AV
Corgi Aerospace & Commercial Aviation ETF
stock BATS ETF

DUOT och ZONE är inte samma bolag idag som de var när stora delar av kursfallen skedde. DUOT har lämnat sin gamla järnvägsinspektionsverksamhet och fokuserar nu på edge/AI-datacenter. ZONE var tidigare CleanCore med rengöringsprodukter + Dogecoin treasury, men pivotade i juni till AI-infrastruktur.
(SAMMANSTÄLLT AV AI)

I like Uber too. The fear of AV takeover seems irrational because they are in the strongest position to eventually lead the AV taxi market. The first mover in the market is rarely the winner. Uber is already planning to roll out AVs and network with other provides and so if anything this will just empower them further given their current dominance. They also will persist if the robotaxi plans flop or are delayed.

Funny how Reddit thinks Waymo is so far ahead just because that’s what they see right now, but in Dallas they can’t take you more than four miles, can’t go over 30mph, can’t drive at night or in the rain.
Hyundai and Volkswagen are on the road right now. Mercedes will be in weeks. Unlike Waymo, all are currently profitable and can scale much easier than Waymo can.
Waymo only has a lead in that they currently have the most cars on the road. They have 4,000 cars in 15 cities with very limited capability. To illustrate just how tiny a lead that is, VW currently manufactures 24,000 cars a day. I’d recommend chewing before you swallow that Waymo hype considering the legacy giants can literally overtake them within 6 hours.
Imagine back in the day when Motorola came out with the first cell phone. I can see the Reddit posts now: “It’s a big bet for Apple to catch up to Motorola!!!”
The big bet is that Waymo can build cars, integrate their AV tech, finance a platform capable of competing with Uber, and build a 200M monthly active user base, before getting bought out or going bankrupt. That is a much bigger bet.
Waymo will be selling their tech to legacy giants, who will either sell their vehicles to Uber directly or to 3rd party fleet managers who will operate primarily on Uber. That will be their long term business model.

Except waymo is using a new chinese co-design vehicle with zeekr. I don't think they would do that if their intention is to sell the tech. I think it'll end up like the streaming landscape with a few big names and then youtube as a final aggregator for the others. Waymo is netflix and uber looks poised to be youtube. Its a big bet on those dinosaur companies to catch up, and theres room for tough times with uber until those lagging AV suppliers catch up to the big names.

Amazon has made several attempts at every segment of Uber. Amazon Flex is the most obvious one. There was also Shuttl and Amazon Restaurant. Amazon eventually gave up on the latter two and partnered with Uber. I imagine Waymo and Tesla will do the same thing even if they also continue to do their own operation. Kinda like you can have Disney+ but also still watch Disney movies on Netflix.
The Zeeker costs over $105k per. They gotta go way down before I see the economics working. Current Uber (with drivers) costs \~$1.10/mile. Let’s be generous and say people are willing to pay twice as much for driverless. That means Waymo has to get at least 50k miles per vehicle just to recover the input costs. If we assume they will not be relying on Uber long term, that’s not counting the costs of building/maintaining/advertising the platform, which will cost more than it will cost Uber to buy/lease cars. Nor is it accounting for people like Avis who will also take a cut of that fare for maintaining their fleet.
50k miles is a lot for a commercial fleet. For context, rental companies typically sell their cars after around 30k miles.
Compare to Uber’s arrangements to acquire vehicles from Lucid and Rivian for around $50k per vehicle and the math looks a lot more favorable. Especially since the hard part of building a platform and customer base is already done. Waymo looks very capital-intensive and low/no profit.
I’m old enough to remember when people were certain Amazon was going to kill Walmart. And Google+ was going to kill Meta. And ChatGPT was going to kill Google. And PayPal was going to kill Visa.
If projections are right and 30-50% of cars on the road will be AV’s by 2040, the market will be too big for just one player to handle. That’s why they’ve partnered with every legacy OEM and emerging AV company except Tesla. Like with Netflix where Disney/HBO/Hulu/Prime/Youtube wasn’t the threat, it was getting people to cut cable/satellite TV. AV’s aren’t the threat to Uber at all. It’s getting people to cut car ownership. I think Amazon’s Slate is a bigger threat to Uber than Amazon Zooks.
Considering most people already can’t afford the car they own, car ownership costs are increasing 5-10% annually, and the thing people hate the most is dealing with car dealerships, insurance companies, and repair shops, I think a lot of folks will gladly cut the car. Especially since over half of us will be working from home and driving a lot less, making a $50k purchase of a depreciating asset even less justifiable.

