Healthcare Giant vs. MedTech Specialist

Last week, AstraZeneca $AZN (+0,27 %) and Roche $ROP (+0,18 %) —two companies where the discussion almost inevitably revolves around drugs, patents, and clinical trials.

Today, while we’re staying in the healthcare sector, we’re shifting our perspective:

Johnson & Johnson $JNJ (+1,37 %) and Abbott $ABT (+1,76 %)

make their money not only from individual active ingredients, but from entire platforms, devices, diagnostics, and long-term relationships with hospitals and doctors.

Johnson & Johnson is the larger and more diversified company: Innovative Medicine meets MedTech, ranging from immunology and oncology to cardiovascular products, orthopedics, and surgery.

Abbott is more focused on medical technology, diagnostics, nutrition, and established medications—with FreeStyle Libre as its most visible growth driver and Exact Sciences as a new building block in cancer diagnostics.

This makes the comparison particularly intriguing:

Will Johnson & Johnson’s enormous research and financial strength prevail—or does Abbott, with its device- and diagnostics-focused model, offer a more balanced mix of recurring revenue, innovation, and valuation?

Note: Prices from the provided charts or closing prices from November 12–13, 2026. Financial figures from Q3/LTM 2026, annual reports, proxy statements, and primary sources.

TWO PLATFORMS, DIFFERENT RISK DRIVERS

J&J reported third-quarter revenue of $25.4 billion, up 5.9 percent. Innovative Medicine generated $16.8 billion, while MedTech generated $8.6 billion.

Abbott reported $13.0 billion in revenue and approximately 7 percent comparable growth; Medical Devices was the largest segment at $5.83 billion.

J&J clearly wins the financial comparison. Abbott is cheaper and offers a higher current yield, but is clearly carrying more debt following the Exact Sciences acquisition.

Reported earnings in Q3 were heavily impacted by approximately $7 billion in one-time charges; therefore, the trailing P/E ratio is not very meaningful.

Abbott is carrying noticeably

more debt following the Exact Sciences acquisition, but remains strong in terms of operating cash flow.

J&Jis in a different league in terms of size compared to traditional medtech companies.

Abbott competes in devices and diagnostics with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Dexcom, Roche Diagnostics, and Guardant.

Size creates sales power, but not a monopoly: Competition is intense in electrophysiology, glucose monitoring, and cancer diagnostics.

Pipeline and Growth Drivers

THE INVESTMENT THESIS COULD FALL APART ON SEVERAL LEVELS

J&J is growing through Tremfya, Tecvayli, Caplyta, and Rybrevant; Carvykti, Milvexian, and Icotyde could form the next wave. Early trial signals should not be treated as confirmed revenue.

Abbott is spreading its opportunities across Libre Duo, Volt PFA, AVEIR, Amulet 360, structural heart products, and cancer diagnostics. Exact Sciences is expanding the addressable market but increasing integration and debt.

Customer Concentration, AI, and Moats

Neither company publishes a reliable top-10 customer share.

Lack of disclosure does not automatically mean diversification. Dependencies exist with respect to healthcare systems, payers, wholesalers, hospitals, laboratories, and reimbursement regimes.

AI can accelerate research, study design, pharmacovigilance, surgical planning, sensor algorithms, and diagnostics.

However, the moat is built only through validated data, regulatory approval, manufacturing, distribution, and integration into clinical workflows. The direct risk of substitution is low for both companies.

Dividends and Capital Allocation

J&J pays an annualized dividend of $5.36 and has increased it for 64 years.

Abbott pays $2.52 and has been increasing its dividend for 54 years.

Abbott currently offers the higher yield, J&J offers the larger absolute FCF buffer. Both companies are also planning major restructuring measures: DePuy Synthes at J&J, and Nutrition at Abbott.

Valuation and DCF

Model basis: approximately $21 billion in normalized free cash flow for J&J and about $6.75 billion for Abbott, each allocated to the current number of shares. The model is intentionally conservative and uses equity-adjusted free cash flow without additional acquisition synergies. Even small changes in the discount rate and terminal growth rate significantly shift the value.

The result is clear: J&J; outperforms even the optimistic scenario; Abbott falls between the base and bull cases.

