方法论
研究框架、选股思路、思维方式 · 共 663 条 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
抱怨别人限制自己分享免费 DD。
@thetakill 哥们，我就不能分享一点免费的思路型 DD，而不被人告诉我应该发什么吗。
英文原文
@thetakill Bro can I just share a free thought process DD without someone telling me what I should post
-
说对高税的办法就是赚得更多。
@miraclemaster07 对，税确实高。不过我的理念就是把短期资本利得税赚回来。 如果你赚了 20 倍，又被征 50% 的税，你最后还是能赚到原始投入的 10 倍。 如果你一直拿着同一笔多头，而它只涨 20%，那反而更差。
英文原文
@miraclemaster07 Yeah unfortunately taxes are high. But my philosophy is just outearn short term capital gains tax. If you make 20 times and get taxed 50% you still make 10 times your original investment. If you stay in the same long and it just goes up 20% that's worse.
-
说自己不搞高价门槛，因为觉得市场里就能赚回来。
@SosaKayser666 我很清楚很多人甚至愿意每月付 30 美元。 但我还是把最低价定在 1 美元，因为我相信我的想法足够好，我完全可以靠市场里的收益赚回来。 而且我不认同把信息 / 标的搞成门槛。
英文原文
@SosaKayser666 I’m well aware a lot of people would even pay $30/month. But I charge $1 as bare minimum since I believe my ideas are good enough that I can make all my returns in the market. And I don’t believe in gatekeeping information/names.
-
说自己是在尽力帮助散户，分享信息发现。
我是真的在尽力帮散户投资者！ 股票是正和游戏，所以我相信最好的帮助方式就是把信息发现 / 综合整理分享出来。 是啊……很多收费给自己选股的人，半数时候根本不知道自己在说什么。
英文原文
I’m genuinely trying my best to help out retail investors! Stocks are positive sum so I do believe the best benefit is just distributing any information discovery/synthesis. Yeah… lot of the people charging money for their picks don’t know what they’re talking about half the time.
-
认可对方关于数据源的纠正。
@iamfabian 谢谢，如果真是这样，这就是一个重要的纠正，我会再深入看看。 Digitimes 通常算是比较靠谱的来源。 https://t.co/yDUu8XFWtF
英文原文
@iamfabian Thanks this is an important correction then if true, will look into it more. Digitimes is typically one of the more reputable sources https://t.co/yDUu8XFWtF
-
说会做一个长期 CPO 受益者 ETF。
@aiden1969 @afasano23 对，我很快会做一个长期 1 年期、只包含纯 CPO 受益者的 ETF，然后发出来。 只是研究真的很耗时间。
英文原文
@aiden1969 @afasano23 Yeah I’ll make a long term 1Y ETF on pure play CPO beneficiaries soon and post it It just takes a ton of time for research
-
认为 2026 下半年是向更纯粹 CPO 名字轮动的好时点。
在那个会远远持续到 2028 年以后的光子超级周期里？不是。 不过这个板块里，确实可能会在一些名字之间轮动，比如从 pluggables 轮到更多 CPO 名字…… 2026 上半年到下半年，可能是转向更多纯玩法名字的不错轮动时点，因为放量会在下半年后段到来。
英文原文
During the optical supercycle that lasts way past 2028+? No. There’s likely going to be rotations in certain names in the sector eg. Pluggables into more CPO names though… 2026 h1 into h2 is probably a decent rotation timing to more pure play names coming up since volume ramp latter part h2
-
说这是一个用小预算扰动 AI 建设的教育演练。
@BrokeBoyCap 这只是一个教育性演练，看看如何用“柠檬水摊预算”去扰动整个 AI buildout。 不是看多建议，也不是什么投资推荐。
英文原文
@BrokeBoyCap This is just an educational exercise on how one might disrupt the entire AI buildout with a lemonade stand budget. Not a long recommendation or anything.
