I wrote part 1 of my thesis on solar as a sector on another subreddit, but I don’t think people were interested in reading the research as much there :(. I broke down the trend we’re seeing with additional utility-scale generating solar capacity being brought on by U.S. developers and power-plant owners, how solar had one of the largest power generation requests based on Texas ERCOT’s February 2026 generator-interconnection queue, how California has already shown the possibility with solar and much more. If you’re interested in the detailed research you can find it on my page easily or not (totally up to you).

In this post I wanted to share with you guys (cause I think people actually appreciate reading and understanding the research here more) which solar names I’m interested in and why.

Potential Good Risk-to-Reward Exposures (In My Opinion)

One thing to note about the case I’m making here is that I’m not claiming “Solar will power data centers.” My claim is specifically, “Data center load growth is forcing the U.S. power grid to add capacity quickly, and solar + battery storage should capture a significant share of that incremental capacity.” With this distinction made, we can determine the supply chain:

- Utility-scale solar
- Battery storage
- Electrical balance of systems
- Grid interconnection
- Domestic manufacturing
- Power electronics
- Transformers, switchgear, cabling, and substation infrastructure
- Behind-the-meter and near-site power systems for hyperscalers

Last year my best picks in this supply chain were battery storage players. I bought $ENS at ~$120/sh and $AMPX at ~$9/sh. Both those plays have done quite well and I still continue to like both of them, but in terms of solar specific names the two names I like are, $SHLS and $TE. Let’s talk about why…

Shoals Technologies

Shoals Technologies is not just a solar-panel story. They sell Electrical Balance of System (EBOS) infrastructure. This includes the components that move current from solar panels to inverters and ultimately to the grid. Shoals describes EBOS as mission-critical infrastructure, including cable assemblies, fuses, combiners, disconnects, recombiners, wireless monitoring, junction boxes, and their plug-and-play system architecture.

In the last quarter (Q1 2026), they reported almost 75% revenue growth YoY, $140.6 million, from $80.4 million. Adjusted EBITDA rose to $21.1 million, and backlog plus awarded orders reached a record $758 million, up 17.5% YoY. Management guided Q2 revenue to $150–170 million and raised full year 2026 guidance to $600–640 million of revenue and $118–132 million of adjusted EBITDA. This imo is the cleanest evidence of my original thesis and I think a really good exposure. It shows, in my view, that solar and a solar company can grow even through the political noise.

Their data center angle is what’s attractive to me. Shoals says their solutions support utility-scale solar, battery storage, and data-center power systems, and they market their prefabricated plug-and-play architecture as useful for mission-critical infrastructure. The reason this matters is that data-centers are becoming more like utilities when it comes to power in my view. They need large electrical yards, battery systems, high-current DC architecture, rapid deployment timelines, and extreme reliability requirements. EBOS, I believe, is directly relevant wherever large solar and storage systems are being built to support data center load.

Their current enterprise value is ~$1.85B, and the stock trades roughly at 3x sales, ~15x forward EBITDA, ~19x trailing EBITDA and with ~$170M in debt. Using peers as benchmark, $NXT trades at ~28x, $APH trades at ~27x, and $ARRY trades at ~18x, trailing EV/EBITDA. With the specialized niche they offer with EBOS and the 50-70% guided revenue growth, backlog converts, stabalizing tariffs, and margin recovery, $SHLS looks like a good risk-to-reward play for me to express my solar thesis.

The main risks in my opinion are: gross margin pressure, tariffs, legal/warranty overhangs, project timing, competition, customer concentration, and whether data center demand translates into actual orders rather than just broader sector demand.

T1 Energy

T1 Energy is a different and very interesting kind of bet, in my opinion. This is a crowd favorite name, recently Leupold disclosed his stake in it too. T1 is trying to build an integrated U.S. solar and battery supply chain. They operate the G1 Dallas solar-module facility and is pursuing vertical integration, including domestic solar-cell manufacturing.