This does not make J&J a bad company—but it does make it a stock with very high expectations. Abbott is relatively cheaper, but is attractive only if integration, debt reduction, and product growth are successful

Technical Analysis and Entry Strategy

J&J

The daily chart is well above the 50-day and 200-day EMAs; the RSI and MACD are positive, but the price is trading close to the upper Bollinger Band. On the weekly chart, the structure confirms the long-term uptrend. Resistance is at $285 to $290, with initial support at $270 to $265, and further support below that at $253 to $249.

My preferred setup is the pullback. A breakout above $290 would be technically strong, but fundamentally even more expensive.

Event risks can cause stops to be skipped due to price gaps; the levels mentioned are scenarios, not order recommendations.

Abbott is stabilizing around the moving averages on the daily chart; the RSI is neutral and the MACD is positive but flatter. On the weekly chart, the $111 to $116 zone remains the key resistance level. Support levels are at $105 to $102, with deeper support around $98 and $93.

The pullback offers the better risk-reward ratio. A breakout is only worth considering after a confirmed weekly close above $116. The chart is less overextended than J&J’s, but not yet as clean.

Final Assessment and Conclusion

THE WINNER IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY THE NEXT BUY

Johnson & Johnson wins this head-to-head comparison for me as a company. The combination of pharmaceuticals, medtech, free cash flow, balance sheet, and depth of research is hard to beat. Abbott remains an outstanding company and, at today’s price, is the more reasonably valued favorite.

As a stock, however, I wouldn’t chase either of them. With J&J, I much prefer the $265 to $272 range to a buy near the resistance level. For Abbott, $102 to $105 would be an initial range to watch; alternatively, I’d wait for a confirmed breakout above $116. Those who focus solely on quality will end up with J&J; those who place greater weight on valuation and entry risk can choose Abbott.

What do you think? Is Johnson & Johnson the clear quality anchor despite its high price—or is Abbott, with Libre,

cardiovascular products, and cancer diagnostics, the more exciting candidate for the coming years?

In the next stock showdown, Danaher $DHR (+0,48 %)
and Thermo Fisher Scientific $TMO (-0,39 %)
will face off: two indispensable suppliers to the research, diagnostics, and biomanufacturing sectors—with very different growth and valuation profiles.

@Tigawutz

@Keineui

@Aktienhauptmeister

@Multibagger

@Tenbagger-Capital

@Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin

@Stocktective

@Simpson

@WarrenamBuffet

@SAUgut777

@TradingHase

@PikaPika0105

@Derspekulant1

@NichtRelevant

@Klein-Anleger

@Dividendenopi

And, of course, everyone else :)

Pipeline Offensive Against Swiss Dual Platform

Following our foray into the world of logistics—DSV $DSV (+0,52 %) versus Kühne+Nagel $KNIN (+0,88 %) —we’re heading back to the healthcare sector today.

This time, however, it’s not two interchangeable pharmaceutical giants going head-to-head.

AstraZeneca $AZN (+0,27 %) and Roche $ROP (+0,18 %) are both among the world’s leaders, but they make their money in different ways:

AstraZeneca relies on an exceptionally broad drug pipeline and a rapid pace of development.

Roche combines innovative pharmaceuticals with its own diagnostics division.

That’s exactly what makes this comparison so fascinating.

On one side is the more aggressive growth-oriented company AstraZeneca with many late-stage clinical opportunities. On the other side is a Swiss quality company withgreater cash flow strength, decades of consistent dividends, and a unique combination of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics.

The question, therefore, is not only which company is earning more today, but which model will offer the better balance of growth, security, and valuation over the next few years.

Financials and Ten Key Metrics

AstraZeneca reported revenue of $46.9 billion in the first nine months of 2026, up 7 percent at constant exchange rates. Oncology accounted for 47 percent of revenue and grew by 16 percent.

Roche reported revenue of CHF 46.5 billion, with 78 percent coming from pharmaceuticals and 22 percent from diagnostics. Roche’s five largest growth drivers generated a combined CHF 16.8 billion and grew by 12 percent.

Roche wins the financial category: higher operating margin, better cash conversion, higher return on equity, and lower debt.

AstraZeneca is growing faster and increased its core EPS by 14 percent after nine months. Due to differing definitions of reporting and FCF, these figures should be viewed as rough estimates.

Pipeline: Where will tomorrow’s growth come from?

AstraZeneca lists 180 projects. Of these, 116 are new active ingredients or major lifecycle projects in Phase II or III; 20 new active ingredients are in late-stage development; and two therapies are under review. According to the company’s estimates, twelve positive Phase III results in 2026 are expected to have a non-risk-adjusted peak revenue potential of more than 10 billion USD.

