As I have posted before, I’m on my journey of rebalancing my portfolio, and one of my goals is to get rid of my $QQC and to put a portion of it towards more $VFV since I wanted to get rid of such a large overlap with my ETFs. And first step accomplished! 🎉🎊🥳 yayy
I know this concept gets brought up as a joke sometimes, but I just had a serious conversation with a beginner about it, so I’m inspired to offer some clarity. When people say covered calls have “capped upside,” I think two different ideas sometimes get mixed together. First, capped upside does not mean your entire portfolio return is capped. It refers to the upside of the underlying above the strike price during the life of the option. If you own something at $100, sell a call with a $110 strike and collect a premium, you can still benefit from the underlying rising from $100 to $110. Your return can be a combination of: Capital appreciation + option premium If the market moves sideways, the premium can help. If it falls modestly, the premium can soften the loss. If it rises but stays below the strike, you can participate in that rise while also keeping the premium. It’s only once the underlying rises substantially beyond the strike that you start seeing the opportunity cost of the covered call relative to simply holding the underlying. I think this matters because otherwise “capped upside” can accidentally turn into a strawman where people hear it as: “Covered call investors can’t benefit when stocks go up.” That isn’t true. The second point is why many people still favour simply owning the underlying for long-term investing. If you own an asset because you believe it has substantial long-term appreciation potential, repeatedly selling calls against it means repeatedly creating periods where some of that upside can be surrendered in exchange for premium. Sometimes that trade works very well. Sometimes the premium more than compensates you for the upside you gave away. But over a long investing horizon, an asset that experiences large upward moves gives you more opportunities to run into that cap. That is the actual trade-off. “Capped upside” doesn’t mean no upside. It means you are getting paid a premium in exchange for agreeing to give up some upside beyond a defined point.read more
It's that time of the week again! Time to celebrate our wins, no matter how big or small and no matter how good or bad the market has treated us! I'll show you mine, if you show me yours! 😜😅 I've been on holidays, but I managed to squeeze this in before heading on the long, two day drive home through forest fire 🌲 🔥 💨 delays and detours. Wish me luck! Top Stocks of the Week 📈 1. $CGNT ⬆️ 32.22% 2. $ITH ⬆️17.92% 3. $OSCR ⬆️ 15.19% Top Options of the Week 📊 1. $PBR ⬆️ 1031.58% (Call LEAP - Unrealized) 2. $NVDA ⬆️ 66.67% (Long Put - Realized) 3. $AMD ⬆️ 66.67% (Long Put - Realized) read more
The advice I keep seeing on Blossom for young investors is that when you're young you can afford to take more risk, and in general I agree with that. Where it goes sideways is in how people put it into practice. Increasing risk usually turns into increasing concentration, and lately that means a few AI names or bitcoin/crypto. What concentration does is widen the range of what could happen to you, without paying you anything extra for it. You might hit it big and you might lose 80 or 90 percent of it, and both of those are very real possibilities. You could take your whole paycheque to a roulette table and put it on red. You have definitely increased your risk. But run that a million times and your expected return is negative, because the wheel has a green zero on it. Run a diversified basket of stocks a million times and your expected return is positive. Both are risky. Only one of them has something paying you to take the risk. Hendrik Bessembinder looked at 25,967 US stocks from 1926 to 2016 and found that only 42.6% of them beat one-month treasury bills over their lifetime, with just 4.3% of stocks accounting for all the net wealth created above T-bills. The median stock lost money. So when you concentrate, you're betting you're holding some of that 4.3%. The usual argument is that a 20 year old can afford to lose it, because there's plenty of time to recover. Personally I'd argue the opposite. If you're 20 and you lose $10,000, at 8% over 40 years that's about $217,000 you don't have at 60. That's the price tag on the bet, not ten grand. And most people are placing this bet inside a TFSA, which makes it worse. If you put $10,000 in and it falls to $1,000, you only get $1,000 of room back when you withdraw it. The other $9,000 of contribution room is gone for good. You can't claim the loss against anything either, since capital losses inside a TFSA can't be used to offset capital gains. I understand the appeal of treating it as bonus money and hoping you picked right. But if you buy something diversified and keep contributing, you put yourself in a good position without ever needing the home run.read more
I’ve been using my income funds to help pay for my vacation to Poland 🇵🇱 I have what I call the Four Horsemen and they are $OVL$TDAQ$GPIQ and $QQQI / $XQQI and a few satellite positions! Not Financial Advice!