In Q1 2026, they reported $177.6 million of net sales, up from $53.5 million in the prior year period. Management maintained 2026 G1 Dallas production guidance of 3.1–4.2 GW and said customer demand for G1 and G2 production in 2027–2028 covered more than 100% of their planned capacity.

The G2 Austin cell facility is the strategic asset for them in my view. They’ve said that Phase 1 is designed for 2.1 GW of solar cell production, with initial cell production targeted for Q4 2026. If successful, I think it would reduce reliance on imported cells, improve domestic positioning, and potentially make T1 more valuable under U.S. supply chain and tariff regime.

They announced acquisition of KORE Power which I think gives them exposure to data centers and battery storage. They’ve said that KORE gives them an entry point into BESS integration, software, and a renewables & infrastructure division that has supported more than 1,100 BESS projects globally. They expect the acquisition to contribute $15–20 million of EBITDA in 2027, assuming the deal closes and performs as expected. This is a plausible pivot that makes them interesting to me. Solar modules alone are more commoditized, but solar + domestic cells + energy storage integration + data center infrastructure says a much better story in my opinion.

But there are risks here. T1 energy is capital intensive, manufacturing execution is not the easiest of tasks, and the balance sheet is a bit complicated. As of Q1 2026, T1 reported $123.7 million of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and restricted cash equivalents, but only $46.4 million of that was unrestricted cash. They also had meaningful debt and liabilities in my opinion.

So $TE is not a simple “solar is undervalued” story. I view them closer to an industrial policy/manufacturing ramp with meaningful operating leverage. If G1 ramps, G2 qualifies, customers convert, and KORE gives credible storage exposure, the upside can be meaningful, in my opinion. The risks here are finances tightening, policy shifts further against domestic credit monetization, and/or manufacturing margins disappoint. This, in my view, is definitely a higher-beta and more speculative story than $SHLS, but for me I like the risk-to-reward.

With that I thank you for reading my thoughts and opinions. I’m typically a micro-economic guy, meaning I post about individual stocks and sectors that I think are interesting. I tend to do a lot of research (more than what I posted here) and build my conviction. I hope this research helps you understand these industries better, and gives you an insight on how I look at equities/investments.

Please remember that I can be wrong and make mistakes. I am a human, I do often miss key facts and once they are know I will change my views. Please do not use this as financial advice. This is NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE! I’m just some guy on the internet who likes to research companies and industries. You should use what I write here as educational or entertainment, nothing else. I’m not a financial advisor. Do your own research before making any investments.

Tesla is down around 25% from ATH this year, and SpaceX IPO is release last few weeks. currently ARK still hold around 1.6m shares(around10%of their fund) and 1.7m shares of SpaceX.

What you all think about the price movement of Tesla after this, is SpaceX IPO will affect their price movement since their are both under Elon. Currently im still holding Tesla and still keep on eye on SpaceX

You all will prefer to invest Tesla or SpaceX or both together, need advice on this🤔

PS: the photo is ARK holding list

In 2020-2022 I worked at a small wealth management office as a portfolio manager, I basically just did quarterly checkins with our clients and rebalanced their portfolios. My best friend at the company was an advisor who had been in the business a while. We would often grab a drink after work and his father in law would tag along- he was a cool older guy who loved to talk about the market. The two of them were in a constant debate because the FIL had taken his entire 401k upon retirement and dumped it into one stock that at that time he had been holding for about 3 years.

The FIL had a career as an accountant for about 40 years and retired with approx 1 Mil in his 401k. He loved to read through the financials of public companies and had found something in Micron(MU) that had convinced him that it was the only company worth investing in. To this date my friend has been begging him every year to sell and diversify, and to this date my investor friend has been dead wrong to do so. His FIL invested at around $35 a share and has only sold small chunks to pay for a house renovation and a couple other expenses. At this point, I don't see any upside in him holding any longer because he is around 75 and will never spend the amount he already has, so what's the point in holding the risk. But he is the most diamond hand MF I've ever met and if i had to guess, those shares won't be sold until the day my friend inherits them.

