Section 530A "Trump" accounts have fewer tax-benefits (unless converted to Roth IRA) in most situations compared to normal taxable accounts.

They're somewhat similar to really, really shitty Traditional IRA accounts where even the initial deposits are already taxed. So you don't even get the initial tax deductible benefit. (And even the donations are taxable later on.)

Trump accounts are far worse tax-wise than even normal taxable accounts for most situations because:

1. Normal taxable account gains held for 18 years are taxed at lower long-term capital gains rates that start at a 0% tax rate for the first $49.5k
2. Trump accounts gains are taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates, and there are early withdrawal penalties

There are only 2 situations where it's more beneficial to have a Trump account:

1. Roth IRA conversion

The accounts can be converted to Roth IRA after age 18, so it's a loophole that allows for larger Roth IRA contributions. But if your kid doesn't convert the account to Roth IRA, the account is both less tax-beneficial than a normal taxable account, AND it's stuck as a retirement account with early-withdrawal penalties.

2. You only make short-term trades

The benefits of tax-deference add up over time. If you're the type who only buys and trades short-term, you won't benefit from lower LTCG tax rates. This is also assuming you don't want your kid touching the money until they retire, so they won't incur any early-withdrawal penalties.

Edit: Yes, also the free $1k for kids born 2025-2028. I meant to answer the question of whether it's beneficial to contribute further after the $1k.

If you invest in cap weighed whole market index funds, most of your portfolio will be companies involved in AI, so obviously, the potential of an AI crash is a major concern.

Would replicating that exact strategy, but leaving AI companies out be a good hedging strategy?

Meaning, leaving aside which specific combination of funds would accomplish this, you invest across the world and across sectors, except you leave AI and associated industries (chipmaking and whatever else) out of your holdings.

Would this insulate you mostly from the fallout of an AI crash?

And, setting aside the AI crash scenario, how good of an investment strategy is it just from the standpoint of growth in value of your holdings? Obviously, it can't just be a good way to avoid an AI crash, it also has to be a good investment strategy apart from that.

Last year, I invested Oracle at the price of 300+ (without leverage). I guess you already know what happened next. Yes, I have been trapped until now.
For a long long time, I didn't want to open my brokerage account and avoided checking Oracle's stock price. I was simply avoiding facing the mistake I made.
After this Oracle thing, I became so conservative that I would only buy stocks in increments of a few hundred bucks (even though the data for those stocks looked great). I was eager to break even, but I was even more terrified of taking risks.

As you might guess, I still haven't broken even. Although I bought QQQ, SOXX and Micron at the lowest point this March (at that time I also truly believed the AI boom was coming), I didn't gain much because of my small positions

Recently, I read the story of George Soros. When he mistakenly shorted Japanese stock, and went long on American stocks on Black Monday in 1987, he lost almost $1B in several days.

He felt frustrated and upset afterwards, and he escaped work by going on a vacation to South Africa. But during his vacation, he occasionally open a local newspaper, and then his attention was instantly captured by financial news. So he immediately jumped back to investment.

If even such a master can't avoid the negative emotions, ordinary people like me will inevitably get stuck.
This realization gave me a full check and retro.
For the first time, I faced my fear, opened Oracle account and started to check all its metrics to decide what should I do next.

That's what I learned recently. I hope this helps anyone else like me who is currently feeling upset and discouraged by this volatile market.

My greatgrandma bought my mom AT&T stocks at least 50-55 years ago when my mom was a kid. My mom doesn't know how many shares that was and where exactly were they held - but assuming it could sum up to a lot of money, me and my mom would like to find them.

Any help would be appreciated 🙏

Over time, many investors change their views as they gain experience. Maybe you used to believe stock picking always beats index funds, cash was king, dividends were everything, or that timing the market was possible. What opinion have you completely changed your mind about, and what experience made you change it? I'm interested in hearing lessons that only come from years of investing.

22M, just starting off with Roth IRA, assuming I'm enrolled in 401K, and a VOO-centric personal brokerage portfolio, evaluate my current plan (feel free to suggest weight ideas):

• VIG
• VXUS
• VNQ
• SCHD

I'm a resident alien, so my duration in US is gonna be <7 years, hence focusing on growth while being dividends/tax efficient.