The more I look at $UBER around $76, the harder it is for me to understand the valuation. Uber is worth roughly $156 BILLION. Trailing 12-month free cash flow just surpassed $10 BILLION for the first time ever. That puts the stock at less than 16x trailing free cash flow. Meanwhile, Q2 gross bookings grew 24% and adjusted EBITDA grew 33%. For a business still growing like this, $UBER continues to look like one of the best risk/reward setups in my portfolio. read more
Intel $INTC CEO buys $10,000,000 worth of Intel shares at around $95/share a few days ago… Insiders can sell for MANY reasons but they only buy for one. They think the stock price will rise.
If you could only buy one Mag 7 stock today which would you choose? $NVDA at $225 $MSFT at $495 $GOOGL at $345 $AMZN at $263 $META at $590 $AAPL at $305 $TSLA at $341 And why? At today’s prices I’m taking Meta 🤷♂️ read more
If I had $100,000 to invest in the stock market TODAY, this is exactly how I’d allocate it. No ETFs. No cash sitting on the sidelines. No over-diversifying just for the sake of it. I’d put every dollar into the businesses I believe offer the best combination of growth, quality, valuation and long-term upside. Here’s the portfolio: SoFi | $SOFI — $20,000 Amazon | $AMZN — $16,000 Uber | $UBER — $14,000 ServiceNow | $NOW — $12,000 Netflix | $NFLX — $10,000 Zeta Global | $ZETA — $9,000 Brookfield | $BN — $8,000 Oscar Health | $OSCR — $6,000 Snap | $SNAP — $5,000read more
Bought over $10k USD worth of Nebius when it crashed. Up over 3k in just two weeks. Might’ve cashed a little early but I still have a bit of skin in the game from when I bought at $98 so I’ll just let that ride
📊 Long-Term Investing: The Power of Thorough Analysis When it comes to long-term investing, understanding the fundamentals of a stock is crucial. It’s not just about jumping on trends; it’s about making informed decisions based on solid data. This chart breaks down the essential financial statements—Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement—that every investor should analyze before committing to a stock. 🔍 Balance Sheet: This tells you about the company’s financial health, specifically its assets, liabilities, and equity. A healthy balance sheet is a sign of stability and resilience. 💸 Income Statement: This shows the company’s profitability by detailing revenue, expenses, and profits. A strong income statement indicates a company that’s generating profits, a key factor for long-term growth. 💰 Cash Flow Statement: This reveals how the company manages its cash, from operations to investments and financing. Positive cash flow is essential for sustaining operations and fueling future growth. By mastering these fundamentals, you can make smarter investment choices that stand the test of time. Remember, successful long-term investing isn’t about timing the market; it’s about time in the market, supported by thorough analysis. $VGT$TXN$QQQ$AAPL$META #InvestSmart #LongTermInvesting #FinancialLiteracy #StockMarketAnalysisread more
People are abusing Buy Now, Pay Later platforms and, in some cases, are using them to fund their entire lives, deferring payments on things like groceries and car insurance. It's insane! In the new video I just posted over on the reaction channel, we’ll be taking a look at some extreme cases of how people are ending up in terrible financial situations because of BNPL. Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvThi7McK00
If a stock (or a whole sector, like memory) that has been surging dips, and there is no change in the overall fundamentals/thesis, that's the time to buy. Everyone was saying "memory is dead" just because of a sell off that was largely caused by margin calls and leveraged trades in Korea. I'm really glad I didn't listen to them and bought the dip. Block out the noise and do your research, people. $DRAM$SKHY$STX$MU$SNDK
Markets have lived through wars, recessions, political shocks, financial crises, pandemics and countless moments that felt like “the end.” Yet the long-term trend tells a very different story. 📈 $10,000 invested in the S&P 500 in 1970 grew to roughly $3.9 million over the period shown. The average annual total return: 11.13%. The lesson isn’t that markets move straight up. They don’t. It’s that some of the best long-term returns have come from staying invested through periods of extreme uncertainty. Time in the market has historically mattered far more than predicting the next crisis.read more
This is why I love dividend investing! ❤️ Made almost $150 in cold hard cash today without having to lift a finger. 💰 How much did you get paid this week? Let me know in the comments! 👇
Got inspired by @matt.41 and @edsam to upgrade one of my calculators. You can now choose Monte Carlo (Statistical) as the simulation method and set the strategy’s: - Expected return - Volatility - Yield - which we keep constant, since I think that’s what many people try to target and maintain This lets you see how much is being spent and reinvested. And if you want to see the implications of applying the "4% rule", you'd just set the expenses to 4% of your initial portfolio. https://karyungtom.com/monte-carlo-retirement-calculator/read more
