My pick is $BlackRock(BLK)$. I prefer its combination of scale, recurring fee income and long-term growth exposure through ETFs and private markets. The US$5.73 dividend is attractive, but I would rather own BLK for business quality and compounding than chase the much higher but more cyclical shipping yields. Analyst consensus is also constructive, with an external S&P Global consensus target around US$1,321. I would cross-check the exact target under Tiger Trade's Analysis tab since its figure may differ. For this week, $UnitedHealth(UNH)$ interests me. It goes ex-dividend on 14 Sep at US$2.32/share. I would view the dividend as a bonus rather than the main reason to buy. For dividend investing, underlying earnings and dividend sustainability matter more to me than simply picking the

My pick is $BlackRock(BLK)$. I prefer its combination of scale, recurring fee income and long-term growth exposure through ETFs and private markets. The US$5.73 dividend is attractive, but I would rather own BLK for business quality and compounding than chase the much higher but more cyclical shipping yields. Analyst consensus is also constructive, with an external S&P Global consensus target around US$1,321. I would cross-check the exact target under Tiger Trade's Analysis tab since its figure may differ. For this week, $UnitedHealth(UNH)$ interests me. It goes ex-dividend on 14 Sep at US$2.32/share. I would view the dividend as a bonus rather than the main reason to buy. For dividend investing, underlying earnings and dividend sustainability matter more to me than simply picking the

My pick is $BlackRock(BLK)$. I prefer its combination of scale, recurring fee income and long-term growth exposure through ETFs and private markets. The US$5.73 dividend is attractive, but I would rather own BLK for business quality and compounding than chase the much higher but more cyclical shipping yields. Analyst consensus is also constructive, with an external S&P Global consensus target around US$1,321. I would cross-check the exact target under Tiger Trade's Analysis tab since its figure may differ. For this week, $UnitedHealth(UNH)$ interests me. It goes ex-dividend on 14 Sep at US$2.32/share. I would view the dividend as a bonus rather than the main reason to buy. For dividend investing, underlying earnings and dividend sustainability matter more to me than simply picking the

B. A USD 300 loss. You short-sell 10 shares at USD 100, receiving USD 1,000. When the price rises to USD 130, buying back those 10 shares costs USD 1,300. Loss = USD 1,000 − USD 1,300 = −USD 300. Borrowing the shares does not protect you from losses. A short seller profits when the share price falls and loses when it rises. This also highlights the key risk of short selling: the potential loss is theoretically unlimited because a stock price has no fixed upper limit.

B. A USD 300 loss. You short-sell 10 shares at USD 100, receiving USD 1,000. When the price rises to USD 130, buying back those 10 shares costs USD 1,300. Loss = USD 1,000 − USD 1,300 = −USD 300. Borrowing the shares does not protect you from losses. A short seller profits when the share price falls and loses when it rises. This also highlights the key risk of short selling: the potential loss is theoretically unlimited because a stock price has no fixed upper limit.

At WTI above US$100, I would rather manage energy exposure than chase the spike. The diesel crack above US$110 is particularly important because it suggests the pain is moving beyond crude into refined products, which can feed directly into transport costs and inflation. I would keep some energy exposure as a geopolitical and inflation hedge, but favour profitable producers and integrated majors with strong cash flow rather than high-beta names that need oil to keep rising. After a 7% one-day move, the risk-reward for adding aggressively looks poor. My approach: hold the hedge, take some profit into strength, and keep dry powder for a pullback. If US$100 becomes a durable floor rather than a temporary geopolitical premium, energy earnings estimates may still have room to rise.

Burry has a point, but I would separate $NVDA from $PLTR. Nvidia’s valuation looks far easier to grow into. AI demand remains powerful, while NVDA trades around 24x forward earnings. That is not obviously bubble territory if earnings continue compounding strongly. Palantir is the harder call. Q2 revenue surged 93% YoY and margins expanded impressively, but PLTR still trades around 87x forward earnings and ~65x sales. At that price, excellent execution is already expected. So I agree more with Burry on PLTR than NVDA. Great company does not automatically mean great stock at any price. My pick: NVDA can grow into its valuation; PLTR needs near-perfect execution to justify its own. I would not short either aggressively, but PLTR has much less room for disappointment.