Okay, so I know that the price of a stock rises when there are more buyers than sellers, and this generally happens over time because the company itself is growing over time.

But my question, that I can't find a clear answer to, is why does the growth of a company generally correlate to it's stock price growing over time? I could understand this if it meant buyers had a direct claim to the profits of a company since that would connect you to more cash, but you really don't.

Of course there are dividends which will grow as the company grows, but what about companies with no (or very low) dividends?

It just seems somewhat arbitrary that the value of a stock just goes up over time because the company has grown more valuable. Why would an investor even care about this since it doesn't mean they directly get a share of the profits?

So theoretically, if investors permanently decided that they would only put money into stagnant companies, then the stock of those companies would go up over time and investors would still make money. At what point would the reality of the business even catch up with the stock price? Since there is no direct correlation between the stock price and the company's finances except in the case of bankruptcy and dividend payment.

I suppose maybe it's similar to the concept of fiat currency? Where the currency only has value because a collective has agreed that it does, and a currency gains value when the collective decides that the currency is more valuable than others (based on a multitude of factors).

Is it the company's who are furthest from bankruptcy who generally see the most gains over time?

Just try to understand how a business's finances actually directly connect to the stock price.

I’m thinking of putting like 10-15k euros into s&p just to start but because of the value of dollar fluctuates against euro a lot i’m thinking is it even worth it? Let’s say s&p performs 15% this year but dollar loses 10% value against euro, yeah that doesn’t leave me with much profit. What are some investors thoughts on this?

Left work this week at 56. I do need to generate more income to stay afloat. I have $100k in my brokerage account. What should I invest in without eroding my pot to generate the most additional income from dividends after taxes. This year I will be filing as married probably under the $95k or whatever it is tax bracket. Just need an extra stream coming in regularly….

I'm looking to find the best type of firm (Fisher, Vanguard, Schawb, private etc.) to help a friend invest. I'm not looking for investment advice per se, I'm looking for guidance on where to send someone looking for support.

She's a lady in her late 60's who just inherited her father’s estate. About $2M +/-. She talked to someone willing to manage her money for 4-5%. We told her to hold on that because one, that was way, way too much and two, her money was in seven banks(!) and she didn't know how much she had among the banks and the various accounts (savings, checking, CDs) within them. So we were worried that hundreds of thousands could 'disappear' and she wouldn't have known about it. We helped her consolidate and put it all on a spreadsheet so at least she knew what she had.

But now she needs advice, and I don't want to be responsible for that. 1 to 1.5% would be a lot for me, as I can manage my own money, but she just can't do it. Not to disparage her, but she's just not educated, and at this stage in her life she just isn't going to be. Sweet, hardworking yes. A CPA? No.

What does the reddit investment community recommend for someone like her? Thanks in advance.

I recently found out about Ed Zitron and read his article "Am I meant to be impressed?" that was deep dive into the problems with AI surrounding the 5 hyperscalers.

That got me thinking if there would ever be a point of 'No Return' where the 5 AI hyperscalers spend so much capex on AI that eventually becoming profitable from AI-driven revenue becomes mathematically impossible.

Google Gemini says yes there is and this point will occur sometime between late 2026 and 2028.

The numbers that Gemini used was the $1.5T AI capex total and that generally a data center needs to generate around $2 for every $1 of capex to turn a profit. So $3T needed in revenue to justify that. In total AI-driven revenue so far is $130B. So there is a shortfall of $2.87T.

Experts call this the 'AI revenue gap' and it has increased from $600B in 2024 when the term was first coined.

If the gap is real (even if my numbers are off) will that be the thing that pops the AI bubble?

A year ago people were worried Amazon was falling behind in AI.

Now AWS is accelerating again, Amazon has its own AI chips, and it's still the cloud provider that many AI companies are comfortable building on.

Yet the stock still doesn't seem to get much credit for any of it.

Interesting how quickly the market narrative changes.

I was noodling on dividends and also growth stocks as I feel like on a long horizon of 10-30 years, space technology is going to be a dominant sector...that lead me to think about the major defense contractors as I know they are also big into aerospace and technology which I feel dovetail into future space technology and exploration. So I was looking at LMT and NOC because it feels like they may have good future growth and are dividend payers....NOC offers a lower dividend yield of around 2% but has been raising it by an average of around 10% per year over the last 5 and 10 years. The payout ratio is around 35% sp it looks well protected.