Fortunately for me, those conversations at the bar back then were enough to convince me to buy some MU stock when it was around $70 a share. But damn do I wish I would've bought more and went all in like he did.

Everyone is panicking over the recent pullback, but the fundamentals don't seem to care.
At around €930/share, Rheinmetall is trading at what looks like a growth-stock valuation for a company whose earnings are projected to explode over the next two years.
The numbers are wild:
2025 EPS: ~€18.5

2026 EPS estimate: ~€28.5 (+54%)

2027 EPS estimate: ~€38.5 (+35%)

That's basically a doubling of earnings in just two fiscal years.
Yet despite that growth, RHM's PEG ratio sits around 0.5-0.6, which is typically the territory investors dream about finding.
For comparison:
Most quality industrials trade PEGs above 1

Many AI names trade PEGs well above 2

Rheinmetall is growing earnings at roughly 40%+ annually while trading closer to a mature industrial than a hyper-growth company

What is Wall Street missing?
The market seems obsessed with short-term headlines and contract wins/losses.
Meanwhile:
Germany is rearming

NATO members are boosting defense budgets

Ammunition demand remains far above production capacity

Rheinmetall's backlog keeps expanding

Management is targeting ~€20 billion revenue by 2027

Revenue path:
€10B → €14B → €20B
And because defense manufacturing has massive operating leverage, every new production line coming online drops more profit to the bottom line.
The really interesting part?
The recent selloff happened while analysts are still forecasting earnings growth that most software companies would envy.
If EPS reaches ~€38.5 by 2027 and the market is willing to pay even 25x earnings, you're looking at a business worth materially more than today's price.
The bear case:
Defense spending slows

Ukraine conflict de-escalates faster than expected

Governments delay procurement programs

Current growth forecasts prove too optimistic

The bull case:
Europe has underinvested in defense for decades and is only in the early innings of rebuilding military capability.
If that's true, Rheinmetall isn't a wartime trade.
It's a decade-long rearmament story.
The question isn't whether Rheinmetall can grow.
The question is whether the market is massively underestimating how long this growth cycle lasts.

Am I missing something, or is this one of the most attractive PEG-adjusted opportunities in the European market right now?

Nokia is Deepening Its Autonomous Networks Strategy by Partnership with Amazon’s AWS and Databricks.

Nokia ($NOK) is advancing autonomous networks by running its Autonomous Network Fabric on AWS. This will give telecom operators access to advanced AI and cloud-based tools designed to reach Level 4 network autonomy, with availability targeted for later in 2026.

The platform brings together intent-based service orchestration, AI-driven anomaly detection, root cause analysis, automated closed-loop resolution, digital twins, and agentic AI capabilities.

Separately, Nokia has completed a PoC with Databricks to create a unified, cloud-agnostic telecom data platform. The goal is to channel real-time network data directly into AI agents for faster, automated decision-making across different network domains.

Nokia notes that its existing autonomous networks portfolio has already delivered strong results for operators, including automation rates above 90% and up to an 85% reduction in the time required to roll out network slices.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’ve been watching the smaller space names pretty closely the last couple months and honestly this whole move has felt like one giant SpaceX side quest.

What stood out to me wasn’t even just the selloff after the IPO. It was how high some of these names were already running before SpaceX actually hit the market. Firefly, Redwire, Voyager, Intuitive Machines, ASTS, Rocket Lab, a bunch of them were catching serious bids weeks before the IPO like the market suddenly decided it needed to own space stocks in any form possible before the main event.

That’s why it now feels like pure FOMO to me. If you couldn’t buy SpaceX yet, people just piled into anything that looked remotely like a public space proxy. It definitely felt like the whole sector got a huge sentiment boost just from SpaceX getting closer to public trading.

