方法论
研究框架、选股思路、思维方式 · 共 651 条 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
强调仓位管理很重要，若因 AAOI 一只票下跌就睡不着，说明仓位配得不对。
@k_a_y_b_e_e_ 仓位管理极其重要。 如果因为像 $AAOI 这样的单一持仓一跌就睡不着，那大概率是你的配置方式出了问题。
英文原文
@k_a_y_b_e_e_ Position sizing is extremely important, if you can’t sleep at night because one position like $AAOI is red, you’re probably allocating wrong.
-
说明自己靠跨行业经验和规则提炼 alpha
我主要靠的是人生经历的积累、反复试错（尤其是在期权上），以及行业知识来寻找 alpha。 我的强项主要在金融科技和 AI。 我不碰生物科技，因为我很确定像 Shkreli 这种人在那个领域可能是天花板级别的投资者。 同样地，也许你对能源交易、游戏或国防更懂，所以你能从中找到 alpha，跑赢市场。 但我上面提到的每个领域，其实都有一些通用规则，大家在研究股票时都可以考虑进去。
英文原文
Just based on culmination of life experiences, mix of trial and error(especially for options), and domain knowledge for generating alpha. Mine happens to be around fintech and AI. I don’t touch biotech while others im sure like Shkreli are probably god-tier investors in that space. And maybe you happen to know more about the energy trades, gaming, or defense that you can outperform the the market in from finding alpha. But there’s certain sets of rules that apply across every single domain that I posted above that ppl can take into account when doing research into stocks
-
强调基本面比技术面更重要
如果 $NVDA 给一家公司 1000 亿美元，而那家公司的市值只差 1 亿美元，毛利率 80%。 那这只股票还是会继续涨，哪怕“图看起来已经太高了”。 RSI 是什么、有没有超涨，都不重要。 大多数画技术图的人，确实完全忽略了基本面；但我也确实关注少数几个真的懂行的人。
英文原文
If $NVDA gives a company $100B and the MC of it is $100M off, 80% gross margins. The stock will keep going up despite "charts looking too high". It doesn't matter what the RSI is or if it's extended. Majority of TA drawers do completely discount fundamentals, but there's a few I follow that actually do know what they're talking about.
-
总结十条研究股票时常见误区
我在 X 上一遍又一遍看到的 10 个常见谬误。 也是我自己做研究时最重要的警惕项之一： 1. 处在“拥挤”交易里的名字，比如 $LITE 或 $COHR，并不意味着这些票不会继续涨。 （看看 Nvidia 从 2022 到 2026 年就知道了。） 2. 不要把供应链里的瓶颈和关键公司（比如 SpaceX 或 Nvidia）直接等同于股价回报。 真正重要的是它如何转化为实质性的经营利润。 我提 $AXTI 的原因，就是它大概率能因这个瓶颈涨价。 3. 内幕卖出是极端噪音。 我永远不会拿这个去推导预测，更不会据此算市值应该是多少。 4. 再重复一遍：技术分析只是指标，不是圣经。 别再在我的 Soitec 帖子下面贴 TA 然后说“超涨了！！！”了，完全不看基本面、催化剂或宏观。 尤其在基本面发生剧烈变化的时候，TA 更没意义，比如 60 亿美元的稀释，或者像 $BULL、$CRCL 这样的 IPO 流通盘锁定。 5. 稀释是有区别的。 ATM 和可转债不一样，可转债和贷款也不一样。 这里面的细节非常复杂。 有些会带来更好的股东回报，有些则更伤人，比如 $IREN 那 60 亿美元 ATM。 流通盘变化、ATM 规模和市值的相对关系，都要算进去。 6. 市场是前瞻的。差别只在于它往前看多远。 别总拿过去的收入指引去证明估值合理，因为市场已经在定价未来增长，比如 $TSEM 在光子业务起量时的前瞻增长。 7. 收入/毛利/利润都极其极其复杂。 利润可以藏在税务减记里，利润率也可以藏在利润表别的地方，比如 opex 或折旧。 所以拿“毛利/利润”（比如 $IREN）去和其他 neocloud 相比，若没有把会计口径标准化，其实没什么意义。 8. 净利润不等于 GAAP 净利润。 像 $SNAP 这类公司的真实盈利能力，可能被 SBC 之类的项目掩盖掉。 当公司对媒体宣布非 GAAP 净利润 5 亿美元时，它提交给 SEC 的正式 GAAP 净亏损可能因为 SBC 变成 1.5 亿美元。 9. 流通盘动态 + 稀释很重要。 你可以说“这公司市值 1.5 亿，利润 3000 万”，但如果你忘了 X 行权价背后还有巨大的稀释压力，那你的研究基本就被扔进垃圾桶了。 10. 一定要把收入增长 / TAM 放进去。 公司一年可以增长 200%，但如果 TAM 像金融科技那样最终见顶，营收增速迟早会掉下来。 这就是为什么 $RKLB 会因为无限的太空 TAM 预期拿到溢价，而其他在金融科技里只增长 40% Y/Y 的公司却拿不到。
英文原文