-
说自己只是分享思路。
我只是一路分享我的思考过程而已！ 只是越来越烦那些 2000 多美元的付费课程把大家割得很惨。或者散户被机构和做市商割得很惨。 股票是正和游戏，如果这些 ticker 付费墙卖家真的相信自己的分析……他们其实应该直接在市场里赚钱，而不是试图为此收费，对吧？
英文原文
I’m just sharing my thought process along the way! Just got frustrating seeing everyone shafted by $2K+ paywalled courses. Or retail shafted by institutions and MMs. Stocks are positive sum, and if these ticker paywall sellers actually believed in their analysis… they would just make money in the markets rather than trying to charge for it?
-
说光子和瓶颈的 TAM 预估都被低估了。
@Blinklebloop 光子和各种瓶颈的 TAM 预测都大错特错。 就像分析师说 $AXTI 的 InP 衬底 TAM 只有 1.25 亿美元一样。
英文原文
@Blinklebloop TAM projections are all way off for photonics and chokepoints/bottlenecks. The equivalent of analysts saying $AXTI InP substrate TAM is $125m.
-
说自己帮助散户跑赢机构是目标。
@itsavgsizeok 很高兴听到！帮助散户投资者跑赢机构就是我的目标，哈哈。
英文原文
@itsavgsizeok Glad to hear it! Helping retail investors beat institutions is my goal lol
-
说机构做 DD 往往要几周，散户可以立即抢跑。
@tomhou101 对，他们通常要花几周做尽调，才会买入流通盘的几个百分点。散户则可以立刻抢跑他们。
英文原文
@tomhou101 Yeah they usually take a few weeks of DD to buy a few percent of the float. Retail can frontrun them immediately.
-
说如果单位量超出预期，估值会更高。
@Liudas 我是在展示基础模型：如果它们的单位出货量打到上限（比如 400 万台而不是 350 万台），估值就会到 20。 而我确实预期下一轮架构“超级周期”会把很多预测都甩开，就像现在 $LITE 及其供应链正在发生的那样。
英文原文
@Liudas Was showing baseline modeling, if they hit upper bounds of unit projections (eg. ~4m units instead of 3.5), it hits 20. And I do expect the next architectural "supercycle" to blow away a lot of projections like what's happening with $LITE and their supply chain rn.
-
说自己在原文 thesis 里尽量简化给散户。
@Yolo365247isme @DynamicMoats 我会在原始 thesis 帖里尽量把事情讲得简单一点，这样散户投资者就不会看到太多这类细节。
英文原文
@Yolo365247isme @DynamicMoats I try to make things simpler for retail investors in the original thesis post so I don't include a lot of stuff like this.
-
说法案不会被通过得太理想，散户得看清现实。
大概不会，JP Morgan、$SOFI 和大银行游说太强了。 我只是把这项法案到底会做什么，讲给散户听，免得他们吃亏。 里面确实有一些好内容，比如用美国国债做 1:1 储备之类的（看看 Tether）。 但随后又塞进了银行想要的收益条款……然后政客就对散户继续疯狂洗脑，试图让他们相信这对行业有利。 可实际上，一旦这法案通过，你大概率再也拿不到储蓄的真实利率，而且很多流动性也会被抽干。
英文原文
Probably not, can't beat JP Morgan, $SOFI, and big bank lobbying. I'm just giving the unfortunate truth to retail investors about what the bill actually does. There's some good parts about 1:1 reserve with US treasuries, and such (looking at you Tether). But then they throw in clauses with yields that banks want... Then politicians just straight gaslight retail, trying to convince them it's positive for the industry. But in reality, once this is passed, you'll likely never get true interest rates on your savings and a lot of liquidity will be wiped out.
