For my view: Dilution is often priced in quickly, but not always immediately. In RKLB’s case: Thursday: stock rose 6.47% despite the $1.94B share offering. Friday: stock fell 4.79%, suggesting investors started focusing more on the dilution. But dilution does not automatically mean the company is worse. Rocket Lab also receives a large amount of new cash to fund growth. The key question is whether the company can use that money to create more revenue and cash flow than the value given up by existing shareholders. Simple rule: New shares → ownership per old share becomes smaller. New cash → company gets more money to grow. So I would not judge RKLB only from one day's price movement. Bottom line: The market can take several days or weeks to fully digest dilution. Watch share count

For my view: The index rebalance is mainly a short-term event. The most important point is: SpaceX (SPCX) gets a much higher Nasdaq-100 weight → index funds may need to buy more shares. This can create short-term buying pressure. But it does not mean the company suddenly became more valuable or profitable. Some of the buying may already be priced in before September 21. After the rebalance, the buying pressure can disappear. What should investors watch? Short term: Fund flows and trading volume. Long term: Revenue, profit, cash flow and business growth. Simple rule: Index inclusion = possible short-term boost. Strong fundamentals = long-term value. So I would not buy a stock only because it entered an index. Look at the company's actual business first.

For my view: GPUs + ASICs will coexist I don't think ASICs will replace GPUs completely. NVIDIA: Best for flexible, fast-changing AI workloads. Broadcom: Strong position in custom AI chips + networking. This is a major advantage. Marvell: Custom-chip opportunity is growing, but it is smaller and faces stronger competition. The key point is: ASICs winning 54–55% of units does NOT mean they take 54–55% of revenue. GPUs can still generate much higher revenue per chip. If I had to choose one: AVGO would be my choice for the custom-AI trend. Why? It can benefit from custom ASICs + networking, instead of depending on only one type of AI chip. Bottom line: NVDA = GPU leader AVGO = custom AI + networking MRVL = smaller custom-chip player I see NVDA and AVGO as complementary, not neces

For my view: B. Wait for confirmation I would not chase the rally after only one strong day. Why? ₿ Bitcoin rising can quickly lift COIN, MSTR and HOOD. AMD/AMAT rising shows semiconductor recovery, but it needs to continue. High-beta stocks can rise very fast — but they can also fall very fast. One good day does not prove a new bull trend. What I want to see: High-beta stocks keep rising for several sessions. Trading volume stays strong. More sectors participate, not only crypto and semiconductors. S&P 500 and Nasdaq continue to hold their gains. Simple rule: One strong day = signal. Several strong days + broad participation = stronger confirmation. Bottom line: B — Wait, then buy selectively instead of chasing.

My view: B. Hold — wait for more data I think a 25bp hike is possible, but holding first could give the Fed more time to see whether inflation and oil prices stay high. Inflation is still too high. Oil above $100 could push inflation higher. But hiking too quickly could hurt economic growth and jobs. 50bp would be too aggressive in my view. If the Fed hikes, what gets hit hardest? AI & high-growth tech stocks Why? Higher rates make future profits worth less today. Expensive growth stocks usually feel this pressure more quickly. Simple rule: Rates up→ Treasury yields up → Growth/AI stocks down. Bottom line: Watch the 10-year Treasury yield, oil and inflation closely. These three could decide the next big market move.

My view: A. AI runway is still long I am still positive on NVDA’s long-term business, but I would be careful about the stock price. AI infrastructure spending could remain huge for years. Demand for Nvidia chips and systems remains strong. Nvidia is expanding beyond GPUs into networking, robotics, cybersecurity and full AI systems. Burry closing his puts is not a bearish signal by itself; it may simply be position management. The biggest risk is valuation. Great business does not always mean a cheap stock. Supply, power, memory and data-center capacity can also limit growth. My simple view: Business = Strong Long-term AI trend = Strong Valuation risk = High Bottom line: I would rather hold/DCA NVDA long term than chase a sudden rally.

