看不懂的sol哥

2026机会多多

3Following

2.5Kfollowers

Feed

Livestream

Feed

Why must young people stay away from A-shares and go all-in on U.S. stocks?? With the same amount of money, A-shares need to double twice as fast. With the same amount of money invested in two places, how much difference will there be after twenty years? The answer depends on where you start counting from. From early 2010 to the end of 2024, the S&P 500 total return index annualized 13.9%. In the same period, the CSI 300 total return index annualized 2.8%. Over fifteen years, the cumulative difference is more than four times. Change the starting point, and the conclusion changes. From 2006 to 2025, the S&P 500 total return annualized 10.8%, CSI 300 total return annualized 10.5%. Basically even. The same pair of indices, two sets of data, both true. The difference lies in the starting point. 2006 was before the bull market started, with low valuations. 2010 was after the bubble burst, with the CSI 300 starting valuation at 28.5 times. So the real question is not whether A-shares can rise. They have risen, and not slowly. The question is whether you can get on at the right position and hold on at the right position. 1. Where the money leaks from Breaking down returns makes things clearer. From 1990 to 2024, a span of thirty-five years, the S&P 500 annualized 10.6%, with corporate earnings contributing 6.3%, dividends and buybacks 2.1%, and valuation uplift 1.9%. From 2010 to 2024, the CSI 300 annualized 2.8%, with earnings contributing 6.1%, dividends and buybacks 2.1%, valuation change -5.1%. Different periods, looking at structure. Earnings and dividends on both sides are almost the same; the difference is in the last column. U.S. stock valuations add 1.9 points per year; A-shares subtract 5.1 points per year. One adds, one subtracts, seven points lost. These seven points are not from companies earning less. It's the price the market is willing to pay, which keeps going down. 2. Who is suppressing the valuation In 2007, 2009, and 2015, the three bull market peaks of A-shares, the Wind All A excluding financial and petrochemical sectors had P/E ratios of 68.7, 75.6, and 65.1 times respectively. In the same period, the S&P 500 P/E ratio from 2005 to 2022 was basically between 15 and 25 times. The 2021 bull market peak just passed 40 times. Starting too high means paying the debt for the next decade-plus. U.S. stocks are not bubble-free. The Nasdaq dropped 80% in 2000. But the S&P 500 valuation center has long been between 15 and 25 times; bubbles burst but can recover. A-shares' valuation center has been continuously pushed down by new stocks and share reductions. 3. Volatility itself is a cost In the past twenty years, the CSI 300 annualized volatility was 26.7%, the S&P 500 14.5%. From 2005 to 2022, the CSI 300 had six drawdowns over 30%, the deepest 72.3%. The S&P 500 had only two, the deepest 56.8%. The same amount of money faces twice the volatility in A-shares compared to the S&P. This is where ordinary people lose money. The index is not wrong; people just can't hold on. When it drops 70%, the account number is less than half. At this time, telling you not to move and to keep investing regularly relies not on knowledge but on your heartbeat. The S&P also falls. It dropped 57% in 2008, and at most 25% in 2022. But it recovers after falling, and quickly. A-shares have often fallen and then stayed down for years. The same money pays more in time. 4. The pool needs water replacement Long-term returns of an index depend not only on who is included but also on who is removed. In 2025, 31 companies were delisted from A-shares. In 2024, 52 companies, the highest in history. In U.S. stocks, from 2010 to 2023, about 400 companies delisted annually on average. A-shares have over 5,000 listed companies, with about thirty delisted per year. This pool fills quickly but drains slowly. Bad companies staying in the pool dilute everyone's returns. The index does not automatically refresh; it depends on selection and timing. The S&P 500 does not need this. Companies that can't survive leave on their own; those with falling weights automatically decrease. The index committee only does one thing: replace the unqualified. 5. Fast extraction, slow return In the first half of 2026, major shareholders in A-shares reduced holdings by 489.4 billion yuan, already exceeding the whole of 2025. Dividends in the same period were 924.5 billion yuan. Dividends are indeed more than reductions. This must be acknowledged; you can't say this market only extracts without returning. But the rhythm is uneven. Dividends come once a year; reductions are announced anytime, often at high stock prices. For holders, bad news always arrives first; good news always arrives later. 6. Finally, what lands in the account In 2025, the Shanghai Composite Index rose 18.41%, CSI 300 rose 17.66%. The average return for A-share retail investors was -23.6%, with an average loss of 21,000 yuan. Only 18.9% of accounts were profitable. The index rises, accounts lose money. Both can be true simultaneously. The reason is simple. The index does not panic sell on crash days; people do. The index does not leverage; people do. The index does not chase highs because neighbor Wang made money; people do. So why buy the S&P? It doesn't rise the fastest. From 2006 to 2025, it only outpaced the CSI 300 by 0.3 points. Buying it means buying a smoother path. Half the volatility, shallower drawdowns, stable valuation center, delisting mechanism refreshing the pool for you. You only need to make one decision: buy in and then don't move. In A-shares, you need to make two decisions: when to buy, when to sell. More decisions mean more chances to make mistakes. And people making mistakes is normal. This is not to say A-shares have no good companies. There are always good companies, and many. It means for an ordinary person, relying on regular investing and holding on, making money in A-shares is much harder than in the S&P. This difficulty is only half about stock picking; the rest is about enduring. The S&P is not without risk. It dropped 25% at most in 2022, 57% in 2008. It can halve and cause sleepless nights. And in the past fifteen years of high returns, 1.9 points came from valuation uplift. This part cannot last forever. But its underlying logic is simple. Earnings grow, dividends are paid, bad companies are removed. These three things are much easier than guessing a market top correctly. My own approach is simple. Core holdings in the S&P. Whether optimistic or not is one thing. Whether to use your own hands to catch that volatility is another.