Roche advanced five new potential drugs to Phase III in 2026 and aims to launch up to 20 new drugs by 2030. Its particular strength lies in the combination of drugs, diagnostics, and biomarkers. AstraZeneca leads in terms of visible breadth and pace; Roche scores with its integrated platform.

Important: The rumors circulating in 2026 about a possible AstraZeneca bid for Rhythm Pharmaceuticals are unconfirmed and are not included in the base case. The officially finalized Summit deal for Ivonescimab, valued at over two billion USD, is taken into account.

Shareholder Structure, Free Float, and Tradability

AstraZeneca has a single class of stock with equal voting rights and no controlling shareholder. BlackRock held 6.50 percent, Capital Group 4.97 percent, Wellington 4.20 percent, and Investor AB 3.33 percent. The estimated external free float of approximately 96.8 percent is not a company-defined figure. The London-listed stock trades an average of about 2.71 million shares daily and is highly liquid.

At Roche , the founding family pool controls 64.97 percent of the voting bearer shares. In addition, there are 702.6 million non-voting participation certificates. The ROP participation certificate is the more liquid class and trades an average of about 1.05 million shares over a 20-day period. A reliable company-reported free-float ratio per class is not available. Minority shareholders have little influence; however, practical tradability remains very good.

Verdict: AstraZeneca wins in terms of voting rights clarity and free float. Roche ROP is highly liquid but does not confer voting rights. A one-time narrow spread is no guarantee for every market phase, and free float should never be used as a synonym for liquidity.

Customer Concentration and Artificial Intelligence

Neither of the two companies publishes a reliable top-10 customer ratio. Therefore, the traffic light remains yellow: lack of disclosure does not automatically mean diversification. In 2025, AstraZeneca generated approximately 43 percent of its revenue in the U.S.; for Roche, the U.S. accounted for about 40 percent of its nine-month pharmaceutical revenue.

The direct risk of AI substitution is low. AI can accelerate target identification, study design, image analysis, biomarker development, and regulatory documentation. Roche has a unique data advantage through its diagnostics business, while AstraZeneca has a significant productivity advantage due to the breadth of its pipeline. Clinical validation remains crucial.

Dividends and Capital Allocation

Roche raised its dividend for 2025 to CHF 9.80—the 39th consecutive increase. At the current share price, this represents a yield of approximately 2.5 percent.

AstraZeneca announced a dividend of $3.20 per share, representing a yield of about 1.7 percent. Roche is thus the clear favorite for income; AstraZeneca is investing more aggressively in its pipeline and growth.

Technical Analysis and Entry Strategy

AstraZeneca is facing resistance at 142 to 144 GBP; the 128 to 132 GBP range offers the better risk-reward ratio.

Roche is maintaining its long-term uptrend but faces resistance at 405 to 419 CHF. The more attractive entry point for Roche is during a pullback to 376 to 385 CHF. Clinical news could cause the price to jump over stops, creating gaps.

Valuation and DCF

Both base-case scenarios are slightly below the current price.

AstraZeneca needs successful pipeline commercialization and normalized cash flows, Roche needs consistently strong margins and new products to offset patent expirations. The models are highly sensitive to the cost of capital and terminal growth and represent a range of expectations, not price targets.

My personal conclusion:

AstraZeneca
wins for me, 7.8 to 7.7 points.

The lead is so small that it says less about absolute quality than about the weighting.

Those who prioritize growth and the pipeline will choose AstraZeneca.

Those who place greater emphasis on cash flow, dividends, and balance sheet strength will choose Roche.

My conclusion, therefore, is not: buy immediately.

It is: wait for these two exceptional companies to reach the right price levels. AstraZeneca below 132 GBP or after a confirmed breakout; Roche preferably in the 376 to 385 CHF range.

What do you think? Does AstraZeneca’s larger pipeline win you over—or does Roche’s combination of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, cash flow, and dividend continuity?

In the next stock showdown, Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories face off: a diversified healthcare giant versus a focused medical technology and diagnostics specialist.

Sources and Notes

AstraZeneca: Q3/9M 2026 Results, Annual Report 2025, official pipeline, stock, and dividend data.

Roche: 9M 2026 sales, Annual Report 2025, AGM/share capital data, as well as pipeline and dividend data.

SIX, LSE/FT market data, four provided charts, and two fully analyzed research PDFs.