Today's news that Anthropic is targeting a $2 Trillion IPO valuation got me thinking... The most promising companies in the world used to come public when valuations still had 10x, 50x, 100x or more growth potential. That’s no longer the case in most cases… If Anthropic's IPO valuation is $2T, they will need to grow to $20 Trillion to reach ‘just’ a 10x and that’s assuming no dilution, which we all should know likely won’t be the case. For perspective, $20T is nearly 4x the largest company in the world today. How does this make the wealth divide get even wider than it already is? The uber wealthy are funding the best-of-the-best private companies, getting substantial equity in the process, but only until the risk/reward no longer makes sense. It’s at that point these companies come public, resulting in everyday investors providing the exit-liquidity for pre-IPO investors & insiders. Rinse/Repeat hundreds of times over and wealth divide grows exponentially! Some won’t agree with me and that’s fine, but nothing good will come from an even wider wealth divide in the U.S. and world for that matter. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and there’s no greater power than money, with the possible exception of blackmail, but that’s a story for another day…
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN 💸 The margins are just too good to pass up! 🤑🤑🤑 Especially when you consider the loyalty of the new wave of investors who dismiss the negative impacts of high fees, who ignore the structural drags on performance, who believe high distributions are more than a feature (they are not) and who ultimately are content paying more fees for lower return. Imaging being able to build an inferior product, sell $32 billion to consumers and be able to cash out $2.3 billion. 👀 Capitalism is alive and well!! I’m thinking of bringing back floppy discs and rotary phones. 🙌 As I’ve said in previous posts/comments - the CEOs of high fee ETFs thank the finfluencers for their marketing efforts and YOU for your loyalty! 🙏 (PS. I’d expect to see more transactions like this to follow as more of these CEOs cash out before the next downturn and before investors wise up. It seems there’s no rush on the last point.) 🤷♂️ $SPYI$QQQI$BTCI$IAUIread more
The “Power of 3” Personal Finance Strategy Part II My personal finance thesis: Real financial security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses — not by asset values alone. After 30 years of studying personal finance, managing and operating large businesses, I’ve come to believe many people are using the wrong scorecards. A portfolio can rise. A house can rise. Net worth can rise. Income can rise. And yet real financial security can still be getting weaker. Why? Because we do not live inside our brokerage statements. We live in the real world of: - housing costs - food costs - healthcare costs - utilities - insurance - taxes - transportation - and changing purchasing power Wealth matters. Assets matter. Net worth matters. But if those measures are not connected to actual living and living expense coverage, they can create a FALSE sense of security. A person can have a larger portfolio, a higher home value, and a bigger nominal net worth — while at the same time having less real purchasing power and less durable financial security. That is why I use this measure: Financial Security Coverage The question is simple: How many times does your sustainable cash flow cover your absolute core living expenses? In my view, that is one of the clearest and most important measures of real financial security. --- Why traditional wealth measures can mislead In recent years many people have seen: - stock portfolios rise - home values rise - retirement balances rise - nominal net worth rise Someone may say: - “I hit $1M in my portfolio.” - “My assets doubled in five years.” - “My net worth is up massively.” That may all be true in nominal dollars. But the more important question is: Has your real financial security improved at the same rate? Often, the answer is not nearly as much as they think. Because while asset prices rose: - inflation eroded purchasing power - living costs rose - insurance rose - healthcare rose - taxes rose - replacement costs rose So yes, statement values may be higher. But if the cost of sustaining your life rose sharply too, then the practical meaning of that wealth may be far smaller than the headline number suggests. This is the illusion of nominal wealth without purchasing power awareness. Asset growth matters. But wealth should not be measured only by what it is worth on paper. It should also be measured by the cash flow support and life coverage it can provide in the real world. --- My framework: Financial Security Coverage Financial Security Coverage = Sustainable Cash Flow / Absolute Core Living Expenses My target is 3.0x. If my absolute core living expenses are: - $7,000 per month - $84,000 per year Then my target is: $84,000 x 3 = $252,000 So I target $252,000 in sustainable, after-tax cash flow capability. Not gross income. Not paper gains. Not one-time wins. Not inflated asset values. Not temporary market strength. Sustainable. Durable. Net cash flow. Why 3.0x? Because in my view that is where you have: - essential life coverage - contingency - flexibility - meaningful margin of safety - cash flow left over to save, invest, and compound wealth - near-complete financial durability under stress