Is Nvidia going to change its CEO? 1️⃣ Currently, the possibility is no longer low. On November 8, Jensen Huang admitted to an affair, and the board publicly stated they "still trust him" and launched an independent investigation. But on November 11, The New York Times revealed a second relationship (with Kimberly Powell, the company's internal VP of medical business who reports directly to him), plus the first affair involved Alice Huang, who is suspected by the US side to be a Chinese spy. The nature of the matter changed. It escalated from a purely personal scandal to a conflict of interest and governance issue. Following this, media outlets like WSJ and Reuters reported that the board held a meeting on the evening of November 11 to discuss whether to remove him. Jensen Huang holds only about 3.6% of shares and does not have veto power. Prediction markets (Polymarket) once pushed the probability of "resignation or removal within the year" to over 80%. Of course, no official decision has been made yet, and the company has not confirmed anything, but the trend has clearly shifted. 2️⃣ Who is most likely to succeed? Nvidia's biggest problem is the lack of a true number two; the flat structure makes the company highly dependent on Jensen Huang alone. The safest short-term choice is CFO Colette Kress. She joined in 2013 and has long been responsible for finance and investor relations, well known on Wall Street. Some board members reportedly prefer to have her serve as interim CEO first to stabilize the market and the team. She can steady the situation but is not the type to continue leading the technical direction. In the mid to long term, Ian Buck is more favored. He is one of the main inventors of CUDA and currently leads the hyperscale computing business, directly interfacing with core clients like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and OpenAI. Choosing him would mean preserving Nvidia's most critical software moat and customer relationships. On prediction markets, he and Kress often rank near the top. Other names (such as former Nvidia executive and current Arm CEO Rene Haas) have been mentioned but with significantly lower probability. The risk of an external hire is greater; the board is also looking for external candidates, but internal priority is higher. 3️⃣ Impact on market value Many bad news have already been priced in. Since the scandal broke, Nvidia has lost roughly $450 billion to $600 billion in market value from its early October peak. After-hours on November 11, due to removal rumors, the stock dropped over 8%, wiping out another two to three hundred billion dollars in a single day. Short-term volatility will continue, especially approaching the November 17 earnings report. The market fears not just the leadership change itself but the loss of Jensen Huang’s combination of "forward-looking judgment + customer relationships + Washington lobbying," raising concerns whether customers will hesitate and whether capital expenditure rhythms will be affected. In the mid to long term, it depends on the quality of succession. If Kress transitions first and the technical team (especially the Buck line) remains stable, the market may have a chance to reprice; if the succession process is chaotic or product cadence or the CUDA ecosystem is questioned, then "operational risk" could be greater than the current "governance risk." Analysts often say, "Jensen Huang is Nvidia." Losing him is a big deal, but the company's orders and ecosystem lock-in won't disappear instantly. Currently, it is still "under serious consideration," not "already decided." In the next few days to one or two weeks, the board’s statements and clarity on the succession plan will directly determine the stock price movement.