Valuations, scores, traffic light ratings, and entry scenarios are based on my own model assumptions. This is not investment advice.

@Tigawutz

@Keineui

@Aktienhauptmeister

@Multibagger

@Tenbagger-Capital

@Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin

@Stocktective

@Simpson

@WarrenamBuffet

@SAUgut777

@TradingHase

@PikaPika0105

@Derspekulant1

@NichtRelevant

@Klein-Anleger

@Dividendenopi

and, of course, all the others :)

Hello, everyone,

Following our last stock showdown between Eli Lilly $LLY (+0,9 %) and Novo Nordisk $NOVO B (+2,61 %) , today we’re deliberately switching industries.

Away from weight-loss injections, drug pipelines, artificial intelligence, and major tech topics—and toward a business that operates behind the scenes, yet without which our modern economy could hardly function:

global logistics.

Because no matter which new smartphone is sold, which medication is produced, or which online store is supplied—in the end, raw materials, components, and finished goods actually have to get from one place to another.

By plane, container ship, truck, and finally to the warehouse or directly to the customer.

This is exactly where companies like DSV $DSV (+0,52 %) and Kühne+Nagel $KNIN (+0,88 %) make their money.

These may not be the stocks everyone talks about every day. But they ensure that the products of the big stock market stars actually make it onto the roads, into the factories, and to the customers.

That’s why two of the world’s leading logistics groups are going head-to-head today:

DSV from Denmark and Kühne+Nagel from Switzerland.

Both manage global supply chains, but they take different approaches.

DSV has relied heavily on major acquisitions for years and must now prove whether the massive integration of DB Schenker is truly paying off.

Kühne+Nagel is growing less spectacularly but is currently impressing with a stronger balance sheet, solid operational performance, and new growth areas centered on cloud infrastructure, healthcare, and its partnership with Amazon and AWS.

As always, we’ll take a look at the business models, current figures, balance sheets, cash flows, dividends, valuations, as well as opportunities and risks.

Of course, this also includes daily and weekly charts, as well as specific potential entry points.

The key question this time is:

Is DSV, with its enormous potential for synergies and growth, the more exciting stock—or is Kühne+Nagel, with its proven quality, stronger balance sheet, and cleaner chart the better choice in the end?

Enjoy today’s stock duel: DSV $DSV (+0,52 %)
vs. Kühne+Nagel $KNIN (+0,88 %)
— integration giant versus quality leader.

What this duel is really about

Neither company sells its own ships or aircraft; instead, they manage global supply chains. Their most important “raw material,” therefore, isn’t steel but information:

Whoever does a better job of coordinating capacity, routes, customs, warehousing, and customer demand earns revenue from every container shipped or every air freight shipment.

That’s what makes scale valuable—and explains why DSV has been acquiring companies for decades, while Kühne+Nagel grows more through organic expansion and specialization.

DSV has become a global platform following the acquisition of DB Schenker.

Kühne+Nagel remains more compact but, by its own account, is the world’s number one in air and ocean freight volume.

The comparison is therefore less a case of David versus Goliath than two different operating systems:

DSV buys scale and squeezes out synergies; Kühne+Nagel tries to use its existing scale in a more profitable and customer-oriented way.

DSV: The Schenker Bet

The enterprise value of the Schenker transaction was 106.7 billion DKK.

DSV expects annual synergies of approximately 9 billion DKK, with full financial impact beginning in 2027. By the end of the third quarter of 2026, approximately 8.7 billion DKK of the expected 11 billion DKK in integration and transaction costs had been booked. Nearly all countries have been integrated or are in the midst of the process.

This is both a major opportunity and the greatest risk. If the integration succeeds, buying power, network utilization, cross-selling, and back-office efficiency will all increase.

If it fails in part, the result will be customer losses, duplicate structures, and high debt. DSV reports a gearing ratio of 2.5, while the long-term target is less than 2.0.

Cash flow must therefore first repair the balance sheet before large share buybacks once again become the dominant driver of returns.

Four points are crucial for me:

• Road must stabilize,
• the DKK 9 billion in synergies must not be delayed any further,
• adjusted free cash flow must increase without real estate sales, and
• gearing should fall below 2.0 by 2027.

Kühne+Nagel: Quality with a New Growth Edge

In 2026, Kühne+Nagel announced a seven-year strategic partnership with Amazon and AWS. The focus is on infrastructure, equipment, maintenance, and the expansion of cloud data centers. The agreement is accompanied by a performance-based option on existing Kühne+Nagel shares. This locks Amazon in for the long term but also increases the bargaining power of an already very large customer.