Doch, es macht einen Unterschied. Im Vergleich sind beide Depots identisch, jedoch bekommst du bei AV Depot die staatliche Förderung obendrauf geschenkt.

Mercedes, Volkswagen, Hyundai, GM, Rivian, and Toyota are already bothering with it. Mercedes and VW launch this year.
Thing is, auto manufacturing is a very unprofitable industry. Most go bankrupt and Waymo/Tesla are particularly vulnerable. All trillion dollar companies have large graveyards of failed ventures. Google may have the most.
Waymo doesn’t need to risk manufacturing cars. Their cars are basically $120k corollas. All they need to do to be successful is sell their AV tech to companies who can efficiently manufacture cars. That’s where I see their real growth: selling it to companies like Ford and Honda who can already efficiently build cars people want but are behind developing AV tech.
Similarly, Waymo runs the risk of struggling building the worldwide network to compete with Uber. It’s harder than it looks. Ask Amazon. They’ve tried several times.
I always compare Uber to Netflix when they first started offering streaming. From 2010-2020 everyone had the exact same bear arguments that Disney/Paramount/HBO will launch their own streaming service, eat their content and subscribers. While that did happen, it also expanded the TAM for streaming, leading Netflix to one of the best decades of all time.
Using JP Morgan’s projections that the ride hailing industry will hit $2-$4T by 2040 (essentially eating 30% of new car sales). With a TAM of $2T, even if we assume Uber’s market share falls similarly to Netflix, from 75% to around 40%, that’s still $800B in annual revenue. Assume they only keep their currently depressed sales multiple of 3x, that’s a $2.4T MC. Assume extreme 30% dilution, that’s still $904 a share.
That’s without getting into UberEats, which is their fastest growing and most profitable segment, and will take majority market share with their acquisition of Delivery Hero. Nor is it getting into UberFreight or their advertising segment.
It is, in my opinion, the best position to build right now.

Costs are dropping rapidly, the top 3 AV companies are trillion $ companies (Google, Amazon, Tesla) they have massive logistics operations, Waymo has already surpassed Lyft market share in SF.
They will take over city market from uber it’s a fundamentally better experience. AVs won’t replace car ownership for a while it’s much more profitable to own the whole stack and tech and scale the operations.
Personal car ownership is here to stay and other companies will adopt super advanced L2/L3 systems but L4 requires insane legal and validation hurdles that those companies will not bother with IMO

whats EV and AV?

I think the main thing I'd be careful with is assuming that because something is down 20–40%, it's automatically good value. Sometimes the market is down on the stock for a pretty good reason.
Uber is probably the one I'd be most interested in looking at. I don't think AVs are going to kill Uber overnight either, but I'd want to understand what Uber actually looks like if autonomous cars become a big part of the market. There could be a huge margin opportunity there, but there's also the question of how much leverage Uber really has if the AV companies control the vehicles.
I quite like Booking as a business. Being down 30% doesn't necessarily make it cheap, but it's a pretty strong, asset-light business, so I'd probably look at the cash flow and valuation rather than just the drop in the share price.
Reddit is interesting too. I agree there's probably a lot more monetization potential, but I'd be a little careful with the "just add more ads" argument. At some point you can hurt the user experience and potentially make the platform less valuable...
Oracle and First Solar feel like a different category to me. There's a lot more that has to go right for the thesis to work. With Oracle I'd be watching the debt and capex pretty closely and whether all this AI/cloud demand actually turns into free cash flow. First Solar is more dependent on policy and the economics of solar, so there's quite a bit more uncertainty there.
Overall though, I think your approach makes sense. I'd just focus less on what has fallen the most and more on what the market is currently pricing in. If you can look at a stock and say "the market is assuming X, but I think Y is more realistic," that's where I'd start looking for value.