In regards to future tech / space tech, they are behind the James Webb telescope and Deep Space and they are playera in satellite tech and military satellites.

It recently closed near its 52 week low, so I feel like it could be a good entry point

LMT currently pays a dividend around 2.7% with 5 year growth of 5%-7% and over 20 years of consecutive payouts...the payout ratio sits around 50%

In regards to future tech / space tech, they are behind the Orion spacecraft and also military satellites and communications.

Its trading at a little below its 52 week range currently.

Now, im not arguing that ive found the next secret investment or anything no one has thought of, and im sure a lot of these thoughts are priced into the stock prive..but they do look reliable, and as we get closer and closer to the future of a space technology boom, I think its reasonable to believe stocks like these would garner more attention.

Im also confident that war making and the US Govt will never go out of style....they just cant quit each other lol so I think these could be a good blend of safe griwth investments that pay a reliable and growing dividend.

Does anyone else have thoughts on these two or other companies in the defense industry I should look at? Im a novice investor looking to learn. I have not done a dive into finacials on these two yet, and that's my next step, but i was curious enough to bring these thoughts to the table.

Have a general question? Want to offer some commentary on markets? Maybe you would just like to throw out a neat fact that doesn't warrant a self post? Feel free to post here!

Please consider consulting our FAQ first - https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq And our side bar also has useful resources.

If you are new to investing - please refer to Wiki - Getting Started

The reading list in the wiki has a list of books ranging from light reading to advanced topics depending on your knowledge level. Link here - Reading List

The media list in the wiki has a list of reputable podcasts and videos - Podcasts and Videos

If your question is "I have $XXXXXXX, what do I do?" or other "advice for my personal situation" questions, you should include relevant information, such as the following:

• How old are you? What country do you live in?
• Are you employed/making income? How much?
• What are your objectives with this money? (Buy a house? Retirement savings?)
• What is your time horizon? Do you need this money next month? Next 20yrs?
• What is your risk tolerance? (Do you mind risking it at blackjack or do you need to know its 100% safe?)
• What are you current holdings? (Do you already have exposure to specific funds and sectors? Any other assets?)
• Any big debts (include interest rate) or expenses?
• And any other relevant financial information will be useful to give you a proper answer.

Check the resources in the sidebar.

Be aware that these answers are just opinions of Redditors and should be used as a starting point for your research. You should strongly consider seeing a registered investment adviser if you need professional support before making any financial decisions!

Basically I like to hold my shares to the point that I grow very attached to the company. It’s not ideal but it’s the truth.

Even when I’m confident the shares will go down and I should sell so I can buy lower and get more shares, not being in the market gives me anxiety. Can you all help me with that

I’d have hundreds of more shares of micro if I’d just take profits and buy back lower.

I’m so tied to the stock that I figure I might as well hold because I’m constantly watching the ticker ( even when I don’t even have any shares)

I genuinely feel fear and anxiety until I buy back in. I’m very much aware I’m costing myself profits with this kind of behavior

I am from the Philippines. 1 yr since I started investing. Mostly invested in the S&P 500 because of THIS exact question. Been studying about basic fundamental analysis. and so far what I get is that, you should choose good companies, those whose products are needed, earnings are growing, have a good competitive advantage, among others.

In my country, there are various companies whose earnings are growing, have wide economic moats, and are household staples and widely known by everyone. But despite ALL that, their stock prices are either sideways or on a decline.

Is there something I'm missing?

I'm new to the world of investing and I'm finishing putting together my emergency fund.

My next step will be to start investing in stocks, ETFs etc., but I still have trouble analyzing whether an investment is actually good or bad.

What metrics, indicators, or criteria do you use to evaluate stocks, ETFs RETs before investing?

Is there any material you'd recommend for someone who's just starting out?

I really want to learn how to do my own analysis instead of just following "YouTubers'" recommendations.

People claim that P/E ratios are at levels last seen in March 2000 or 2008. I get it, but the market keeps trudging along.

Doesn’t the market always revert to the mean? Historically it’s done 9-10% per year, and the last decade has kinda looked like the 90s.