Top 10 common fallacies I keep seeing again and again on X. And some of the most important things I look out for too when doing research: 1. Being in "crowded" names like $LITE or $COHR does not mean these names won't go higher. (Just look at Nvidia throughout 2022 -> 2026). 2. Don't conflate bottlenecks and critical companies in supply chains like SpaceX or Nvidia with stock market returns. What matters is how it translates to material operating income. The reason I mention $AXTI, is likely price hikes from being that bottleneck. 3. Insider Sales are the extreme noise. You will never see me quote that anywhere to derive projections and what the MC should be at. 4. Repeat after me. TA is only an indicator, not a bible. Please stop posting TAs underneath my Soitec posts to say "overextended!!!" without any reference to fundamentals, catalysts, or macro. TA's especially, mean nothing when there's extreme fundamental changes (eg. $6B in share dilution or upcoming IPO float lockup like $BULL, $CRCL). 5. DILUTION IS DIFFERENT. ATMs are different than convertible notes that are different than loans. It's extremely nuanced. Some lead to more equity returns than others that are more harmful (eg. $IREN $6B ATM). Float dynamics, ATM sizes relative to marketcap, and all others need to be accounted for. 6. Markets are forward looking. It's just a matter of how far in the future they look. Stop only posting previous revenue guidance only to justify valuations pricing in forward growth eg. $TSEM forward growth for photonics ramp. 7. Revenue/Gross Margins/Profit are extremely, extremely nuanced. Profit can be hid in tax writeoffs, and margins can be hid in other parts of the income statement like opex, or in depreciation. So posting "gross margins/profit" (eg. $IREN) and using that to justify it vs. other neoclouds means nothing if the accounting is not normalized 8. Net Income is not the same as GAAP Net Income. True profitability from companies like $SNAP are hid by things like stock-based compensation. When a company reports non-GAAP net income of $500 million to the media, their official SEC-filed GAAP net income could be a $150 million loss because of SBC. 9. Float Dynamics + Dilution are important. You can say "oh this company is $150M MC, 30m profit" but if you're forgetting there's a massive dilution overhead at X strike, then all your research gets thrown out the drain. 10. Make sure to factor in REVENUE GROWTH/TAM. You can grow a company 200% one year, but if TAM maxes out like in Fintech then revenue growth eventually falls off the cliff. Hence why $RKLB gets premiums for infinite Space TAM growth while other companies in fintech growing at 40% Y/Y don't.
-
总结低市值往往对应更高重估空间
一般经验法则： 市值越低，比如 $IQE -> $SOI -> $AXTI -> $AAOI -> $LITE -> $COHR 这样往上排， 重估后的上行空间往往越大。 当然，前提不是像 $AAOI 那样如果产能目标真兑现了还能把收入做 10 倍，不过这还得看它能不能做到。
英文原文
@KaneCapz General rule of thumb: Lower the MC eg. $IQE -> $SOI -> $AXTI -> $AAOI -> $LITE -> $COHR, etc. Higher upside from re-rating. That's unless you 10x revenue like $AAOI if they hit capacity projections, but we'll see if they do.
-
反感权威论证，除非能讲清估值和 CPO
@AtlasShrug1 我真的很反感“诉诸权威”的论点，因为除了“行业里有人脉”和“30 年经验”之外，它几乎没有什么实质内容。 除非对方能就估值和 CPO 给出具体论点，否则我会直接忽略。
英文原文
@AtlasShrug1 Really hate arguments from authority since there’s zero material substance aside from “connections in the industry” and “30 years experience”. Unless there’s a specific argument they had around valuation and cpo, then I’d dismiss it.
