I looked (unprepared) at the $BATS (+0,45%) live to see whether a subsequent purchase would be interesting. At the end, a viewer asked me to look at the share $3750 (-1,89%) I did just that. It's interesting what you learn spontaneously. DO YOU GENERALLY LIKE LIVESTREAMS? Leave me your honest feedback. Thank you :) British American Tobacco im Check – und eine Live-Analyse zu einem chinesischen Giganten! - YouTube

The crypto bull market is over for me. ETHZilla & Sequan as crypto treasuries reduce holdings and prefer to buy back shares, as this is more worthwhile due to mNAV<1. Metaplanet is also starting to buy back shares. I am out with the last small $BTC (-2,06%) -remainder out now too.

The last proceeds from the buy-in and price gain were immediately invested in a position in my crypto follow-on portfolio. $BATS (+0,45%) I am looking forward to an increase.

All in all, I was perhaps a little too greedy and should have exited earlier. But what the heck. I went home with a really good profit. I couldn't have imagined that in 2022 when I started the strategy.

All in all, I was perhaps a little too greedy and should have exited earlier. But what the heck. I went home with a really good profit. I couldn't have imagined that in 2022 when I started the strategy.

And what if there's another new ATH? It doesn't matter, that doesn't make any difference to me. Greed is a bitch. Those who get in now will pay those who get out. That's the problem with crypto: it's a zero-sum game. I'd rather stick with my shares, where there are real value-creating companies behind them.🤗

Now it's time to wait and see. My formula for calculating where the ATH might be missed it by $1000. I think that's pretty good, don't you? Even if it goes up to 130K again.... No longer relevant for me.

That's my rational approach to estimating the low in the bear market. If we get close, I will start buying via DCA, financed by dividends from the crypto successor portfolio, because parking in stable coins is not an option for me for this period, it means a loss of purchasing power. 1 year before the end of 2029, if the tax situation remains as it is, I will stop buying and then get out again tax-free.

Only the person with the crystal ball in Delphi knows whether the strategy will continue to work out in the future or whether I will change my mind. 🔮

British American Tobacco $BATS (+0,45%) announced that it has suspended a pilot plan to introduce an unlicensed disposable vaporizer in the U.S. as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cracks down on unregulated products and expedites licensing.

BAT's previously unreported about-face highlights the complex battle by big tobacco companies against a wave of unregulated products, largely from China, that is cutting into profits in the $22 billion U.S. market for smoking alternatives.

The company also manufactures Lucky Strike and Dunhill cigarettes.

Marlboro maker Philip Morris International said in September it was ready to take a similar step with versions of its Zyn nicotine pouch.

BAT's Reynolds American will pause the pilot launch of Vuse One, which it acquired in April, for now, a spokesman told Reuters, after the US subsidiary unveiled plans earlier this year to launch without FDA approval.

Although it is only a pilot project, the plan marked a significant shift in the way big tobacco companies deal with FDA regulations, which they believe are hampering their competitiveness. It sparked widespread interest from investors, competitors and regulators.

"The planned pilot launch of Vuse One in select states has been postponed," the Reynolds spokesperson said, adding that it would focus on its existing portfolio, including a nicotine pouch that is already sold without FDA approval.

》PMI Plan A: Playing by the rules《

Tobacco companies have been lobbying the U.S. government and the FDA for years to destroy the booming market for unlicensed e-cigarettes, often with fruity or sweet flavors and imported from China.

They are also pushing for reform of the FDA system for issuing the necessary licenses to sell new nicotine products. In some cases, companies wait years for approval, more often resulting in rejection.

The FDA has recently stepped up its crackdowns on unapproved e-cigarettes, targeting companies in the supply chain. It also launched a pilot project to test a simplified application process.

PMI CEO Jacek Olczak $PM (-0,61%) told Reuters last week that the "Plan A" is to comply with the regulations, as the FDA has signaled an acceleration of the application process. He expressed hope that PMI would not have to resort to launching a product without approval.

"My preferred scenario is clearly to stay within the FDA guidelines," he said after the PMI results.