For my view: C. Somewhere in between I like the AI power + data-center infrastructure theme, but I would not treat APLD as a safe investment yet. Why? AI needs more data centers and electricity. APLD has large contracted capacity and big customers. Long-term contracts can give better revenue visibility. But contracted capacity ≠ completed data centers. Construction, financing, power delivery and timing are major risks. Customer concentration is another risk. The $50 Wells Fargo target is an analyst view, not a guarantee. What I would watch: Contracts → Construction → Power online → Revenue → Cash flow If APLD successfully converts its contracts into operating data centers and strong cash flow, the story becomes much stronger. Bottom line: C. Interesting AI infrastructure play,

For my view: C. Tech & semiconductors stay strong I see this as more likely a short-term rebound first, not yet proof of a new strong rally. Why? 10-year yield below 5% → helps growth stocks. Oil falling → reduces inflation pressure. AI/chips strong → brings investors back to NVDA, AMD, MU, INTC. But the Fed is still hawkish, with rates at 3.75%–4.00%. If the 10-year yield goes back above 5%, tech stocks could face pressure again. What I would watch: Yield ↓ + Oil ↓ + AI earnings ↑ = rally has a better chance to continue. If only tech rebounds for a few days while yields rise again, it may be just a relief rally. Bottom line:  I would not chase aggressively yet. Watch Treasury yields and AI/chip strength first.

Correct answer: C. Before earnings, a margin user should check account risk first, not simply guess whether the stock will rise or fall. Check: Margin balance — how much you actually borrowed. Margin requirement — it may change. Concentration — too much money in one stock increases risk. Excess liquidity — keep a safety buffer. Buying power — don’t use everything. Simple rule: Earnings can cause a sudden big price move. Margin can make the loss much bigger. So, protect your account first and leave enough room for unexpected moves. Answer: C — Check the risks and keep a buffer.

For my answers: 1.Real 2.Fake 3.Real 4.Real 5.Fake 6.Real 7.Fake 8.Real 9.Fake 10.Fake

My answer: B. USD 300 loss. Simple calculation: Short 10 shares at $100 → receive $1,000 Price rises to $130 Buy back 10 shares → pay $1,300 Loss = $1,300 − $1,000 = $300 Easy rule: Short + price goes down → you make money. Short + price goes up → you lose money. The higher the stock rises, the bigger your potential loss. Important: Short selling is riskier than normal buying because a stock can theoretically rise without limit.

For my view: Established nuclear + uranium supply chain AI needs reliable 24/7 electricity, so nuclear power has a strong long-term advantage. SMR: Huge potential, but projects take years and face regulatory, construction and financing risks. Fuel cells/BE: Can provide power faster for data centers, but BE’s huge price rise makes valuation risk important. Uranium: If more reactors are built, they need fuel. This could create long-term demand for uranium. I would separate business potential from stock momentum. The recent rally in SMR/BE/UMAC looks partly driven by excitement and catalysts. It may be very volatile. What I would watch: actual contracts, reactor approvals, construction progress, electricity prices and company cash flow. Bottom line: AI power demand is a real long-term

For my view: Burry’s move is a warning, not a signal to sell NVDA or PLTR. NVDA: Business growth is extremely strong. AI demand, data centers and chips remain powerful. But the valuation is very high, so even good results may not be enough if growth slows. PLTR: Revenue and profits are growing very fast, but its valuation is much more demanding. It needs excellent growth for years to justify the price. Burry: Closing the December puts does not mean he became bullish. It mainly looks like risk and time management. For me, the biggest risk is valuation, not AI demand. Bottom line: NVDA: Long-term story remains strong, but avoid chasing huge rallies. PLTR: Great company growth, but much higher valuation risk. Burry’s warning is worth watching, but not enough by itself to make an inves

For My choice:  U.S. stocks If rates stay higher for longer, U.S. stocks—especially high-growth and high- valuation tech stocks—could feel the most pressure. Why? Higher rates make borrowing more expensive. Future company profits become worth less today. Expensive growth stocks are more sensitive to higher yields. The stronger dollar can also pressure multinational companies. Treasury bonds would also be affected, but yields rising can partly offset the impact for new bond buyers. Gold may also face pressure from higher real yields, although geopolitical risks can support it. Bottom line: Higher rates → higher Treasury yields → more pressure on expensive stocks. For me, the key number to watch is the 10-year Treasury yield, not just the Fed rate.