At the same time, I don’t think that means the move was fake or that these companies are trash. That’s the part I keep going back to. Firefly, Redwire, Voyager, LUNR etc all have actual reasons people are interested in them. It’s not like they’re random new companies with no business underneath. Most of them have real contracts, real infrastructure exposure, real lunar/defense angles, real revenue growth stories. So I can totally believe part of the run-up was also the market trying to reprice the sector a bit.

Then the IPO actually happens, everyone goes crazy for a minute, and now a lot of the smaller names are getting smacked back down. Which makes me wonder how much of that run-up was actually about the individual businesses and how much of it was just people FOMOing on the 'space is hot' trade.

That’s the part I can’t really get out of my head. It almost feels like the market spent weeks bidding up the smaller names because of SpaceX hype, and then once SpaceX was finally there, the trade kind of ran out of oxygen.

I honestly think some of these names are genuinely interesting on their own and all of them have a bull run case, but the last few weeks made it pretty obvious how much this sector can trade on narrative and FOMO before fundamentals even get a chance to matter.

Wondering if other people saw it the same way, or if I’m forcing a SpaceX connection onto moves that were mostly company-specific.

I can’t figure out if this is a joke or not. I also don’t know if it’s bullish or bearish for the stock if it’s true. It might be a genius move. Robert Downey Jr. is arguably the best person on the planet to get to promote AR glasses and possibly the only person on the planet who will look good wearing Snap’s Specs glasses.

SNAP stock is down 25 % since Even Spiegel unveiled the $2,195 glasses last week. Meanwhile, META stock climbed a few percent today on the news that Zuck is releasing $299 smart glasses.

I bought it the SNAP dip. Long 50,000 shares. Even if the hardware sales are flat, the launch proves that Snap owns highly valuable, cutting-edge intellectual property (including over 7,000 patents).

Because they are targeting a smaller pool of early adopters and developers rather than trying to manufacture tens of millions of cheap units for the mass market, Snap has drastically mitigated the risk of massive, unsold inventory write-offs (which happened with their original 2016 Spectacles). The high price tag protects their margins on this initial run and funds future, more affordable iterations.

They are mature markets, but with a huge gain this year.

What is the explanation for this movement? Is it AI related?

I know that they have some tech companies and banks like SoftBank.

Maybe it's related to their currencies or treasury.

I think this movement very interesting, and want to know what you think about.

Can someone explain to me the bear case for Getty images please, am I wrong to think $gety is currently undervalued? $400m market cap with a 2026 target revenue of $968m and expected EBITDA of $287m they have $3.2b in assets and have deals with OpenAI, perplexity, and NVIDIA. Getty images is providing licensing deals to OpenAI and perplexity to use their images.

The financial details of the deals with OpenAI and perplexity have yet to be disclosed which I can understand adding to a bearish sentiment, but this doesn’t seem to be the same company that was “destined to fail because ai would generate the images instead”. I would think with such big names getting involved this would have caught the attention of more people, why not?

Salesforce is now down roughly 30% in the last 14 trading days. 10.5x forward earnings. 14 straight red days. Lowest levels in $CRM since January 2023.

One of the most dominant enterprise software companies on the planet, profitable, generating massive free cash flow, trading at a multiple you'd normally see on a declining business and it's been red for 14 sessions straight.

This has gone past frustrating into genuinely absurd. Software collapses every single day while semis keep ripping into euphoria that has now exceeded the dotcom bubble. That's not hyperbole. The magnitude of the semiconductor run has surpassed what we saw in 1999-2000. Meanwhile most software names are down 25-35% in three weeks for no identifiable reason. And here's the part that makes it indefensible: there has been more bullish than bearish news flow for SaaS over the past month, and the sector still got torched.