Uber is my favorite stock. I think everyone has it all wrong. AV’s aren’t a threat. They’re an opportunity. Market thinks Waymo and Tesla are the only ones in autonomy. They ignore Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Hyundai launching in the next 12 months. GM, Toyota, Rivian will likely within 24 months. Ford, Nissan, Honda will probably follow by 2030.
Waymo pays $70k-$200k per vehicle. I don’t see them being a long term auto manufacturer. I see them selling their tech to auto manufacturers.
Do you think all these car manufacturers are going to pay $4B to launch their own networking platform? Even if they do, do you think people will keep 4-6 different AV apps? I don’t think so. I think they all go to Uber.
That leaves Tesla, which for some reason insists on being a stand alone provider. If everyone else is on Uber, Tesla will only be able to operate in a handful of cities.
I don’t like Tesla’s chances of launching their own network. Their best bet is to buy out Lyft and partner with other OEM’s like Uber is doing to meet demand. Even then, I don’t think they can be a significant threat.

NVIDIA Hyperion (formerly DRIVE Hyperion; renamed in September 2026) and Wayve AI Driver target autonomous driving but occupy different layers of the stack. Hyperion is a full production-ready reference platform (compute + validated sensor suite + software foundation). Wayve AI Driver is an end-to-end embodied-AI software system that is largely hardware-agnostic. In practice they are often complementary: Wayve’s Gen 3 development platform and joint robotaxi prototypes run on NVIDIA DRIVE AGX Thor hardware within the Hyperion architecture.
Core scope
• NVIDIA Hyperion is a standardized reference architecture for Level 2 ADAS through Level 4 (including robotaxis). It packages dual high-performance SoCs, a pre-validated multi-modal sensor set, networking, and a safety-certified software foundation (NVIDIA Halos OS built on DriveOS, plus DRIVE AV software). Automakers and mobility providers adopt it to avoid designing the full hardware/software integration from scratch. Current generation (Hyperion 10) uses two DRIVE AGX Thor SoCs (Blackwell architecture), each delivering up to \~1,000 INT8 TOPS / 2,000 FP4 TFLOPS. The sensor suite includes 14 cameras, 9 radars, 1 lidar, 12 ultrasonic sensors, interior cameras, and an exterior microphone array. Earlier Hyperion 8 used dual Orin SoCs and a slightly smaller suite, scaling to Level 3.
• Wayve AI Driver is the software “brain”—an embodied-AI / AV2.0 stack that converts sensor inputs into driving controls via a learned model rather than a modular sense-plan-act pipeline with extensive hand-coded rules. Wayve licenses it to OEMs and fleet operators; it does not supply vehicles or a fixed sensor/compute reference design. It is designed to run on an OEM’s existing or chosen hardware (including NVIDIA Orin/Thor) and sensors.
AI and driving approach
Hyperion supports NVIDIA’s own full-stack software and reasoning models (including the open Alpamayo family of vision-language-action models that reason, plan, and act). It also accommodates third-party stacks. The emphasis is on high-performance real-time fusion of a rich sensor suite, transformer-based perception, generative AI workloads, and a safety framework spanning data center to vehicle.
Wayve’s approach is more purely end-to-end and data-driven. A neural network learns driving behavior from large volumes of real and simulated experience (imitation learning, reinforcement learning from interventions, self-supervised methods) rather than relying primarily on hand-engineered rules or HD maps. Wayve stresses generalization: the system is mapless, does not require geofences or city-specific retraining, and has demonstrated zero-shot driving in hundreds of cities. It aims for human-like fluency and assertiveness. Supporting tools include world models (GAIA series) for closed-loop simulation and language-based explanation/interaction (LINGO).