In addition, air freight for cloud and semiconductor customers, healthcare logistics, and integrated contract logistics are growing. In the third quarter, EBIT for Air Logistics rose by 84 percent, Sea Logistics by 55 percent, Road by 40 percent, and Contract Logistics by seven percent.

This is broad enough that we cannot speak of just a single division.

The downside is the valuation. Anyone buying Kühne+Nagel at around 24.6 times expected earnings is assuming that 2026 will not mark a short-term cyclical peak.

The company can hardly afford to make any operational mistakes.

Q3 2026: Who currently has the better momentum?

Kühne+Nagel delivered the stronger quarter. All four segments grew; Air Logistics saw a 10 percent increase in volume in the third quarter, and management raised its forecast once again. At DSV, Air & Sea and Contract Logistics are strong, but Road remains a work in progress. There, quarterly EBIT fell by 35.1 percent because integration, productivity, and customer retention are not yet functioning as planned.

Kühne+Nagel clearly wins the balance sheet comparison. DSV’s debt is strategically justified by the Schenker acquisition, but it is a real economic burden. On the positive side, net interest-bearing debt has been declining since the end of 2025. On the downside, part of the strong Q3 cash flow came from real estate sales. At Kühne+Nagel, cash on hand covers a large portion of the debt, making it easier to weather economic downturns.

Dividends and Capital Returns

Kühne+Nagel is the clear favorite when it comes to dividends.

The six CHF paid for 2025 represent a yield of approximately 2.5 percent at the current price. DSV pays seven DKK, which amounts to only about 0.5 percent.

At DSV, share buybacks have historically been more important than dividends; following the Schenker acquisition, debt reduction is the priority for now.

Kühne+Nagel, on the other hand, distributes a large portion of its profits— in 2025, the payout ratio was around 81 percent.

Valuation and My Own DCF

In the base case, both stocks are trading above my DCF value.

This is not evidence of overvaluation, but rather an indication of market expectations.

For DSV , following the Schenker acquisition, a normalized free cash flow of around 18 billion DKK and several years of growth are needed.

For Kühne+Nagel , it requires free cash flow of around 1.15 billion CHF and consistently solid margins. About three-quarters of both base-case values come from the terminal value—small changes in the cost of capital and long-term growth significantly impact the fair value.

Customer Concentration and AI

Neither DSV nor Kühne+Nagel publishes a reliable top-10 customer ratio. Kühne+Nagel reports having around 400,000 customers. Amazon is strategically important, but the overall customer base remains broad. At DSV, the issue is less about a single major customer and more about the loss of several customers during the Road integration.

DSV expects total productivity gains of approximately 9 billion DKK by 2030 from AI, technology, and network optimization—in addition to the Schenker synergies. Kühne+Nagel expects significant AI effects starting in 2027 and is enhancing its data and cloud infrastructure via AWS. For me, AI is not a competitive moat for either company. It is becoming a tool for route planning, capacity management, quote generation, customs, warehousing, and back-office operations. Whoever integrates processes and data more seamlessly will win; however, the physical network remains indispensable.

Technical Analysis and Entry Strategy

Kühne+Nagel is trading above the 50-day and 200-day EMAs on the daily chart; the RSI is around 63, and the MACD is positive.

The weekly chart confirms the trend but is approaching the resistance zone of 240 to 245 CHF. Entering the position on a pullback around 224 CHF offers a better risk-reward ratio than buying directly at the high.

DSV has made a strong turnaround on the daily chart but remains below the 200-day moving average at 1,432 DKK.

The weekly chart is still neutral: RSI just below 50, MACD still negative but improving. Therefore, I’d like to see either a pullback into the 1,300s or a confirmed breakout above 1,475 DKK.

My Final Verdict

This stock showdown goes to Kühne+Nagel—albeit by a narrow margin.

For me, DSV remains the more exciting bet on successful integration and strong synergies, while Kühne+Nagel currently scores points with its stronger balance sheet, better operational execution, and more convincing chart.

Now I’m curious to hear your thoughts:

Which of the two logistics companies would you prefer?

Are you betting on the greater leverage at DSV $DSV (+0,52 %) or on the currently more visible quality of Kühne+Nagel $KNIN (+0,88 %) ?