-
直接把 Clarity Act 说成银行游说法案。
把话说清楚：Clarity Act 是一部银行游说法案。 JPM 和其他机构游说双方，想控制数字资产 / $CRCL 稳定币。 $COIN 大概率会把整个行业卖掉，因为他们拿到了有条件的银行牌照批准。 但实际上，这等于禁止收益竞争： -> 银行可以继续给 .3% 利率的活期账户。 而不是把 4.3% 的国债收益发给用户，然后自己拿走那 4% 的差价。 -> 他们掌握了入金 / 出金通道和稳定币的卡点。 -> 禁止任何非银行机构提供类似服务，比如通过持有稳定币给出 4.3% 收益的新创公司。 他们的理由？ 1. “安全”。这些机构本身就是部分准备金模式，真遇上银行挤兑，和 1:1 抵押代币比起来更扛不住。 2. “那你就去当银行吧”。但他们却在背后偷偷游说，阻止任何新的竞争性公司真正拿到银行牌照。 如果你想看这个政府底下的事情到底是怎么运作的： 就看看现在发生了什么。 任何真正帮到散户的东西，最后大概率都会被禁。
英文原文
Let's get this straight: The Clarity Act is a bank lobbyist bill. Where JPM and others lobbied both sides to get control over digital assets / $CRCL stablecoins. $COIN is probably going to sell out the industry because they got their conditional banking charter approved. But effectively, this bans competition in yields: -> So banks can continue offering .3% interest checking accs. Instead of handing out 4.3% treasury yields and keep the 4% difference. -> Hands them chokepoints over on/off-ramps and stablecoins. -> Bans any non-banks from offerings, like startups giving out 4.3% yields by holding stablecoins. Their claim? 1. “Safety”. These are the same institutions that operate on fractional reserve models and would GG on a bank run vs. 1-1 collateralized tokens. 2. “Just become a bank”. While they secretly lobby behind the scenes to prevent any new competitive firm from becoming a bank. If you want to see how it's things are doing under this administration: Just look at how things are going. Any genuinely helpful to retail are just going to get banned.
-
认为市场比大家想的更有韧性。
市场比人们想象得更有韧性。 当然，局势升级是令人担忧的，但现在做空的人太多了（这反而会火上浇油），而且指数年内还是下跌的。 OpenAI 已经筹了 1220 亿美元以上的 capex 支出，所以我还是会保持多头（最近主要的传染恐慌，其实和他们无法履行合同义务有关）。
英文原文
Markets are more resilient than people think. Obviously escalation is concerning, but there's too many people short right now (which adds fuel to the fire) and indexes are still down YTD. OpenAI raised $122B+ for capex spend, so I'd remain long (main contagion fears recently were related to them not being able to fulfill contract obligations)
-
说要解除封锁，就得封锁封锁。
@zephyr_z9 要解除封锁，你就必须先封锁封锁本身。
英文原文
@zephyr_z9 To unblock the blockade, you must blockade the blockade.
-
说未来会有很多更便宜甚至开源的会计/创业工具。
@b00gersburner @pocimont 我也在用 QuickBooks，不过未来会出现很多创业公司竞争者（而且更便宜，甚至免费 / 开源），大家可以用 Claude vibe coding 自己搭出来。 所以这可能会来自多个方向的颠覆。
英文原文
@b00gersburner @pocimont I use quickbooks as well, but there's going to be a lot of upcoming startup competitors (and cheaper or even free/open source) that people can spin up vibe coding with Claude. So it's possibly disruption from multiple fronts.
-
认为 Intuit 会受 Claude 轻度冲击，而部分软件会受益于 AI 降本。
这个问题比较微妙。我确实认为像 $INTU 这样的公司会因为 Claude 以及其他工具帮你做税务和报税而受到一点冲击，而且这并不是一个很好的逆向抄底机会。 但反过来，像 $RDDT / $SNAP 这种软件名，可能会因为 AI 带来的费用下降而变得更赚钱（前提是 Evan 的老婆别再像 piggy back 一样一直用 Snapchat）。 颠覆是真实存在的，但也会有少数赢家。
英文原文
It's nuanced, I do think companies like $INTU are going to get slightly disrupted by Claude and others doing taxes + filing for you. And it's not a great contrarian buy-the-dip opportunity. On the flip side certain software names like $RDDT / $SNAP are likely going to end up more profitable with AI due to opex cuts (only if Evan's wife stopped using Snapchat like a piggy back). Disruption is real, but there's a few winners.