The Poor Can Turn Their Lives Around: 3 Books You Must Read Thoroughly How much money did you earn in the past year? How much did you save? I asked some close cousins; some saved fifty to sixty thousand, some earned quite a bit but couldn’t save a single cent, and their assets were still negative. In their words, for people like us poor folks, even if we don’t eat or drink for a year and only save our salary, it’s just fifty to sixty thousand. If we don’t owe debts, it’s already a blessing. From their perspective, it’s only natural that they can’t save money or make big money; otherwise, it would be abnormal. I found that many people hold this mindset; you could say most poor people do. But "Are kings and nobles born with special bloodlines?" No one is born rich, and no one is destined to be poor for life. As long as your mindset and actions are right, anyone can turn their life around and become wealthy. Many people are poor not because they don’t work hard, but because their thinking is locked in "poverty mode." After reading so many books, I found a few that can truly help poor people turn their lives around, such as the following three books. First: "Scarcity" I’ve recommended this book many times. It presents a very useful idea: scarcity is not just about lacking money or time; it’s a mindset. When scarcity captures your brain, your attention focuses on the most urgent matters, causing you to neglect other more important things. The book cites an interesting experiment where researchers found that hungry people are especially sensitive to food-related information; their brains are occupied by thoughts of food. This phenomenon is called "tunneling," like looking at the world through a narrow tube—you can only see what’s right in front of you, and everything outside the tube is invisible. For poor people, this scarcity mindset is the most fatal. Every day you worry about tomorrow’s rent or the meals the day after, this pressure consumes your "mental bandwidth," which is your brain’s capacity to process information. If you spend your mental energy every day figuring out how to save a few bucks, your cognitive ability and self-control decline. This explains why poor people often make unwise decisions, like waiting in a two-hour line to save a few dollars or borrowing high-interest loans to solve urgent problems. The book also mentions the concept of "slack," which is the margin left when resources are sufficient. Poor people lack slack the most; once an unexpected event occurs, like illness or a car breakdown, they immediately fall into the "scarcity trap," entering a vicious cycle. I believe many people can’t turn their lives around because they remain trapped in this "tunnel vision." After reading this book, you’ll understand that your current predicament may not be because you’re stupid but because your bandwidth is filled with scarcity. You’ll also realize that mere busyness is actually a lazy escape from thinking. If you want to turn your life around, the first step is to stop "borrowing from the future" and strive to free up some mental space. Only when you stop focusing solely on the small change in front of you and start managing your mental bandwidth can you possibly break out of that vicious cycle. Second: "The Millionaire Fastlane" Before reading this book, I suggest you develop some basic financial literacy by reading books like "Rich Dad Poor Dad" or "Money as a Puppy." These books can correct your thinking habits and help you understand that making money legally is a good thing. But that’s not enough. If you want to turn your life around, especially without family wealth or influential connections, and want to overtake others on a curve, you have to choose the fast lane to make money quickly. In "The Millionaire Fastlane," the author divides life into three paths: the sidewalk, the slow lane, and the fast lane. People on the sidewalk have no financial plan and pursue instant gratification, spending whatever they have. Most office workers are on the slow lane; they sacrifice today’s happiness for tomorrow’s wealth, like scrimping and saving, hoping the stock market grows a little each year, and then retiring at 65. The author believes the slow lane is a losing game because it depends on variables you can’t control, like your boss, the economy, and decades of time. He advises you to take the "fast lane." The core of the fast lane is to build a business system that decouples income from your time; be a producer, not a consumer. He mentions five commandments of wealth: need, entry, control, scale, and time. To get rich quickly, you must solve other people’s problems and meet market demand, not just make money. Only when you impact millions can you earn millions of dollars—this is the "law of influence." He also provides a formula: Wealth = Net Profit + Asset Value. This means you must not only earn cash flow but also make your business itself valuable, then cash out a huge return through assets. This book will definitely change your view of wealth. Most people are educated to "go to school, get a good job, save and invest," but this book says that’s just trading freedom for a pension. If you want to turn your life around while young, you must shift from a worker’s mindset to a system builder’s mindset. The author’s words may sound harsh, but he reveals the mathematical logic behind wealth. If you’re tired of living paycheck to paycheck, this book points you to a truly leveraged path, teaching you how to trade a few years of focus for a lifetime of financial freedom. Third: "Specialized Survival" I introduced this book in "A Rare Book to Teach You How to Become an Expert Quickly" because it gives ordinary people a very practical way to turn their lives around: turn your experience, knowledge, and stories into assets. The author believes everyone can become an "expert" in some field. Here, an expert doesn’t mean you must have a PhD; it means your experience can help others solve problems. If you can share the lessons you’ve learned and methods you’ve summarized with those who need them, you can get paid and live a meaningful life. The book explains in detail how to enter the "expert industry." This industry is simple: distill life experience and sell your knowledge to ordinary people through writing articles, publishing books, recording videos, etc. The author proposes ten steps to fame, teaching you how to find your suitable field, define your target audience, and package and promote your products. The core point is that an expert’s value is not how many hours you work but how many lives your advice changes. You can even create a business worth millions of dollars from home by yourself. This book lowers the threshold for turning your life around. Many poor people think they need initial capital, but this book tells you your greatest wealth is the experience in your mind. Even if you have failed or fallen on hard times, those painful experiences are the most valuable assets for people in similar situations. For those who don’t want to struggle with physical businesses, this is a very good path. It teaches you how to grow wealth by sharing wisdom with minimal manpower cost. If you want to earn your first pot of gold with your brainpower, the book’s operational guide is worth studying repeatedly. I didn’t pick these three books casually. First, read "Scarcity" to free up your mental bandwidth and think more about the long term. Then read "The Millionaire Fastlane" to learn how to make money with systems instead of physical labor. Finally, read "Specialized Survival" to turn yourself into an expert who can support yourself. Actually, turning your life around is not an instant thing but the result of a series of correct choices stacked together. What you need to do is turn off meaningless short videos, calm down, and read these books thoroughly. Even if you are heavily in debt and in dire straits now, there is definitely a chance to turn your life around.