Altria $MO (-1,26%)manufacturer and distributor of the Marlboro brand in the US, is still planning to test launch an updated version of its nicotine pouch brand On! The product is due to be launched in the fall. The product is already available online, a spokesperson said, although it does not have an FDA license.

》SALE OF PRODUCTS WITHOUT A LICENSE ILLEGAL《

The FDA told Reuters it was aware of reports that a small number of manufacturers had plans to launch new tobacco products in the US without a license.

"The agency takes such matters seriously," it said, adding that it had made public contact with certain manufacturers and retailers and would continue to monitor their actions.

In a previously undisclosed letter, the FDA told Reynolds on Sept. 17 that selling new nicotine products without approval was illegal and asked the FDA to provide information about Vuse One sales that have already occurred.

Reynolds told Reuters that the decision to postpone the pilot project had nothing to do with the warning and had already been made before the letter.

"We will launch Vuse One at the appropriate time," the spokesperson said.

While the FDA's plans to simplify the applications were welcomed by the industry, they raised concerns. Six advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Lung Association, wrote to the FDA in October that the details of the pilot program reported by Reuters were concerning.

The pilot program "appears to be a significant departure from the agency's previous rigorous evaluation process," they said.

Bret Koplow, acting director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, said the FDA's evaluations would remain rigorous and consistent with U.S. law under the pilot.

In a statement responding to the activists' letter, he said the program is an exciting opportunity to explore more efficient processes.

Hi, I currently have a savings plan with J&J

Novo Nordisk and United Health

I would like to swap J&J and not save so much in healthcare

My selection would be:

$BATS (+0,45%)

$SIE (-0,48%)

Deutsche Post

(https://www.sueddeutsche.de)

The so-called lipstick effect describes the phenomenon that consumers do not completely forego luxury during recessions, but buy smaller luxury items when large purchases are no longer available.

(The chart below compares the performance of ULTA Beauty and the S&P 500 since March 13, 2020, when the nationwide COVID-19 lockdowns began).

(https://de.tradingview.com/chart/Wl3dkBka)

The term was coined by Juliet Schor back in 1998.

"They are looking for affordable luxury, the thrill of buying in an expensive department store, indulging in a fantasy of beauty and sexiness, buying 'hope in a bottle. Cosmetics are an escape from an otherwise drab everyday existence".

He gained notoriety when Estée Lauder boss Leonard Lauder realized after the 2001 attacks that his company was selling an unusually high number of lipsticks.

Without further ado, Lauder considered lipstick to be a counter-indicator to the economic situation.

Today, the effect is widely extended to consumer goods beyond cosmetics:

Small goods instead of expensive prestige items gain in popularity during crises.

1.

What is the lipstick effect?

In essence, the lipstick effect means

When budgets shrink, consumers cut back on expensive purchases - but indulge in a little sin.

"Consumers will still tend to buy small luxury items even during an economic downturn".

Or:

If you can't afford a car, you might buy the new luxury lipstick instead of nothing at all.

(https://fastercapital.com/startup-topic/People-Will-Actually-Buy.html)

After 9/11, the demand for lipstick shot up by around 11%.

Later, during the 2008 financial crisis $EL (+0,6%) again reported rising cosmetics revenues, while other sectors suffered.

The lipstick effect is not constant; extreme situations such as deep snow or store closures due to the pandemic can weaken it.

However, in normal downturns, studies show that it works quite reliably as a consumption indicator.

https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018-10/Lipstick_JPSP_2012.pdf?utm_source

2.

Psychological drivers

(https://www.falstaff.com/de/news/im-rausch-der-hormone)

Why do people reach for chocolate rather than expensive theater tickets in uncertain times?

Psychology is behind the lipstick effect.

Even when money is tight, people want to treat themselves to something good - a sweet consolation or a new make-up.

Consuming lipstick or ice cream can lift your mood and give you the feeling that you are doing something positive.

(https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018-10/Lipstick_JPSP_2012.pdf?utm_source)

In a recession, women show an increased interest in beauty and attractiveness products, especially when they feel a high motivation to increase their attractiveness or to attract a partner.