-
批评对 Soitec 的估值与 CPO 分析太差
@VJNCapital 这大概是我迄今为止读过最离谱的分析，恭喜你。 你把股价变动都算错了，却拿这个去说市场已经定价；而且你还把下行周期里的历史收入增长拿来套一个面向未来的 CPO 起量项目。
英文原文
@VJNCapital This is perhaps the dumbest analysis I’ve read to date congrats. You got the stock price change wrong and used that to say the market has priced it in and looked at previous revenue growth during a downturn for a forward CPO ramp play.
-
强调自己只是抛出想法，不是在荐股
@thisisfed 谢谢，我只是把自己从当前新闻循环里想到的一些随机点子抛出来而已。 我并不是在建议大家去做这些交易。 只是希望这能帮助大家建立信念、跟上催化剂，并在看到有意思的地方时，自己延伸出新想法。
英文原文
@thisisfed Thanks I’m just throwing out random ideas I thought of from current news cycles. Not recommending people to take any of the trades. But hope it helps with developing conviction, staying up to date on catalysts, and making new ideas on your own just in case anything stands out.
-
指出更关键的问题是扫雷装备的供应商是谁
@TomListon2or2 当然可以。不过你更应该问的是…… 那些扫雷舰和系统到底是谁造的？ 而且因为海峡里新布了这么多水雷，是否还需要更多这类装备（或者更多先进探测的资金）来维持油运畅通？
英文原文
@TomListon2or2 Of course. But the better question you should ask is... Who makes those mine clearing ships and systems? And would there need to be more (more revenue or funding for advanced detection) because of all the new mines in the straight disrupting oil flow?
-
表示会先做研究再发整合 DD
@ThematicTrader 对，@pennycheck 跟我提了 $MIND。 这里面很多名字对我来说都是新的，所以我现在先做研究，过几天再发一篇整合版 DD。
英文原文
@ThematicTrader Yeah @pennycheck told me about $MIND. A lot of these are new names to me so I'm doing research into them now before I post a consolidated DD in a few.
-
说明来不及研究全部财务，只能先筛选纯粹标的
@despe500 这消息就是这个小时才发出来的。 我还没来得及把每家公司的财务都仔细过一遍，不然我会更关注几只资产负债表不错、而且有合作关系的纯玩法名字。
英文原文
@despe500 The news got published this hour. I didn't have enough time to go through all the financials of each company yet, otherwise I'd focus on a few pure play names that have good balance sheets + partnerships.
-
强调基本面重要性，批评无根据的技术分析。
@Ren_aramb 是的，基本面才是最重要的。 但总的来说，当人们在我的帖子下面发布技术分析(TA)或图表时，我简直无语。他们中的大多数人都完全不知道自己在说什么。 https://t.co/uXHe4xu0B2
英文原文
@Ren_aramb Yeah fundamentals is what matters the most. But in general, at a loss for words when people post TAs or charts underneath my posts. Most of them have zero clue what they’re talking about. https://t.co/uXHe4xu0B2
-
赞赏投资者打破思维定势，克服路径依赖以追求更高回报。
真心赞赏你愿意打开心态。我最初加入 X 时看到的许多 FinX 投资者，尽管市场格局已发生诸多变化或存在高估，其持仓组合仍停留在 $PLTR、$HOOD、$IREN、$AMD 这类股票上。审视其他趋势，并换掉持有了一段时间的股票以追求更好的回报，这比预期中要难得多。
英文原文
Honestly applaud you for opening up your mindset. A lot of the FinX investors I've originally seen when I first joined X still have the same $PLTR, $HOOD, $IREN, $AMD type portfolios, despite a lot of shifts or overvaluation. It's a lot harder than expected to look at other trends and change your stock that you held for awhile to chase better returns.
-
建议避免高IV个股或原油看跌期权，提供反向交易思路。
@drewinvestment 我只是抛出一个具体的交易思路，供看跌油价的人反向操作。我觉得很多人要么交易高隐含波动率(IV)的个股，要么买入高隐含波动率(IV)的原油合约看跌期权，这些交易都很次优。
英文原文
@drewinvestment I’m just floating a specific trade idea for going the other direction of oil prices if people are bearish. Feel like a lot of people take suboptimal trades with either high IV individual stocks or high IV oil contract puts.
