnover from pre IPO shareholders it seems has been a big part of the stock’s underperformance.
Yes, you nailed it. They have 597M FD SO as of Q1’24. Note, 2022-23 EPS are a bit inflated from the Immunomedics and Biohaven buyouts & subsequent milestone pmts, so YoY comps do trend down slightly this year. But they certainly should not be penalized for what appears on the surface to be ‘slowing growth’.
They are valued below pharma peers which are at 10.5x EBITDA, meanwhile RPRX is non-cyclical, more capital efficient, & has no D or T below the EBITDA line….So from $2.44 EPS in 2020 to $7.50E in 2030, that is a 12% CAGR. For context, Markel in their Annual Report reflected an 8-9% CAGR from 2003-2023, meanwhile the stock nearly 5x. So, at a Peter Lynch Fair Value of 1x PEG, $7.50 * 12 = $90/share & getting ~3.5% dividend/yr is +22% CAGR …trading today at nearly half the growth rate for a very defensive business in an uncertain economy. And I could argue based on the characteristics above & what other royalty businesses get, they actually deserve a slight premium.
I believe the B Shares are the Legacy Shareholder interests from the PE Fund & they have rights to convert B to A Shares. I have some trouble understanding the share structure/compensation, specifically the Feb’25 Lockup expiration and Pledging from Insiders who own 30% of the ordinary share count. Their continued selling, along with the turnover from pre IPO shareholders it seems has been a big part of the stock’s underperformance.
There is an interesting related news article available at the Fidelity website.
Go to Fidelity.com, one the top right corner type in LEU, then scroll down to the news item about scientists worried about enriched fuel. Worth reading!
Robert Anderson
Sounds like you probably mean the nuclear proliferation risk — that flows from a Science article that the Union of Concerned Scientists posted about. The new analysis indicates that HALEU with more than a 12% concentration of U-235 could be practically used to make substantial nuclear bombs (comparable to Hiroshima), the previous “worry” level was 20% (that’s what has typically been called “highly enriched uranium” (HEU)). That leads to more potential risk, and more security rules, and I suppose that could also slow down the regulatory process. Or lead to the NRC putting a cap on HALEU at 12% or some other middling number, which would presumably lead to lower power output for some of the SMR designs (and maybe redesign, restarting some of the regulatory clock).
That’s just speculation on my part, I have no idea whether regulators will consider this new study to be meaningful, or will want to alter plans as a result.
Hi Travis can you do a review of EnergyX stock?
Don’t know anything about it… what makes them stand out to you?
During this presentation, Eric Frye speaks of intense ongoing insider dumping of “their own company’s stock” while continuing to flash names and photo’s of well known billionaires who are supposedly “running for the exits”.
Are these wealthy insiders actually, verifiably doing that?
There are certainly some cautious folks, Warren Buffet bumped down his stock portfolio by a few percent over the past couple quarters… and insiders at megacap companies and at pretty much all tech companies (and other relatively young companies) are almost always selling.
Technically I just see 2 possibilities for RPRX, either a double bottom around 26$ or a stoploss fishing a bit below.
So it seems logical to start to build up a position here with stops below 21$.
Keeps ticking down to new all-time lows… sheesh, eventually I’m going to end up liking this one again.
I saw an article by Next-Gen that scared me enough to reduce my Margin account to zero.I haven’t yet read your article, but my next step is to see what stocks (His Next-Gen Stocks) he is recommending. I’ll be back after reading your article, but I’m still glad that I got rid of my Margin account debt. It was worrying me. I didn’t want to be in the position of owing that much after my portfolio had taken a tumble. Now, of course, all of the stock I sold will probably be exploding upward That’s life. Sigh.
Well, after re-listening to their 50-minute pitch, I subscribed to their package, and I’m now thinking about selling all the stocks they are warning about(cash is not bad, if it removes the worrying)Also, I am interested in their other articles (The #1 Next-Gen stock, The 1000% Next-Gen portfolio, Fry’s Investment Report, and The 10 stocks insiders are dumping now. They do say that I can cancel my subscription if I’m not satisfied with what I get.
Tomorrow I’ll decide about selling my remaining stocks. This might be a good time to watch from afar to see what develops in the next few months. I can always get back in.
(Aug 13, 2024)
Really all depends on your emotional makeup — if you would refuse to buy stocks you like at 10% higher prices, just because you sold them, the. Think carefully about selling. Buying back in at a higher price is almost physically painful for some people.
Unless you’re young enough to have lots of time to rebuild your portfolio after a surprise crash (and they’re pretty much all surprising, to most of us, most of the time), margin is hugely risky. Still tempting, since it helps so much when markets go up, but margin calls and 100%+ losses can be devastating to recover from.
Yeah, I paid off my debt, because I didn’t feel right about that hanging over my head in these times. Today, I also sold the remainder of my stock, so I now have a nice little pile of money to comfort me in bad times. I did keep some stock that can only go up…I think. I mean it’s really DOWN now, and selling it wouldn’t help my financial position that much. On the bright side…for others, my stock sale probably means the market will now zoom up. Don’t mention it.
(Thu Aug 15, 2024; 6:19 PM).
Is he correct? Will there be a crash? I thought these big tech guys were selling their stock to reinvest in data centers and SMR’s? Fry’s co-Investor Place buddy Lango is saying the market is going to soar, small caps, with the drop in interest rates. Does anybody know if any of these guys are correct? They can’t all be right, right? Thanks!