-
提到美军封锁霍尔木兹海峡，并想到 VIRT。
美国海军要封锁任何试图进出霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 我不太确定这里的计划是什么？ 不管怎样，我完全忘了去买像 $VIRT 这种做市商的看涨期权。 因为在这种环境下，他们大概率会一边欢呼一边从更高波动率中获利……
英文原文
The US navy to blockade any ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. Not quite sure what the game plan is here? Regardless, I completely forgot to take call options on market makers like $VIRT. Since they are probably cheering and profiting off of increased volatility in these environments…
-
说机构在高位买入说明 thesis 本身是成立的。
如果 thesis 本身不扎实，Point72 和其他机构就不会在历史高位买入。 每个人都想找下一个 10 倍股，而当我终于用 $AXTI 或 $IQE 这样的名字把它指出来时，很遗憾，总有人会拿市值或粉丝数来试图削弱原始 thesis。
英文原文
Point 72 and other institutions would not be buying at ATHs if the thesis were not fundamentally sound. Everyone wants to find the next 10x, and when I finally point it out with names like $AXTI or $IQE, it's unfortunate so many people try and undermine the original thesis by citing MC/follower count.
-
说新闻多半是表面动作，真正的信号要看别处。
你可能到处都能看到这种新闻： “美国和伊朗在巴基斯坦历史性和平会谈后未能达成协议” 公开谈判破裂本来就是预期内的，这样双方都能在表面上显得强硬。 任何真正的协议大概率都在背后渠道里完成（比如制裁放松）。 要跟踪这件事，像航班跟踪器（例如 Oman、Qatar）、Ghost Fleet 执法，或者保险承保人： 大概才是更好的信号，而不是主流媒体头条。 周日还是别过度反应，享受一下比较好。
英文原文
You might be seeing news everywhere: "US and Iran fail to reach agreement after historic peace talks in Pakistan" Deal falling through publicly is expected, so each side looks tough. Any actual deals are probably done through backchannels (eg. sanctions relief). To track this: stuff like flight trackers (eg. Oaman, Qatar), Ghost Fleet enforcement, or insurance underwriters: Are probably your best signals, rather than MSM headlines. Probably better to just enjoy your Sunday rather than overreact to headlines.
-
强调融资结构差异。
@nickthehodler 融资结构才是关键。 $NBIS 以更大的市值，稀释 20 亿美元去买 $NVDA 相关投资，或者用比当前行权价高 20%+ 的可转债。 这和 $IREN 把自己一半市值印出来，再卖到公开市场给散户，是结构上完全不同的。
英文原文
@nickthehodler Financing structure is what matters. $NBIS diluting $2B for an $NVDA investment off a much larger MC. Or convertible notes 20%+ above current strikes. Is structurally different than $IREN printing half their MC and selling that into the open market on retail shareholders.
-
说 6B ATM 的运作逻辑已经证明了一切。
@nickthehodler 这背后就是一个 60 亿美元 ATM 被打印出来并卖到公开市场的运作逻辑。 $NBIS 61%+ 的表现和 $IREN 年内 -8% 的差距已经证明了一切。
英文原文
@nickthehodler It's backed by the logic of how a $6,000,000,000 ATM that gets printed and sold into the open market works. The performance disparity between 61%+ with $NBIS and -8% YTD with $IREN is proof of it.