-
建议反向操作WSB赌徒、散户看空者及Jim Cramer的一致观点。
@ehaibag 不，我唯一期待的是： - 所有在 WSB 上购买原油合约的赌徒。 - X 上所有唱衰大盘的散户指数看空者。 - 以及吉姆·克拉默(Jim Cramer)。 如果他们在同一件事上达成一致，他们就会错。 大概会反向操作。
英文原文
@ehaibag No the only thing I’m expecting is - all the gamblers buying crude oil contracts on WSB. - All the retail index doomposters on X. - And Jim Cramer. To be wrong if they agree on the same thing. Probably do the opposite.
-
分析空头回补的三种可能情景及价格影响。
@LandoInvests 大多数时候这不会在一天内发生（如果买盘压力足够大，有时确实会）。可能会像 $TSLA 那样，随着基本面改善，空头回补。或者第三种情况，什么也没发生（投降式抛售 -> 买入平仓但未推动价格上涨）。我们拭目以待。
英文原文
@LandoInvests Most of the time it doesn’t happen over one day (sometimes it does if there’s enough buying pressure). Could end up like $TSLA where shorts buy back as fundamentals improve. Or scenario three, nothing (capitulation -> buy to cover without moving price). We’ll see what happens.
-
内部人士抛售非有效指标，应关注公司指引与盈利。
@Andandandwhat 使用上市公司内部人士抛售(Insider sales)作为指标，可能是任何人都能用的最愚蠢的指标。真正重要的是公司的业绩指引(company projections)和盈利(earnings)。人们有权获利了结(take profits)，有人卖出股票并不会改变营收(revenue)数据。
英文原文
@Andandandwhat Insider sales of public companies is perhaps the dumbest metric anyone can use. What matters is their company projections and earnings. People are free to take profits, someone selling shares doesn’t change revenue numbers
-
ATM融资稀释股东价值，建议等待稀释完成后再买入。
除了自动质押融资(ATM)之外，如果他们想筹集60亿美元，还有其他融资方式。如果不需要走这条路，他们就不会提交申请。 ATM会抹平现有股东的价值，但作为回报，这对公司更有利（例如，没有债务融资的利息）。 如果你是这60亿美元新ATM的流动性提供方，你的上行空间会被封顶，所以在现有持有者被稀释后买入会更好。
英文原文
There are other financing methods than ATMs if they wanted to raise $6B. They wouldn’t have filed it if they didn’t need to go that route. An ATM wipes out current shareholder value but in return it’s better for the company (eg. No interest from debt financing) Your upside is capped if you’re the liquidity for the new $6B ATM, so it’s better to buy back after existing holders get wiped.
-
警示ATM融资对散户权益的损害及特定股票风险
我关注散户利益，并对 $CRWV 的债务利息、$RVI 的高估发行以及其他像 $AVS 这样极度稀释股权且利于套利投资者的股票进行同样的风险披露。 $IREN 并非被单独点名，但它是利用散户作为流动性来源的热门股票之一。 定向增发(ATM)可能是对散户权益最具破坏性的融资方式。
英文原文
I care about retail interests and I do the same risk disclosures around $CRWV debt interest, $RVI inflated offerings, and other extremely dilutive stocks like $UAVS that benefit arbitrage investors. $IREN is not singled out, but it’s one of the more popular ones that use retail as liquidity. ATMs are probably the most harmful financing methods for retail equity.
-
内部人减持是愚蠢指标，应更关注公司业绩指引。
@okayvinay @AlphaOwlTrading 不是？内部人减持(Insider selling)是我见过人们使用的最愚蠢的指标之一。 比起人们是否想获利了结，更应关注公司的业绩指引(company projections)。
英文原文
@okayvinay @AlphaOwlTrading No? Insider selling has got to be one of the dumbest metrics I've ever seen people use. Care more about company projections than if people want to take profits.