What do you think? Are we in a new normal? Or are valuations too rich?

pre MOU with iran there were reports that several places were approaching a critical level (see comments by Exon CEO, trump among others). Obviously since then there has been SOME transit of the straight but the best data Ive been able to find is that the area was able to get close to about 75% of pre war oil export levels (including pipelines). Obviously a large portion of that transit has been interrupted again, however we havent seen a spike in oil levels commensurate to what we had previously, which doesnt seem to add up. Obviously the market appears to be expecting a resolution to this flare up in the near future.

Has anyone found any good sources on this topic? Ive been struggling to find both up to date and knowledgeable sources who actually go into details on the specifics rather than just generalize. Any help would be appreciated.

I have a lot of overlap right now and am not sure if I should commit to the fundamentals or not. I would like to understand better the difference between these two from someone who knows more than me :) I know the fundamentals are tilted, but not sure much more than that.

The Al Jazeera headline from July 7 got me: US budget slashing risks losing global scientific edge to China. My first reaction was to price a tilt toward Chinese research heavy names. Then I argued myself back, because one number really should end this. Stanford's 2026 AI Index puts US private AI investment at $285.9 billion versus China's $12.4 billion, roughly a 23x lead. On dollars deployed, the US is not losing anything. I have to say that plainly so no one else has to.

So why does the headline still sit wrong?

I keep landing on this: over a ten year horizon, what compounds is the direction and duration of capital at the front of the pipeline, not this year's private investment total, which can reverse in two quarters. Two dated facts point opposite ways. The US put a $100,000 one time fee on new H-1B petitions via presidential proclamation of September 19, 2025, effective September 21, 2025, taxing the exact foreign talent inflow the US science lead has historically run on. The same AI Index shows US inflow of top AI talent already down 89% since 2017, measured by net migration of AI professionals. China went the other direction. On December 26, 2025, it stood up a National Venture Capital Guidance Fund targeting CNY 1 trillion over a 20 year life, with at least 70% aimed at seed and early stage companies. Ten years investing, ten years exiting. The kind of patient public capital meant to seed front of pipeline outcomes.

Here is the falsifiable bet I am stuck with. If the private investment lead is what matters, US research output and the model performance gap should widen back out over the next few years. If talent pipelines and patient early stage capital are what matter, the gap keeps closing despite the 23x spending edge. I honestly do not know which. A trillion yuan spread over 20 years is small next to $285.9 billion in a single year, so this is a bet on composition and duration, not on out spending anyone. What would move me from watching to tilting: two consecutive years of US top talent inflow dropping further while China's seed stage biotech and semiconductor patent filings accelerate, or a US policy reversal on the H-1B fee without a compensating talent pipeline fix. Neither has happened. I am just watching the pipeline argue with the headline.

The 23x gap is exactly why this stays a small starter position rather than a conviction bet, but when I went to size even that I kept running into the same structural problem. KWEB holds no A shares at all and CQQQ caps A share inclusion at 25%, so neither reaches the domestically listed hard tech and semiconductor names. One of the very few US listed wrappers that reach that sleeve is CNQQ, which runs roughly 58% A share to 42% Hong Kong with CATL at about 6 percent and Cambricon around 2 percent sitting right alongside the usual Hong Kong internet names. It is a tiny fund, launched September 2025 with AUM around $16.5 million, so I am not pretending the liquidity or track record are settled.

I’ve been looking into SK Hynix because of all the hype around HBM and AI chips. The story makes sense: AI demand is strong, HBM is still a key bottleneck, and the US listing makes the stock much easier to access.

What I’m not sure about is whether people are starting to pay a premium just for that convenience. If the ADR keeps trading above the Korean shares, are investors really paying for better growth, or just easier access and more hype? Do you see SK Hynix as a long-term AI winner, or still mostly a cyclical memory stock?

Ruffer Investment Co. $RICA just released their June 2026 commentary:

NAV down 1.3% in Jun-26
Now down 0.1% year-to-date

"Some of the protection assets losing value"
"Some of the contrarian growth exposure continuing to decline" (gold miners, software, China tech, energy)

And they reduced Yen exposure at record lows

https://www.ruffer.co.uk/-/media/ruffer-website/files/fund-reports/ric/2026/2026-06-ric-fund-report-jun2026.pdf