-
说没有融资就不可能变现 4GW+ 容量。
对，我真的不明白，他们在没有融资的情况下，根本不可能把 4GW+ 产能变现。 而他们却选择了 ATM，而不是像 $NBIS 那样用可转债 + $NVDA 投资。 大多数人都不理解稀释的结构机制，所以才会盲目地买进一个 60 亿美元、往公开市场狂印钱的机器。 如果他们当初听我的，大家的组合本来能从 $NBIS 涨 60%+，而不是被 $IREN 拖到 -8%+。
英文原文
Yeah, I genuinely don't understand, there's 0 chance they can monetize 4GW+ capacity without financing. And they chose ATMs over convertible notes + $NVDA investment like $NBIS. Majority of people don't understand structural mechanics of dilution, which is why they keep blindly buying into a $6B money printer sold into the open market. People's portfolios would have been up 60%+ from $NBIS instead of down -8%+ from $IREN if they listened.
-
建议先做税务收割，再长期持有真正能升值的资产。
@NieMehrKrieg 有时候，最好的做法就是先做税务收割，然后长期持有一个真的可能升值的资产。 现在的持有者，不过就是 $IREN 60 亿美元 ATM 的退出流动性而已。那个社区还会尽力鼓励别人跟着一起抱着不放。
英文原文
@NieMehrKrieg Sometimes it's best to just tax harvest and long an asset that might actually appreciate in value. Current holders are just exit liquidity for $IREN $6,000,000,000 ATM. And the community tries their best to encourage others to baghold with them.
-
说直接供货 hyperscaler 的公司通常不会低于 10 亿市值。
@fabiorbb 你自己去判断吧。我们就说，直接供货 hyperscaler 的公司，通常不会在前沿供应链里还低于 10 亿美元市值。
英文原文
@fabiorbb Up to you to figure out. Let’s just say companies that supply directly to hyperscalers usually don’t trade below $1B MC in frontier supply chains.
-
说信息发现会吸引注意力，不是发帖的人。
我有这么强吗？ 我觉得大概只是信息综合与发现而已。要是我发一篇关于一家纸巾公司 8 倍市盈率的帖子，没人会在意。 但当 $SIVE 是 $JBL 和 $MRVL 的光源，市值只有大约 4 亿美元…… 而且只交易像 $LWLG 这种更投机名字估值的四分之一…… 而其他像 $MTSI 或 $LITE 之类做 CW DFB 的公司市值都在几十亿美元时…… 最后吸引大家注意力的，是信息本身，而不是发信息的人。
英文原文
am i that powerful? pretty sure it's just information synthesis + discovery. If I posted about a napkin company trading at 8 p/e, nobody would care. When $SIVE is the light source for $JBL and $MRVL at ~400m... and trades at like 1/4th the valuation of something more speculative like $LWLG. while all the other CW DFB companies like $MTSI or $LITE are all in the tens of billions. Information ends up drawing people's attention, not the person.
-
批评只看技术图形的分析，强调基本面、催化和现金流建模。
那些收 500 美元一个月、只会画线的人，大概是我最烦的存在了……尤其是当他们还会在我的 thesis 帖子下面评论，比如 $AEHR 财报那种。 股价是由基本面和催化推动的。技术分析只是自我实现的占星术；如果 $AMZN 有一笔巨大的采购订单，没人会在乎技术面说的“超买”，真正重要的是把这会带来多少自由现金流，相对于市值要怎么建模。 $IREN 也是一样，居然还有人拿技术图去画它，而市场里明明有 60 亿美元的稀释，图表根本没把这部分算进去。
英文原文
Swiggly line drawers that charge $500 a month are possibly the greatest annoyance to me... Especially when they comment underneath my thesis posts like $AEHR earnings. Stocks move based on fundamentals and catalysts. TA is astrology self-fulfilling prophecies but if $AMZN has a massive purchase order, nobody cares about "overbought" based on TA it's about modeling in how much FCF that brings relative to MC. Same with anyone who tries drawing a TA for $IREN when there's literally $6,000,000,000 in dilution that a chart doesn't account for.