-
对于有指引或瓶颈的公司，内部人减持不重要，执行和达成目标才是关键。
如果一家公司提供业绩指引或处于瓶颈环节，内部人减持可能是我关注的最不重要的因素。 $AAOI 给出了 2027 年下半年营收 3.78 亿美元、毛利率约 36-40% 的指引，而其市值为 70 亿美元。 只要他们能执行并达成指引，我不在乎谁在卖出股票。 两个月前我在 Reddit 首次发布 $AXTI（当时约 12 美元）时，也有同样的担忧，而它自那以来已翻了三倍。
英文原文
Insider selling is probably the least material thing I look at if a company gives projections or serves as a bottleneck. $AAOI gave projections of $378M/revenue off ~36-40% gross margins H2 2027 and they're a $7B MC. Don't care if someone sells their shares as long as they execute and hit projections. Same concern was said about $AXTI on Reddit 2 months ago when I first posted it around $12 and it's tripled since then.
-
区分公司经营与股价表现，强调关注个人持仓回报。
@blackwalletfr 公司 $IREN 经营良好与你持有的该公司股票升值之间是有区别的。我更关心我的股票表现如何，而不是公司本身。 https://t.co/X1YzRXWBNK
英文原文
@blackwalletfr There’s a difference between the company $IREN doing well and your shares in the company appreciating in value. I care about how my shares perform, not so much about the company itself. https://t.co/X1YzRXWBNK
-
除巨头外需警惕宏观与稀释风险，密切跟踪高成长股变化。
同意，除非你的持仓是 $GOOGL 或 $TSM，否则你不能只是躺平四年就确信它会表现良好。密切关注是否有任何实质性变化至关重要。尤其是对于极高贝塔值的超成长型公司，宏观环境、战略转型或过度稀释都可能破坏你的投资逻辑或限制上行空间。
英文原文
Agreed, if your name is not $GOOGL or $TSM where you can just sit back 4 years and know it will likely do well. It’s important to monitor if there’s any material changes. Especially for extremely high beta hypergrowth names where things from macro, pivots, or excessive dilution can break your thesis or cap upside
-
警惕与股票“结婚”，投资逻辑变化时应果断调整持仓。
大多数 X 用户都会犯与股票“结婚”的错误。 如果你的投资逻辑因 $HIMS 或 $IREN 发生实质性变化，你的持仓也应随之调整。 如果去年你对 $IREN 的看多逻辑是通过托管(Colo)业务变现 3GW 产能。 那么如果该公司： -> 在 122 亿市值下不可避免地向你稀释 60 亿美元 -> 在每次反弹中将这些股份抛向公开市场 -> 转向 GPU 业务 你的逻辑已经变了。 这很可能是一个退出以追求更具非对称性机会的时机。 如果你对 $HIMS 的逻辑是它是医疗界的亚马逊。 但如果他们被 $NVO 和美国政府起诉至绝境，退出是合理的。 但如果随着 $NVO 撤诉并达成合作，逻辑重新成立，那么再次做多也没有问题。 每个月都有许多因催化剂或基本面而改变的事情。 如果你仍在为必然发生的、针对你 $IREN 持仓的 60 亿美元新股抛售而欢呼。 而你唯一的理由就像 $AMC 投资者那样“信任管理层”。 也许现在是时候问问自己： 你是否因为与股票“结婚”而忽略了所有危险信号？
英文原文
Most people on X make the mistake of getting married to a stock. If your thesis materially changes with $HIMS or $IREN, so should your position. If the bull case with $IREN last year was monetizing 3GW capacity through colo. Then if the company: -> inevitably dilutes you $6B off a $12.2B MC -> sells those shares into the open market in every rally -> pivots to GPU offerings Your thesis has changed. And it’s likely a time to exit to pursue more asymmetric opportunities. If your thesis with $HIMS was that they’re the Amazon of healthcare. But they get sued to oblivion by $NVO and the US gov. It’s respectable to exit. But if the thesis is back online given $NVO dropping their lawsuit and partnering up, then there’s nothing wrong with going long again. A lot of things change every month with catalysts or fundamentals. If you’re still cheering on an inevitable $6B worth of new shares getting sold against your $IREN positions on every rally. And your only qualifier is “Trusting in Management” like $AMC investors. Maybe it’s a good time to ask yourself this: Are you ignoring every red flag because you’re married to the stock?
-
批评忽视基本面盲目使用技术分析的行为。
@17Reazy 是的，这才是正确使用技术分析(TA)的方式。我也这么用。我只是说，那些追随并绘制那些400%+随机突破形态的人，完全没考虑其他因素，比如$IREN 60亿美元的烧钱稀释，简直是一派胡言。
英文原文
@17Reazy Yep, this is how you should use TA. I use it too. Just saying the people following and drawing those 400%+ random breakout patterns without considering anything else like $IREN $6B ATM dilution are full of it.