This supports the lipstick effect hypothesis:

Even in times of crisis, people do not forgo small luxury items - especially those that boost self-esteem or attractiveness.

The study explains this in terms of evolutionary psychology:

• In uncertain times, perceived financial security decreases.
• People (especially women in this study) therefore invest more in their appearance to send signals of attractiveness that potentially symbolize access to stable social and economic resources.

3.

Economic impact: Crisis-winning industries

In many downturns, certain sectors have benefited disproportionately. Traditionally, cosmetics providers have flourished - lipstick, mascara etc. are seen as an "affordable luxury".

For example $OR (+0,05%) reported increases in sales and profits for the crisis year 2008 despite the global contraction.

This effect explains why cosmetics shares are often considered stable. Tobacco and alcohol companies are also often robust:

Habitual goods such as cigarettes or beer are considered "addictive" goods - even in bad times, demand remains relatively stable. (Historically, cigarettes were even used as a means of bartering for war).

Fast food chains such as McDonald's do well because people want cheap food when everything is more expensive.

Gambling providers can also boom when dreams become more important than sober calculation.

Streaming services/online entertainment are typical: while physical contact is declining, the need for internet entertainment is increasing (Netflix, for example, grew strongly during coronavirus). Investopedia specifically names "fast-casual restaurants and multiplex cinemas" as winners of the crisis.

• Cosmetics

($OR (+0,05%)
, $EL (+0,6%))

Sales continue to rise in 2008 despite the crisis. The global cosmetics market amounted to around USD 504 billion in 2022 (growth +15% compared to 2021) - a sign of the continued importance of beauty care.

• Tobacco/alcohol

($BATS (+0,45%), $PM (-0,61%), $MO (-1,26%), $DGE (+2,53%))

Habitual drinkers and smokers rarely cut back further, tend to consume the same thing or switch to cheaper brands. Tobacco, for example, was an expensive means of exchange during the war.

• Fast food & entertainment

($MCD (-0,53%), $NFLX (-0,62%), $AMC (+0,45%)
)

Affordable indulgences and distractions are in demand. Reports from the corona crisis document, for example, that Amazon recorded a +70% jump in e-commerce sales in the beauty and care sector during the lockdown compared to pre-crisis levels - an indication that consumers were busy ordering small luxury items online.

4.

Historical examples of crises

Concrete history makes the effect tangible: Already after 9/11 in 2001 $EL (+0,6%) reported unusually high lipstick sales - Leonard Lauder even spoke of a "counter-indicator" to the recession.

The picture continued in 2008/09:$OR (+0,05%) and other cosmetics companies fared better than the market as a whole (they were able to expand their sales), while luxury goods shrank.

Corona pandemic (2020) again brought examples: Although the economy slumped in the first half of the year, online trade in beauty products boomed,

Amazon recorded a +70% increase in beauty/care products in e-commerce in spring 2020 compared to the pre-crisis period and Sephora ($MC (+0,57%)) reported a +30 % increase in online sales compared to 2019.

The effect was even evident in 2022/23: according to market researchers, around a third of make-up customers in the UK bought products as a "reward", with spending on lipstick there increasing by around 12.3% in 2023 (despite the tight cost of living).

In China, the lipstick effect was conspicuously absent in 2022, as a study by the China Institute made clear. (https://cidw.de)

"Despite government efforts to promote moviegoing with subsidies and discounts, consumers remain cautious, especially in tier 1 cities. The "lipstick effect", according to which small expenditures increase in times of crisis, did not materialize in China. In December, the China Film Administration launched a subsidy program."

5.

Stock markets in times of crisis

How did investors react to the lipstick effect? Some consumer stocks are considered defensive securities. Thus $OR (+0,05%) 2008 continued to show a profit - a prime example of stability. Estée Lauder experienced a small price jump in 2001 as investors bet on the strong demand for beauty products.

Tobacco stocks ($BATS (+0,45%) , $MO (-1,26%), $PM (-0,61%)) and food companies ($NESN (-0,86%) ) were also regarded as pullback stocks:

Their cash flows suffer comparatively little as underlying demand continues.