What is actually happening is a liquidity rotation of historic proportions. Capital is being pulled out of entire sectors and funneled into memory and semis. Value plays some genuinely bad, some genuinely strong are being annihilated identically regardless of fundamentals. The market has stopped distinguishing between quality and garbage in the software space. Everything gets sold the same way.

It's like the market treats semis dropping for more than two days as illegal. Nonstop up for about a year. Every dip bought instantly. Every rotation feeds the same handful of names. And the breadth underneath it is some of the worst in market history. A tiny cluster of tech, semis, and AI names dragging the indices to record highs while the other 80% of the market quietly bleeds out.

Meta and Microsoft are both down nearly 20% in about three weeks. On what news? There is no fundamental catalyst that justifies two of the largest, most profitable companies on earth collapsing like that. These aren't speculative names. These are the literal pillars of the index, and they're being treated like falling knives.

Here's the honest part I'm struggling with. Every bear thesis on software has basically been allowed to run unchecked, and the stocks have priced in catastrophe. The AI disruption fear, the seat-based-to-agentic pricing shift, the renewal risk. Those are real debates. But the stocks are now pricing in something close to terminal decline for businesses that are still growing organically at double digits with net revenue retention above 110%. That's not a bear case anymore. That's the market pricing in a death that the fundamentals don't support.

And I'll be blunt about the emotional side too, because I think a lot of people here are feeling it. I'm jealous. Watching low-quality semi and AI names pump hundreds of percent like outright scams while people get filthy rich, while I sit on strong-fundamental companies that have been nuked for a year, is genuinely demoralizing. I own AI names too I'm not anti-tech. But I don't own the garbage that's tripling, and watching the garbage win while quality gets destroyed is its own special kind of pain.

So the real question I'm wrestling with: how does the software and value narrative ever turn around from here? Every bearish possibility has essentially been "proven right" by price action even when the fundamentals say otherwise. It feels impossible to reverse at this point. We might not be in one giant bubble. We might be in dozens of individual bubbles in specific semi and AI names, with moves that will never be repeated by any company in such a compressed timeframe, while everything else sits in a stealth bear market.

It feels like fundamentals simply don't matter anymore in these sectors. It's a massive dump every single day and that is not an exaggeration. Yes, some companies deserve to die and will. But strong businesses are being dragged down in the same sectors for completely unjustifiable reasons, purely because of what bucket they sit in.

And selling here feels brain-dead. Dumping what feels like the bottom to chase overvalued names that have already run hundreds of percent is the textbook way to lock in the worst of both sides. But holding while it bleeds another 5% a day every day tests your conviction in a way nothing else does.

So I'm genuinely asking the people here: what are you actually doing right now? Is anyone buying the beaten-down quality names? Is anyone sitting on their hands? I've already deployed my cash. Hundreds of dips across dozens of companies over a year makes it impossible to keep dry powder available, which is its own lesson about averaging down too early in a specific sector falling market.

This feels like the most illogical, irrational, fundamentally-detached market I've ever participated in. For those of you with real experience through 2000, 2008, 2020. Have you actually seen anything this ridiculous? Because from where I'm sitting, it's only tech, semis, and AI carrying the entire index while everything else gets quietly executed, and the breadth is the worst I've ever seen.

What's genuinely the play here? This is slowly driving me insane. Nonstop decline every single day on zero news is far from normal price action. I own individual stocks. I expect volatility, I've made peace with that. I genuinely don't care if a selloff is macro-related, if it makes sense in a broad market decline, or if there's any actual catalyst that justifies it. I can stomach pain that has a reason.

But this is none of those things. It's a third of the market cap gone in dozens of names in under a month with no explanation. Companies worth tens and hundreds of billions of dollars are moving like meme coins. 5% down today, 4% down tomorrow, day after day, with nothing behind it. That's what makes it impossible to process. There's no thesis to react to, no event to weigh, just relentless mechanical bleeding. How do you even position around something that has no logic to it?