Sensors, maps, and compute
Hyperion specifies a redundant multi-modal suite (cameras + radar + lidar + ultrasonics) that is pre-validated with the compute for Level 4 redundancy and functional safety (ISO 26262 ASIL-D capable, ISO 21434 cybersecurity capable).
Wayve is sensor-flexible and leans toward a leaner stack—primarily cameras plus radar—while remaining compatible with lidar when an OEM wants it. The company argues its learned model can balance sensor strengths without engineering around every edge case with additional hardware. Development fleets have used camera-centric or camera+radar setups; Gen 3 adds an L3/L4-capable architecture aligned with industry standards and runs on DRIVE AGX Thor.
Both avoid sole reliance on expensive city-by-city HD mapping for scaling, though Hyperion’s broader platform can incorporate mapping where partners choose. Wayve explicitly markets mapless operation as a core cost and deployment advantage.
Safety, certification, and deployment model
Hyperion is built around redundant compute and sensors plus the Halos safety system for inspection, validation, and certification support. The same architecture is intended to scale from L2++ to L4 largely via software and OTA updates.
Wayve emphasizes safety through deep world understanding and generalization rather than exhaustive rule sets, with safety maps and path selection produced by the model. It targets eyes-off (L3) and driverless (L4) capabilities and integrates into OEM operating systems and safety architectures (e.g., Mercedes MB.OS). Formal automotive certification remains partner- and program-specific.
Partnerships and status (as of late 2026)
Hyperion adopters and users include BYD, Geely, Isuzu, Nissan, and mobility players such as Uber (full-stack NVIDIA robotaxi plans across multiple markets), Lyft, and others. NVIDIA positions it as a common foundation so partners can differentiate at the software/service layer.
Wayve has production or pilot agreements with Mercedes-Benz (integration of AI Driver targeted within roughly two years for advanced urban/highway assistance), Nissan (robotaxi prototype on Hyperion hardware for Uber trials in Tokyo), and Stellantis, plus public Uber rides in London (safety-driver stage) and expansion plans. Training uses NVIDIA infrastructure on Microsoft Azure. Mercedes has also explored NVIDIA’s Alpamayo, illustrating that some OEMs evaluate multiple AI stacks.
In short, Hyperion supplies a safety-certified, high-compute, multi-sensor reference platform and optional full software stack aimed at industrial-scale L4 deployment. Wayve supplies a mapless, end-to-end learned driving intelligence that can sit on top of that platform (or other hardware) and is optimized for rapid geographic generalization. Joint programs (Nissan robotaxi prototype, Wayve Gen 3 on Thor) show the two are frequently combined rather than purely competitive.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

It's the EV that matters, not the AV.

Ja prinzipiell ja aber was der OP über mir gesagt hat geht deswegen nicht. Das sie dir die komplette RV wegnehmen nur weil du ein AV Depot hast.

AV Depot mal außen vor, dir ist doch klar das es für den Zinseszins Effekt unerheblich ist ob du 500 Euro im Monat in einen ETF packst oder je 100 Euro in 5 ETFs!?
Warum sollte es auf einmal etwas anderes sein, wenn du zusätzlich zum normalen Depot noch ein AV Depot besparst?

Die verbraucher zentralen bieten Beratungen an bei denen die das mit dir durchrechnen. Musst halt ein bisschen auf nen Termin warten und 80€ oder so blechen.
Das AV Depot, dass ab nächstem jahr kommt könnte für dich interessant sein. Da wird es bei den gängigen Brokern wahrscheinlich sehr günstige angebote geben.

as far as the the financing, you are correct on the last one. As far as previous ones AV owned that.
As far as the latter goes, shorting him /the merger/ new entity- @ 45% gain so far. Thanks to those here who recommended it. Good call.