For My choice:  U.S. stocks If rates stay higher for longer, U.S. stocks—especially high-growth and high-valuation tech stocks—could feel the most pressure. Why? Higher rates make borrowing more expensive. Future company profits become worth less today. Expensive growth stocks are more sensitive to higher yields. The stronger dollar can also pressure multinational companies. Treasury bonds would also be affected, but yields rising can partly offset the impact for new bond buyers. Gold may also face pressure from higher real yields, although geopolitical risks can support it. Bottom line: Higher rates → higher Treasury yields → more pressure on expensive stocks. For me, the key number to watch is the 10-year Treasury yield, not just the Fed rate.

For my view: No — Tuesday’s Senate setback is not the whole story. The failed CLARITY Act vote is still the main short-term problem because it creates regulatory uncertainty for Circle. The Senate vote was 49–50, below the 60 votes needed. But CRCL has other important factors: Arc launched successfully with 100+ institutional/ecosystem builders. Higher interest rates can support Circle’s reserve income. USDC continues to grow, with $73.3B in circulation at Q2-end. However, the market still needs to see real revenue and profit from Arc. Bottom line: CRCL is facing a mix of regulatory risk + valuation risk + execution risk. Arc is promising, but it needs to prove it can become a profitable business.

Correct answer:  C A new investor who: Does not understand margin calls Does not understand margin interest Has little emergency cash Cannot handle large losses should be the most cautious about using a margin account. Margin can make both profits and losses bigger. In some cases, losses can exceed your original investment. Simple rule: If you are new to investing, start with a cash account. Learn first, use margin later only when you fully understand the risks. Bottom line: C — New investor with limited ability to absorb losses.

My choice: B. Maybe — EVs will remain the core business for years. Humanoid robots are a big long-term opportunity, but they are not yet a proven profit business. XPeng: Strong focus on humanoid robots and AI. BYD: Huge manufacturing scale, batteries and supply chain. Chery/GAC: Also developing robotics. But the key question is not “Can they build robots?” It is “Can they sell many robots and make good profits?” I would watch: Orders → Production → Robot cost → Revenue → Profit For now, EVs are still the main business. Robotics should be viewed as a potential second growth engine, not the main reason to buy the stock. Bottom line: Bullish long term, but still too early to treat humanoids as proven earnings.

My choice: C. Both The AI-agent market is still very early. META: Huge user base from WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook. Muse could turn users into real transactions. GOOGL: Google already controls Search and has Gemini, giving it a strong position in commercial decisions. Big opportunity: AI agents may create a new way for people to shop, travel, book restaurants and make payments. But the $30 trillion figure is not Meta’s revenue. It is the potential economic activity AI agents could influence. For investors, the key is simple: Users → Regular use → Transactions → Revenue → Profit Right now, both META and GOOGL still need to prove monetization. Bottom line: I would watch both, rather than choosing a winner today.

My choice: B — Maybe The iPhone Duo is a big step for Apple, but US$1,999 is very expensive. I like the product because it could: Create a new premium iPhone category Increase Apple's average selling price Encourage some users to upgrade Create more demand for foldable components But the biggest question is consumer demand. People may think the Duo is impressive but still decide US$2,000 is too much. We need to see pre-orders, sales numbers and customer reviews. For AAPL, I would watch actual sales and profit, not just the excitement around the launch. Bottom line: The product looks promising, but price is the biggest risk. I would wait for real sales data before becoming more bullish.