Why couldn't Newton, 300 years ago, get out at the stock market peak? In 1720, Newton didn't get out either At the beginning of 1720, South Sea Company stock was over 100 pounds. In July, it was 1000 pounds. In December, 124 pounds. Within one year, it rose eightfold and then fell back to the starting point. There was a special participant in this bubble: Isaac Newton. He calculated the trajectories of celestial bodies and laid the foundation of classical mechanics. He invested 7,000 pounds to test the waters. After doubling in two months, he sold and secured his profits. After he sold, the stock price kept surging. Friends, neighbors, and relatives around him all got rich from this stock. He couldn't sit still. Near the top of the stock price, he reinvested more money. Then the bubble burst. Three hundred years have passed, the market has changed, but people haven't. The following two mistakes are still being made today. First mistake: The fundamentals are fine Before the bubble burst, the South Sea Company’s fundamentals were flawless. The government granted a charter, the story was dazzling, and the numbers on the books matched. When Newton added to his position at the top, the fundamentals he saw must have been good. If the reports were full of holes, he wouldn’t have entered. The problem is that stock prices and fundamentals are not synchronized. Guosen Securities did a study in July this year. Since 2009, in six high-growth industries—consumer electronics, communication equipment, semiconductors, photovoltaic equipment, batteries, and energy metals—the absolute stock price peaks led the ROE peaks by 8 to 19 months, with a median of 12.6 months. Consumer electronics led by over 9 months, semiconductors by 8 months, photovoltaics by 19 months. By the time you see ROE still hitting new highs and the financial reports looking great, the stock price may have already peaked more than a year ago. The reason is simple. Stock prices trade on expectations. Reality waits for financial reports, but expectations have already played out. The sharpest money in the market buys on whether the future can be better. How good it is now, they already know. Once there’s no marginal improvement, even if absolute numbers are still hitting new highs, some will exit first. By the time this change is reflected in the financial reports, it’s already several quarters later. Saying "the fundamentals are fine" is an expensive self-comfort. Of course, the fundamentals are fine. But when they do have problems, it’s already too late. Second mistake: This time is different Newton didn’t leave during the high-level pullback. I guess his reasons were similar to those of people today. The version 300 years ago was like this: friends were making money, the market was hot, the king and parliament were endorsing it. Tulips went crazy too, how could this be the same? Today’s people have a new set of reasons. You can’t look at PB anymore, you have to look at PE; the valuation is actually quite cheap. This time is the AI super cycle, different from previous cycles. All financial reports beat expectations, no problem. Concentration is a bit high, leverage is a bit much, just deleverage and it will be fine. The boom won’t just last this year, it can last until 2030. The narrative has changed, but the structure hasn’t. The two most expensive phrases in investing are: "the fundamentals are fine" and "this time is different." The story changed from carriages to railways, from the internet to artificial intelligence. But human nature hasn’t been updated in 300 years. Summary 1. Everything is cyclical; the profit cycle is the most critical. When the profit cycle shifts from the first half to the second half, sectors rotate. The representative of the previous cycle is semiconductors; the mid-cycle representative is high-quality stocks. When to shift depends on three things: the second derivative of profits, the second derivative of price increases, and the breadth of profit revisions. 2. A stock’s momentum equals logic plus performance plus proactivity. Proactivity means leading gains and resisting declines. The order of turning points is reversed. Proactivity weakens first, then logic weakens, and the performance turning point comes last. By the time you see performance deteriorating, it’s already too late. 3. The most dangerous thing in investing is what you think you understand (but you only have faith, no research). The more you believe, the easier it is to lose money. Things you don’t understand won’t hurt you because you won’t take heavy positions.