-
技术分析有用，但仅依赖它而无视其他因素是骗局。
@InitialY23 技术分析(TA)是一个有用的指标。这条帖子的核心观点是，那些仅依赖它而不考虑其他任何因素的图表发布者都是江湖骗子。
英文原文
@InitialY23 TA is a helpful indicator. The whole point of the post was that chart posters who rely on it **alone** without considering anything else are snake oil salesmen.
-
警示新手勿盲目迷信技术分析，需警惕流通盘解锁风险。
@themomentumplay 因为当新手看到有人通过技术分析(TA)预测 $BULL XYZ 突破至 $200，而其市值(MC)仅为 $500亿时，这确实会对他们造成真正的伤害。 那些画技术分析图的人并没有考虑到，下周将有 99.5% 的流通股本被解锁。
英文原文
@themomentumplay Because it’s genuinely harmful to newcomers when they see someone TA $BULL XYZ breakout to $200 when it was trading at a $50B MC. When those TA drawers didn’t account 99.5% of the float being unlocked the next week.
-
批评仅依赖技术分析而忽视基本面的交易行为。
@MirageWL8 X 上这么多人相信仅凭技术分析(Technical Analysis, TA)而不看基本面、宏观或催化剂就能交易，这就是他们如此受欢迎的原因。这根本不应该有争议。
英文原文
@MirageWL8 The fact so many people on X believe you can trade on TA alone without looking at stock fundamentals, macro, or catalysts is the reason why they’re so popular. This shouldn’t be controversial at all
-
技术分析仅是辅助，股价由基本面、宏观和催化剂决定。
我在$CRCL上市前禁售期股价$200时就说过这话。 现在面对$IREN在$60亿稀释后，我要再次重申以证明一个观点： 单纯的技术分析(TA)和图表分析，纯粹是占星术和骗人的鬼话。 价格极其多维，主要遵循三个因素： - 基本面（营收、增长、板块、利润率、利润） - 催化剂（财报、导致基本面重大变化的事件） - 宏观（战争、降息、流动性事件） 如果你读过我的任何帖子，我会尝试将这三者结合起来解释。 然而，我在X上到处看到那些付费墙后的技术分析(TA)绘图者，只发图表，对股票毫无基本面理解。 如果一家市值$130亿的公司发行$60亿新股并在公开市场全部抛售。 或者像(Webull)这样SPAC上市后市值$500亿的公司，原本只有1%的流通股交易，现在全部释放。 基本面的转变和公司行动绝对会摧毁任何图表形态。 股票遵循基本面、宏观和催化剂。 技术分析(TA)在极其多维的环境中只是一个有用的指标。 单靠它，那些向你兜售XYZ支撑位->ABC突破的人完全不知道自己在说什么。
英文原文
I’ve said this before with $CRCL pre-IPO lockup at $200. And I’ll say it again with $IREN post-$6B dilution to prove a point: TA and Charting alone, is pure astrology and snake oil. Prices are extremely multifaceted, they primarily follow 3 things: - Fundamentals (revenue, growth, sector, margins, profit) - Catalysts (earnings, events that lead to material fundamental changes) - Macro (War, Rate cuts, Liquidity events) If you ever read any of my posts I try to explain these three together. However, I keep seeing paywall TA drawers on X everywhere that post charts alone, showing zero fundamental understanding on stocks. If a company is valued at $13B issues $6B new shares then sells all of that on the open market. Or if a company like (Webull) valued at $50B post SPAC IPO only trades off 1% of their float then releases it all. Fundamental shifts and corporate actions will absolutely obliterate any pattern. Stocks follow fundamentals, macro, and catalysts. TA’s are only a helpful indicator, in an extremely multifaceted environment. By itself, people selling you XYZ support -> ABC breakouts have 0 clue what they’re talking about.
-
强调在高波动股票交易前需建立个人确信度。
@awarness1780 $AAOI 和 $AXTI 都具有极高的贝塔值(高波动性)，因此在入场前，建立自己对这笔交易的确信度非常重要。
英文原文
@awarness1780 $AAOI and $AXTI are both extremely high beta which is why it’s important to build conviction in the trade yourself before entering.