McDonald's ($MCD (-0,53%)) was largely able to compensate for its 2008 share price slump by 2010, and the share price also recovered quickly after the coronavirus slump in 2020.

Netflix ($NFLX (-0,62%)): Its price briefly doubled with the lockdown dividend, after which the situation normalized.

6.

Behavioral economic classification

The lipstick effect fits well into the picture of loss aversion and prospect theory: investors and consumers avoid large losses (e.g. cash tied up in a car) and value small gains relatively highly.

(https://hub.hslu.ch/business-psychology/prospect-theory)

In this sense, an inexpensive luxury item minimizes the feeling of "having done without".

Social influences also have an effect: If you see friends treating themselves to something despite the crisis, you are more likely to justify it for yourself.

Behavioral economics thus explains why people satisfy their unpaid desire for a little happiness during a crisis - often reflexively, emotionally and depending on the context.

(https://www.b2binternational.com/publications/what-is-behavioural-economics)

In both world wars, cigarettes were more a part of survival than chocolate - as a tranquillizer in the trenches and a tangible bartering commodity.

Hitler had smoking banned in many places during the Second World War, but tobacco was still available at the front. Chocolate became scarce in 1939: US soldiers were served sweets in their rations, officially to boost morale. Other goods such as coffee, ice cream and video games have similar stories - in the USA, for example, the chocolate business boomed briefly after the world wars as a nostalgic feel-good store.

What was good as a small consolation in war is considered a luxury in peace.

Sources:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/lippenstift-mode-geschichte-1.5360041

https://fastercapital.com/startup-topic/People-Will-Actually-Buy.html

https://fastercapital.com/content/The-Lipstick-Effect-and-its-impact-on-consumer-behavior.html

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lipstick-effect.asp#:~:text=The%20lipstick%20effect%20is%20when,from%20the%20lipstick%20effect%20tend

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9636953/#:~:text=consumers%20to%20spend%20more%20on,1

https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/lipstick-effect-recession-luxury-treat-spending-b2501493.html#:~:text=recession%20,”

https://www.loreal-finance.com/eng/news-release/2008-annual-results-difficult-environment-loreal-proving-resilient-and-continues-grow#:~:text=Increase%20in%20Sales%20to%2017,based%20on%20reported%20figures

https://www.zeit.de/wohlfuehlen/rauchen/Rauchkultur/seite-2#:~:text=Auch%20im%20ersten%20und%20zweiten,unterdrücken%20und%20Hungergefühle%20zu%20überdecken

https://medihair.com/de/statistiken-schoenheits-und-kosmetikindustrie/#:~:text=,bis%202022%20um%2015%20Prozent

https://cidw.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/250107_CHINAPOLITAN_Chinas-Vorbereitungen-auf-die-zweite-Amtszeit-von-Donald-Trump.pdf#:~:text=zurückhaltend.%20Der%20,China%20Film%20Administration%20ein%20Subventionsprogramm

https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/ceo-wechsel-bei-douglas--warum-der-lippenstifteffekt-tina-mueller-nicht-hilft--32838150.html#:~:text=geschwärmt,ihr%20der%20Lippenstifteffekt%20nicht%20geholfen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_chocolate_(United_States)#:~:text=rations%20%20since%20the%20original,The

Following the rebalancing of the S&P Quality Aristocrats last Friday, the following stocks were removed from or added to my two ETF indices (50% weighting):

New additions:

$QDEV (-0,72%): $NOVN (+1,5%) , $REL (-0,26%) , $ITX (-0,14%) , $LSEG (+0%) , $DB1 (-0,07%) and more

$QUS5 (-0,88%): $BKNG (+0,33%) , $MRK (-0,13%) , $CRM (+1,11%) , $UNP (+1,2%) , $COR (-0,82%) , $CAH (+0,55%) and more

Kicked out of both indices and therefore according to S&P no longer Quality Aristocrats are among others: $BATS (+0,45%) , $7974 (+2,44%) , $HD (+0,67%) , $LOW (-0,75%) , $HLT (-0,94%)

In addition, the allocation of all individual stocks in the indices was reduced again to max. 5 % was limited.