Do you even have stocks like these in your portfolio?

In the next stock showdown, we’ll return to the healthcare sector.

Then, AstraZeneca $AZN (+0,27 %)
and Roche $ROP (+0,18 %) . Among other things, we’ll be discussing oncology, diagnostics, pipeline quality, patent risks, dividends, and, of course, current valuations.

See you at the next Stock Duel!

Your Raketentoni from Denmark

Sources and Notes

DSV: Q3 2026 Interim Report, Annual Report 2025, Capital Markets Day 2026, and official Schenker data.

Kühne+Nagel: Q3 2026 Earnings, Annual Report 2025, Q3 Presentation, and Amazon/AWS announcement.

ECB reference rates as of October 29, 2026; two research PDFs provided and four charts as of October 30, 2026.

Valuations and scores are based on my own scenario calculations; this is not investment advice.

@Tigawutz

@Keineui

@Aktienhauptmeister

@Multibagger

@Tenbagger-Capital

@Get_Rich_or_Die_Tryin

@Stocktective

@Simpson

@WarrenamBuffet

@SAUgut777

@TradingHase

@PikaPika0105

@Derspekulant1

@NichtRelevant

@Klein-Anleger

@Dividendenopi

and, of course, everyone else :)

I bought a few more shares during this sell-off. I’ve always found ABB very interesting, and with their production of machinery, robotics, motors, etc., they’re in higher demand than ever. ABB was also one of the first stocks I ever bought, and back then I only had 3 shares. Since I believe in the company’s future and success, I’ve now added to my position😁

Edit: I should be investing more in Switzerland anyway, since my portfolio is extremely US-heavy. I don’t want to be dependent on the Americans😬. And we have great companies here too, like $ROP (+0,18 %) , $NOVN (+0,59 %) , $NESN (+0,98 %) , $ABBN (-0,17 %) , $LOGN (+1,08 %) , $SLHN (+1,15 %) and $LISN (+0,47 %)

$ABBN (-0,17 %)
$GE
$RTX (-0,08 %)
$HAL (+3,48 %)
$MMM (-1,13 %)
$NOC (+0,36 %)
$MSCI (+1,19 %)
$ISRG (+0,35 %)
$SPCX (-2,67 %)
$NFLX (-2,28 %)
$DB1 (+1,07 %)
$CME (+0,73 %)
$T (+0,45 %)
$PM (+0,97 %)
$MCO (-0,22 %)
$NEE (+0,1 %)
$UAL (-3,03 %)
$MONC (+1,81 %)
$TXN (-3,48 %)
$META (+2,47 %)
$IBM (+0,26 %)
$SAP (+0,69 %)
$QS (-6,2 %)
$LRCX (-4,55 %)
$TSLA (-1,87 %)
$RMS (-0,09 %)
$NESN (+0,98 %)
$BARC (+0,37 %)
$ROP (+0,18 %)
$DOW (+0 %)
$SPOT (+2,22 %)
$NDAQ (-0,66 %)
$AAL (-2,4 %)
$LMT (-0,9 %)
$PG (+1,2 %)
$BX (+0,7 %)
$BESI (-0,35 %)
$VLO (+1,85 %)
$KER (-2,11 %)
$OR (+1,09 %)
$VRSN (-0,18 %)
$WDC (-6,27 %)
$BE (-6,94 %)
$NEM (+0,78 %)
$TOM (-0,38 %)
$AXP (+1,08 %)
$FIX (-0,53 %)

As we do every Sunday, here are the top news stories from the past week.

Tuesday:

$AIR (-0,63 %) Airbus and $BA (+0,02 %) Boeing are delivering more aircraft, though Airbus’s lead is shrinking. Among other orders, Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Air ordered six new A350-1000 aircraft.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/flugzeugbau-airbus-und-boeing-ueberraschen-mit-lieferzahlen/100231274.html

Wednesday:

Following somewhat mixed results from $TSLA (-1,87 %) Tesla—which didn’t go over so well on the stock market—Musk is fueling rumors of a possible merger between $SPCX (-2,67 %) SpaceX and Tesla. It wouldn’t be the first time Musk has merged his companies …

https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/it-internet/elon-musk-es-gibt-immer-mehr-ueberschneidungen-zwischen-tesla-und-spacex/100240047.html