testing At 1.0x, you are covering life. At 2.0x, you have meaningful breathing room. At 3.0x, you have what I consider durable financial security. Sharp readers will realize that reducing the denominator — expenses — is one of the fastest ways to improve security. --- Reality check In my view, many people are operating between 0.85x and 1.15x core living expense coverage. That means they are: - below full coverage - right at the line - or only slightly above it This is why so many people feel pressure even when income looks decent or assets have risen. A small disruption can destabilize everything: - medical costs - car repairs - rent increases - insurance increases - income loss - tax changes - business slowdowns Any honest personal finance framework has to begin with empathy. Most people are not failing because they are reckless. Many are struggling because they are living with very little margin. That is a STRUCTURAL issue. --- Definitions matter ABSOLUTE CORE LIVING EXPENSES: The essential costs required to maintain life at a durable baseline: - housing - utilities - food - healthcare - insurance - transportation - minimum debt service - essential household expenses - baseline taxes This is not luxury. This is not status spending. This is the number required to keep life functioning. SUSTAINABLE CASH FLOW: This should be after tax, durable, and repeatable. Examples: - reliable salary - durable business income - pension income - recurring rental cash flow - recurring distributions - conservative portfolio income assumptions It should exclude or heavily discount: - one-time gains - temporary spikes - windfalls - irregular bonus dependence - speculative cash flow - unrealized paper gains A lot of people look secure on paper. Far fewer are truly secure in cash flow. --- The second layer: Direct and Indirect Cash Flow I now think the most accurate version of Financial Security Coverage should include both: 1. Direct Cash Flow The sustainable, after-tax cash flow you receive now: - salary - business income - rental cash flow - pension income - recurring distributions This answers: How well is my life covered by the cash flow I currently produce? 2. Indirect Cash Flow The sustainable cash flow your assets could support: - stocks - bonds - retirement accounts - taxable portfolios - other investable assets A simple proxy is a conservative withdrawal rate such as 4%. If someone has $2,000,000 in investable assets: $2,000,000 x 0.04 = $80,000 If core living expenses are $84,000, then: $80,000 / $84,000 = 0.95x This answers: How well could my life be covered by the cash flow capacity of my assets? --- Why this is a better measure of wealth Most people measure wealth by: - portfolio value - home value - net worth - income Useful, yes. Complete, no. A better question is: What level of sustainable life support do my income and assets actually provide? That is why I believe Financial Security Coverage is a more accurate and more important measure of wealth and security than asset values alone. It translates both: - income - assets into the one metric that matters most: Coverage of Real Life And unlike nominal balances, it forces us to think about: - inflation - purchasing power - changing living costs - market volatility - income durability - resilience under stress --- Why tracking it Year over Year matters This framework becomes more powerful when tracked annually. Year-over-Year changes in: - direct cash flow coverage - indirect cash flow coverage - total living expense coverage reveal what is really happening and a far more accurate measure of Wealth and Financial Security If the ratios improve, it may mean: - income is strengthening - assets are becoming more supportive - purchasing power is holding up - expenses are becoming easier to carry If they deteriorate, it may mean: - inflation is outrunning cash flow - expenses are rising too fast - income is less durable than expected - assets are worth more nominally but support less real life - financial security is weakening despite appearances This is the difference between paper progress and real progress. --- How I interpret the ranges Below 1.0x — financially exposed Cash flow does not fully cover core living expenses. 1.0x to 2.0x — functioning but VULNERABLE Essentials are covered, but margin is limited. 2.0x to 3.0x — real RESILIENCE Core life is well covered, contingency improves, and optionality begins. Above 3.0x — robust SECURITY and compounding power This is my target zone: real coverage, real flexibility, real resilience. Moving from 0.95x to 1.15x matters. Moving from 1.15x to 1.50x matters. That is real improvement. --- My conclusion After 30 years of personal finance study, I believe this: Wealth should not be measured only by asset values. Security should be measured by sustainable cash flow coverage of core living expenses. And the most complete version of that measure includes both: - Direct Cash Flow — what your life produces today - Indirect Cash Flow — what your assets can support tomorrow Track both. Measure both. Watch them year over year. Because the real question is not: What are my assets worth on paper? The real question is: How well can my finances sustain my life, now and in the future, in a world of changing costs and changing purchasing power? That is why I use Financial Security Coverage. And my target is 3.0x. That is my thesis. My definition of Financial Security: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/ir4906pb Expanded post on cash flow: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/i0eun8py Expanded post on tracking living expenses: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/qkgdki8p Financial Control Part I — Emergency Cash: https://link.blossomsocial.com/7uYa/k3e80c3w read more