I favour the uranium supply chain for durability. AI data centres may accelerate nuclear demand, but uranium benefits from the broader reactor fleet and fuel-security needs, rather than depending on any single SMR design reaching commercial scale. BE is interesting because fuel cells can address the nearer-term problem: data centres need reliable power before new nuclear plants can realistically arrive. SMR offers the biggest upside if deployments scale, but also the greatest execution, financing and regulatory risk. My ranking: uranium for the strongest long-term risk/reward, BE for the nearer-term AI power bottleneck, and SMR as speculative optionality. The AI electricity shortage looks structural, but that does not make every power stock a structural winner. I would rather own the bott

B. GOOGL for me. Meta may have the larger social distribution opportunity, but Google already sits much closer to commercial intent through Search, Shopping, YouTube and its broader ecosystem. If Gemini agents can move users from “search” to “act and transact”, Google has a clearer path to monetisation. META could ultimately surprise if it converts its huge user base into commerce, but that requires changing user behaviour and proving transaction economics. For now, I would rather own GOOGL for the AI-agent trend. It has both distribution and an existing monetisation engine to build upon.

I favour the uranium supply chain for durability. AI data centres may accelerate nuclear demand, but uranium benefits from the broader reactor fleet and fuel-security needs, rather than depending on any single SMR design reaching commercial scale. BE is interesting because fuel cells can address the nearer-term problem: data centres need reliable power before new nuclear plants can realistically arrive. SMR offers the biggest upside if deployments scale, but also the greatest execution, financing and regulatory risk. So I see it as: uranium for the durable structural thesis, BE for nearer-term AI power demand, and SMR as the higher-risk optionality. Given the sector's high beta, I would expect plenty of momentum-driven volatility even if the long-term power-demand thesis remains intact.

B. GOOGL for me. Meta may have the larger social distribution opportunity, but Google already sits much closer to commercial intent through Search, Shopping, YouTube and its broader ecosystem. If Gemini agents can move users from “search” to “act and transact”, Google has a clearer path to monetisation. META could ultimately surprise if it converts its huge user base into commerce, but that requires changing user behaviour and proving transaction economics. For now, I would rather own GOOGL for the AI-agent trend. It has both distribution and an existing monetisation engine to build upon.

Memory keeps running: SK Hynix +7.05% to a record, Micron +2.75%, SanDisk +1.51%. The bull case remains powerful: AI/HBM demand is squeezing supply, while SK Hynix's massive shareholder-return programme adds another tailwind. But at record highs, expectations matter more than the story. Much of the good news may already be priced in, so any disappointment in pricing, HBM demand or shareholder returns could trigger a sharp pullback. Micron reports on Sept 30, giving investors a major read on DRAM/HBM pricing, margins and AI demand. My pick: wait for Micron rather than chase SK Hynix at records. The memory cycle still looks strong, but I would rather sacrifice some upside for confirmation than pay peak expectations today.

A. DELL gets my vote, and DELL is the ONE I would put on my watchlist. AI infrastructure still looks like the theme with the strongest runway. Dell's $60.9bn of AI-server orders and $95bn backlog suggest this is not merely an AI narrative anymore; customers are actually committing huge amounts of capital. The interesting part is that demand is also spreading into storage, networking and traditional servers. The catch is valuation. DELL has already had an enormous run, so I would not chase a vertical move simply because it made another high. Fresh highs backed by rising earnings and guidance can keep making fresh highs, but the margin for disappointment gets smaller. Healthcare royalties such as RPRX and HALO are attractive for their recurring cash flows, but for growth momentum, I still f

C: AAPL stays between $310 and $330. Apple events often produce plenty of excitement without producing an equally dramatic stock move. Much of the foldable iPhone story is already anticipated, so simply confirming what the market expects may not be enough to push AAPL decisively above $330. At the same time, I would not bet heavily on $310 either. The new product cycle, potential foldable iPhone and AI developments provide enough catalysts to support sentiment unless Apple seriously disappoints on pricing or execution. The interesting part is that AAPL already touched $330.81 last week before pulling back.  That suggests $330 is meaningful resistance, while roughly $310 remains an important downside area. So my pick is C. I expect volatility during and after the event, but probably m