Thanks to the recent rally of $$HY9H (-0,44%) my current top 10 weighting (ETFs+shares) is as follows:

3.48% Alphabet

3.04% SK Hynix

3.04% Broadcom

2.93% Meta

2.75% Microsoft

2.71% Apple

2.71% NVIDIA

2.55% Taiwan Semiconductor

2.13% Mastercard

2.08% Visa

New portfolio key figures:

P/E: 27.1 (<30) 🟢

Forward P/E: 21.1 (<25) 🟢

P/Β: 11.5 (<5) 🔴

EV/FCF: 28.7 (<25) 🟡

ROE: 42% (>15%) 🟢

ROIC: 19% (>15%) 🟡

EPS growth for the next 5 years: 15% (>7%) 🟢

Sales growth for the next 5 years: 9% (>5%) 🟡

My internal rate of return is currently 20.19%

New month and new purchase ladies and gentlemen, what can I say, for this month I decided to include in the portfolio a historic company, from a solid sector and one that allows me to sleep soundly, the absence of taxes on British dividends makes companies on the British list very attractive, therefore it could not miss $BATS (+0,45%) offering a dividend of 7 percent, which is more than satisfactory. I was on the fence about adding pharmaceutical stocks or grabbing ISPA shares but wanted to add a non-cyclical sector to the portfolio.

In the previous days I also made a small entry on $RACE (+0,87%) liquidating the shares of $BC (-1,16%) +10% in about 2 weeks and the shares of $FGEQ (-0,21%) , ETF sold just above par, the stock has continued to fall and I am down 8-9% but as with Cucinelli I see Ferrari as a safe haven, I fear nothing for the stock.

Good morning!

In the last few days, some dividend stocks have fallen sharply. E.G. $BATS (+0,45%)
$ARES (+0,7%)
$HTGC (+1,64%)
$MAIN (+0,45%) . What do you think is the reason for this? Upcoming earnings, and is this possibly an opportunity to get in?

Thank you!

...just 3 months ago the 3rd milestone of 20k was reached earlier than expected, last month we also raised our personal year-end forecast from 23k-25k to 25k-28k and now, 1 month later, we are pleased to have to raise it again.

The new target is now 27k-30k and should the upper limit be reached here, the last 10k would be realized in just 6 instead of 10-12 months.

Some people may smile at this numerical example, but this is still a boring dividend portfolio 🤫

...but a quick look at the facts...

...September, even if it wasn't my strongest month, delivered average results in contrast to the past, but we probably owe that more to the April🍊 correction than to the usual course of events...

...for the year as a whole, as I mentioned at the beginning, things are still looking pretty good...

...and more than satisfactory over the entire term so far 🫠

Above all, however, because the currently forecast dividend value for 2026 is mathematically a good ~27% of the average annual investment amount or, to put it another way, this increases by a good ~27% on its own (without taking into account any increases/caps) 💪🏻

Which brings us to the topic of dividends...

...September was a good month and, despite the still modest portfolio value, brought us a monthly dividend of €275.42 net (gross €298.99) for a good reinvest 🤑

There was also a small change to the portfolio itself this month:

》🟢 Top 3

$3750 (-1,89%) +35,19% (+74,45%)

$HSBA (-2,04%) +9,41% (+23,42%)

$RIO (-0,41%) +4,91% (+5,95%)

》🔴 Flop 3

$HAUTO (-0,06%) -8,32% (+44,10%)

$BATS (+0,45%) -6,64% (+80,26%)

$1211 (-0,86%) +1,28% (-16,36%)

》Disposals

$PETR4 (+0,13%)

$JEGP (+0,22%)

》Additions

$DTE (-1,93%)

$WINC (+0,61%)

》Increased

$DTE (-1,93%)

$VAR (+0,99%)

All in all, a good look back at the future 📈

Wishing everyone a nice rest of Sunday and a good UPtober together ✌🏻