$GOOGL (-1,54 %) Alphabet reported earnings above expectations but increased its investments to a new record level. In Q2, revenue rose 24% to $120 billion. Profit came in at an incredible $112 billion, primarily due to paper gains from its stakes in SpaceX and Anthropic. Alphabet also plans to invest nearly $200 billion in AI infrastructure. This means a single corporation is investing more than the German government is through its special fund. As a result, overall cash flow was negative, which didn’t go over well on the stock market.

https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/google-cloud-ki-zahlen-investitionen-100.html

Thursday:

$ROP (+0,18 %) Roche reported a 2% decline in revenue for the first half of the year, primarily due to negative currency effects. On a currency-adjusted basis, revenue would have grown by 6%. However, the Swiss franc has continued to appreciate. At 23.6 billion Swiss francs, the pharmaceuticals division remains the most important business segment, ahead of diagnostics (6.7 billion Swiss francs).

https://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/aktien/gegenwind-roche-aktie-im-blick-wechselkurse-lasten-auf-ergebnis-15816172

$INTC (-4,15 %) Intel is benefiting from the AI boom and increased its quarterly revenue by 25%. At $16.1 billion, revenue was $1.5 billion above expectations. Profit was even twice as high as expected.

https://www.stern.de/digital/chip-konzern--ki-boom-treibt-intel-ueber-wall-street-erwartungen-38003812.html?utm_source=startupinsider.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=corgi-verdreifacht-bewertung-in-drei-monaten-auf-4-mrd-usd&_bhlid=ca4a188dfb09cd82bef6ce72d66fd763172d1d18

Friday:

VW’s profit $VOW (-0,33 %) VW plummeted again to 1.5 billion euros, down from 2.3 billion euros the previous year. VW’s revenue rose by 2%. For the full year, VW expects revenue to decline by 1–3%.

https://de.finance.yahoo.com/nachrichten/nettogewinn-volkswagen-zweiten-quartal-um-062011552.html

After much deliberation, I have decided $BATS (+1,16 %) 🤑😬 to get rid of the two $MUV2 (+0,82 %) & $ROP (+0,18 %) each went into the depot.

With 72% and 93% profit respectively, approx. 32% p.a.📈 more than previously expected.

It was also one of my first investments at the time, still with BitPanda, so it was just a derivative.

I see the two new players in the portfolio as very solid companies in their fields and will improve my portfolio in terms of diversification in the INS and HC areas.

What a wild year so far, one record after another, so it's time for an update and a rough overview of the portfolio.

First of all, some rough facts:

- just under a year ago I was able to report a portfolio balance of 600k euros, now it's already just under 700k ... that's crazy

- I currently have total gains of over 300k (current performance, dividends, sales)

- my total historical gross dividend will crack the 100k mark this year

The portfolio balance is of course only a snapshot and I am therefore particularly pleased about the dividend development. At the end of this year it will be well over 20k. So far, so good ... what do the details say?

Changes in the portfolio:

Ok, what has happened in the portfolio since the beginning of the year?

I have sorted out some low performers, including $MMM (-1,13 %)
$COK (-0,48 %)
$LAND (+2,42 %)

My $INTC (-4,15 %) I also sold my position completely in 3 steps, after the last purchases around 20$ this is currently too much euphoria and above all a crazy valuation. $ROP (+0,18 %) I have reduced my position a little, which is only possible after a holding period of 4 years, simply to spread it a little more widely. I will also do that from time to time.

The money freed up by the sales has not yet been completely reinvested, but the majority of it has. With $EIX (+0,29 %) and $BKW (+2,21 %) I have built up a separate energy share and that $DTE (+0,28 %) is now also in the portfolio - I'm in. My $XDJP (-0,03 %) ETF is doing splendidly and my $XD5E (+0,43 %)
$VFEM (-0,38 %) and $VAPX (-1,01 %) ETFs are doing well and will be expanded further. Otherwise, a lot has flowed into existing candidates (e.g. $ABBV (+0,3 %) or $PG) (+1,2 %)many US stocks have been increased and $BRK.B (+0,77 %) bought a little more. The CHF portfolio was increased by $ZURN (+0,5 %) , $SLHN (+1,15 %) , $VZN (+0,16 %) and the $PGHN (-0,45 %) and $BCHN (-0,96 %) I have increased my purchases.

Oh and yes, the chip shop $NOVO B (+2,61 %) still seems to be alive :-)

My savings plans are continuing as usual, regardless of the current mood. The aim remains to build up a decent passive income with dividends in the long term.

I would say it's going well 🤓