I think the supply-chain rally has further to run, but leadership may shift from Nvidia to the bottlenecks. Nvidia's $96.2bn quarter and 117% Data Center growth confirm that AI infrastructure demand is still accelerating. More importantly, Nvidia's supply commitments have surged to $279bn, primarily for memory. That makes the margin pressure revealing. If scarce memory is expensive enough to compress Nvidia's margins, the same cost pressure can translate into pricing power for memory suppliers. DRAM and HBM demand already exceeds supply, strengthening the case for $MU and $SKHY. Connectivity and optical names can benefit too as ever-larger GPU clusters require more bandwidth. I would therefore avoid chasing the whole basket after an earnings spike. Nvidia has proved the demand story; now I

A: Chase the Winner. I would rather pay a fair premium for a business whose earnings, cash flow and competitive position are still strengthening than buy a falling stock simply because it looks cheaper. Momentum backed by fundamentals can persist far longer than expected. The key is distinguishing expensive from overvalued. For names like $NVDA, $GOOG or $META, I would watch earnings growth and forward guidance rather than the share price alone. A 30x multiple with rapidly rising earnings can ultimately be cheaper than a 15x stock with deteriorating fundamentals. Buying the dip works when the market has overreacted. But a falling price by itself is not a thesis. Sometimes the dip keeps dipping because the business outlook has genuinely changed. So A for me, but only when the fundamentals

I would wait for Micron rather than chase Friday’s memory rally. The sector’s fundamentals remain attractive, but Friday’s moves were unusually strong relative to the broader market. Micron closed above $1,000 after gaining 6.1%, while SanDisk jumped 11.9%. At these valuations, good news is increasingly priced in. September 30 matters more. Micron’s results should tell us whether AI-driven HBM/DRAM demand, pricing and margins are still accelerating. Meanwhile, the Taiwan labour dispute is a genuine tail risk: unions representing nearly 10,000 workers are considering strike action, and Taiwan is Micron’s largest manufacturing base. I would not short the momentum, but I would not chase it either. Passive flows can push prices higher temporarily; earnings ultimately have to validate them. I w

I would wait for the event rather than buy the expectations. Apple has confirmed 10 September, 1am SGT, but the foldable, pricing and product mix remain expectations rather than confirmed details. The foldable could be strategically important, but the first-generation economics matter more than the novelty. KeyBanc expects roughly US$2,199 pricing and only ~80m total iPhone 18 builds across fiscal Q4 2026/Q1 2027 versus ~91m a year earlier. Reports also point to tight initial foldable production. That makes pricing, preorder demand and inventory availability more useful signals than keynote excitement. If Apple proves consumers will accept premium pricing without sacrificing volumes or margins, I would rather buy that confirmation than gamble on the reveal. A spectacular device does not au

I would not trim mega-caps solely because payrolls beat. The 162,000 jobs and +55,000 revisions clearly weaken the slowdown narrative, but wage growth easing to 3.1% YoY keeps this from being an unequivocally hawkish report. The more interesting signal is the muted market reaction. If such a large payroll surprise only nudges yields and rate expectations, investors may already be looking past employment towards CPI. Strong growth can support earnings, but high-duration mega-caps remain vulnerable if inflation forces yields another leg higher. For me, CPI is the deciding catalyst. A benign print could turn strong payrolls into a soft-landing positive. A hot print would create the more dangerous combination: resilient growth, sticky inflation and higher-for-longer rates. I would hold quality

Chart #12 hits closest to home for me. The asymmetry of losses is simple mathematics, but it has major implications for how I invest. A 50% fall requires a 100% recovery just to get back to where you started. That also makes me slightly cautious about the message in charts #1 and #2. Markets have historically rewarded patience, but a 20-year positive index return does not mean every individual stock eventually recovers. Some companies permanently destroy capital or disappear altogether. For me, the strongest lesson across these charts is therefore not simply “buy and hold”. It is buy quality, diversify, avoid excessive leverage and give compounding enough time to work. Chart #11 reinforces this particularly well. Growth attracts attention, but sustainable ROIC and the ability to reinvest