I am selling all my $VEQT and switching to Wealthsimple direct indexing because it allows you to exclude certain stocks from your Index. Blackrock and Vanguard have separated us from thinking about how our investments can sometimes negatively impact the world without us knowing, because it’s all tucked away out of our sight. I strongly believe that if everyone stopped simply buying the index without considering business ethics we would have a much better world. I know everyone just wants to make money,the good news is that if we all started doing this then the more ethical companies values would go up gaining more of the pie as these unethical companies fall out of the index. I switched to direct indexing for all my Canadian and US index funds , essentially building my own ETF that is similar to VEQT, but I have carefully went through and exluded all Gambling Companies, any Oil & energy companies that don’t invest in renewables ($XOM Exxon Mobil, $CVX Chevron etc.) , as well as anything else that is obviously contributing to the degradation of our society and making us sick here in North America with processed garbage. ($MCD, $COLA, $PEP etc…) If there are any other companies you find that are hurting our people, please let me know in the comments and why they don’t deserve our investment. I know $PLTR seems like a troublesome one I may have to exclude. Together we can make the world a little bit better. read more
Since so many people ask how to invest in this sector, or this country, or this asset, I’ve decided to make a comprehensive guide on how you can invest in specific areas. This is NOT portfolio advice, simply information about tickers that you can research yourself. Save this for later so you have a list of ETFs to come back to! Canada: $XIU$XIC$ZCN All expose you to the TSX in Canada. These ETFs consist of all top Canadian companies and access to our national stock exchange. $VCB$VGV$VLB$VAB$VSB$VSC$XBB$XCB Expose you to Canadian bonds; whether it be long-term, short-term, corporate, government, etc. $VDY$XEI$CDZ Expose you to Canadian dividend companies $XRE$ZRE$VRE Give access to Canadian REITs $ZEB$XFN$RBNK Lets you buy the Canadian banks USA: $VFV$ZSP$XSP$XUS$HXS Lets you buy the S&P 500 (learn about hedged vs. unhedged in my other post) $XQQ$HXQ$ZQQ All give you access to the NASDAQ 100 $IWR$VO$VOE$VOT$IJH$SCHM Lets you buy US Midcaps $IJR$IWM$VB$VBR$VBK$SCHA Lets you buy US Smallcaps $DIV$SPYD$RDIV$DHS$VIG$SCHD$VYM$DGRO$SDY Give access from small to high dividend US companies $VTI$ITOT Lets you buy the whole US market $TLT$IEF$VGIT$GOVT$SHY$VGLT Give access to US bonds $XLC$XLY$XLP$XLE$XLF$XLV$XLI$XLB$XLRE$XLK$XLU All give you access to each sector in the S&P such as financials, energy, healthcare, etc. International: $XEQT$FEQT$VEQT$ZEQT Give you an all-in-one exposure to Canada, US, emerging and global markets. $VEA$IEFA$SCHF$SPDW$EFV$EFA Give access to general international exposure $EWJ$EWU$EWC Gives direct access to developed international countries $INDA$MCHI$EWT$EWY$EWZ$EWW$EIDO$EWM Gives direct access to emerging international countries Assets: $KILO$PHYS$CGL Let’s you buy gold directly through ETFs $SVR$HUZ Let you buy silver through ETFs Savings/Interest: $CASH$HISA$PSA$HSAV Access to Canadian savings and interest payments $HSUV-U $PSU-U $HISU-U Access to US savings and interest payments There’s so many ETFs I didn’t go into with dozens of categories, but this should give you some basic starting point to look into your ETF investments. This is simply the starting point, when choosing your investments always research the ETFs, what they provide to you, their fees, your goals, your risk, and what you’re looking to get out of investing. As always do your research and happy investing! Subscribe to the newsletter: relatablefinance.substack.com read more
Hey everyone that follows me or interacts with me here in Blossom. Today I decided to make a branding name change on both my YOUTUBE and BLOSSOM identity. And I wanted you all to be aware in case some of you think after I change it - that someone is trying to copycat my account. THEY ARE NOT - THIS TIME. It's LEGIT! So... over the past year, my youtube has grown substantially and the ecosystem of everything i create in my YouTube channel and even my persona here in Blossom has become bigger than just ME - PERRY. my "PIIVERSE" brand has become the identity of my entire INCOME INVESTING STRATEGY videos, posts, and talks. As such, I have already made the change in my YouTube (from the old PERRYPII) and now here in Blossom (from the old PERRYF) an aligned handle of PIIVERSE. My YouTube channel now looks like https://www.youtube.com/@PIIverse and my Blossom handle is now @piiverse Transition is never easy but making this name change to PIIVERSE and aligning it across channels is strategically important. SO..... WELCOME TO THE PIIVERSE :)
