Postes
851This consists of dividend shareswhose distributions are automatically reinvested.
In addition to my ETFs (MSCI World, Nasdaq), I would like to use this approach a little more return deliberately with slightly higher risk.
Diversification is the key for me: ETFs for the broad base, dividends for the extra boost.
$GOOGL (+0,23 %) stocked up at the ATH. I think we will see the 300$ by December at the latest. The multiple will probably move towards 25-30 🥳📈
I think it's still a great investment in the long term 🫡
Hey everyone, I have a question for you. I have achieved a return of 55% with alphabet. Would you take partial profits from the return and then invest them in other attractive stocks or let them continue?
Trump recently organized a big dinner with the most important minds from the tech world, which caused quite a stir worldwide. It was particularly striking that all the guests gave a kind of acceptance speech to Trump, which was a bit reminiscent of the GDR and the like.
Although I'm actually still quite sympathetic to Trump (he's at least not half as embarrassing as most European heads of government), I still find it a bit strange. It does seem a bit like a staged soap opera.
I mean, it's clear that as a serious businessman you exchange formal courtesies on such an occasion and don't go completely crazy and start insulting the president or something. So it's not entirely funny. But I also kind of wonder who came up with the idea that everyone should say a few words in turn? I mean, they can't help but say something nice. Still, it's kind of a funny picture howt Bill Gates has to attest to Trump's "great leadership".
Among others also present were Sam Altman ($AMD (-0,15 %) ) Lisa Su ($AAPL (+0,33 %) ) Tim Cook ($ORCL (+1,26 %) ) Safra Catz and ( $MU (+0,3 %) ) Sanjay Mehrotra
But more important than who was there is actually who was missing. The press noted with great satisfaction that ($TSLA (+0,87 %) ) Elon Musk was not there and speculated that he had not even been invited - which Musk has already denied. ($NVDA (+0,48 %) ) Jensen Huang and ($AMZN (+0,47 %) ) Andy Jassy were also not on site.
Trump is definitely seeking proximity to the tech industry. The behavior of ($META (+0,32 %) ) Mark Zuckerbergwho took the place of honor to Trump's right, but actually seemed frightened rather than confident. Another important moment was a brief conversation between Trump and ($GOOG (+0,24 %)
$GOOGL (+0,23 %) ) Sundar Pichai regarding a federal judge's ruling this week in an antitrust case involving Google's monopoly on search. The judge handed down a lenient sentence and rejected the demands for harsh penalties. The company thus escaped being broken up.
"You had a very good day yesterday," said Trump. "Do you want to talk about that great day you had yesterday?" He was glad it was over, Pichai replied. "Biden was the one who pushed this lawsuit,"Trump said. "You know that, right?"
So Trump is pursuing a Bismarckian carrot and stick policy with the tech CEOs. Those who get in line get help from the state, those who step out of line are reprimanded.
Over the last couple of months, my portfolio has seen substantial growth. Valuations are generally at all-time highs. $GOOGL (+0,23 %) has increased by approximately 9% since yesterday, and I still have confidence in this company and its business model for the long term.
However, since my portfolio is relatively small compared to most big guys here (+-10K), and I’ve made 30% on Google in less than three months, I’ve decided to sell a small portion of my Google holdings. My portfolio was heavily weighted in Google, with 20% of my investments in the stock. While it feels weird to sell, I believe that taking profits when valuations are significantly high is a wise decision.
How do you approach taking profits, especially when a stock constitutes a large portion of your portfolio and has experienced such a significant increase in share price?
From my side, congratulations to the shareholders of $GOOGL (+0,23 %) / $GOOG (+0,24 %) I am happy for you. And I have to admit this quite transparently: I was wrong.
I never thought that they could get away with the search engine monopoly - which they have - without any real penalties. That really is a huge relief. It was predictable that the EU would once again act in a completely haphazard manner. The EU is the king of lions when it comes to bullying its own citizens, but when the big trading partners put their foot down, it's just the lion from the Wizard of Oz looking for his courage.
So all in all, it's just a slap on the wrist and quite rightly leads to a huge rise in the share price - which I unfortunately missed. At the moment, only the so-called "ad tech lawsuit" is still open, but the stars are aligned at the moment. At the moment, the USA does not seem to be making any great efforts to regulate its own economy. Good news perhaps for shareholders in other companies against which DOJ proceedings are currently underway - but certainly for the tech industry.
I do not expect any major setbacks for Alphabet in the short term, but at the moment I am actually so bullish that I would even seriously consider opening an initial position here if the market dips.
A (not unexpected) Win for the Tech Giants
A few days ago, I discussed the possible repercussions of Alphabet’s monopoly case. Now we finally got clarity. A federal judge just handed Google one of the biggest wins it could’ve hoped for. But for another company, this win is even more crucial: Apple. The government wanted to ban Google’s $20+ billion annual payments to Apple for default search placement on iPhones. However, the presiding judge ruled differently – calling such a move counterproductive, since it would only give Google free access to Apple’s users. Translation: nothing changes, management is happy.
Besides, let me just add that this was the right call. The case never made sense in the first place – as do, unfortunately, many of these antitrust cases. I am for as much free market as possible, and therefore often more critical of this sort of government intervention. Administrations shouldn’t decide over right and wrong in business. Why break up a monopoly, simply because a company positioned itself better than competition? It’s not on Google that competitors dropped the ball.
Google’s stock popped 8%. For Apple, it’s a similar picture, but the real story is in the margins. Those payments are almost pure profit – 75% gross margins, compared to ~37% on hardware. Losing them would’ve been catastrophic at a time when iPhone growth is flat, AI efforts are lagging, and Trump is pressuring his “friend” Tim Cook to move production back to the U.S. Apple didn’t just dodge a bullet here – it dodged a goddamn hellfire missile.
Yes, the court required Google to share some search data with competitors. But let’s be honest: that won’t matter anyway. And the market just proved that. Neither Google nor investors would call that a bad ruling. The idea of Perplexity (or anyone else) buying Chrome for $34 billion was fun, a good PR stunt, but unrealistic from the start – and the judge tossed it aside completely.
What’s important: both companies keep their status quo, which is about as good as it gets. Google still faces other antitrust cases in the U.S. and Europe – which are very likely to fizzle out the same way. Apple could see this decision revisited if competition doesn’t improve. But for now, they both breathe easier – one pocketing 20 billion, the other securing default dominance, lifting both stocks higher.
And this is why $GOOGL (+0,23 %) is the biggest position in my portfolio.
Congratz google investors 💪🏼
Not forced to sell Chrome. 📈
$GOOGL (+0,23 %) jumps over +5% after a court ruling says the company won’t have to sell Google Chrome. 📈🔥
Meilleurs créateurs cette semaine
