GE
GE Aerospace
stock NYSE

GEV, GE, SMCI, NNE, VOO

TSMC is one of my core holdings, but if you want a list of "long term wide moat impenetrable moats" search up TCI management 13F (Chris Hohn). I bought Visa a while ago, now appreciated a bit I am never selling, same with GE Aerospace, S&P Global.

Welch had the benefit of driving a really great company into the ground - there was plenty of meat on the bone to strip. The guy sucked GE dry, and Immelt inherited Jack’s dumpster fire.

GEV/GE

The problem with GE is they stopped being a conglomerate and started being a finance company which was the main reason for their downfall. GE capital and Immelt were garbage.

I always try to look at companies that are mission-critical and have potential long-term tailwinds while being (somewhat) overlooked. I have not found many analyses on Wärtsilä, yet it does look appealing for the kind of companies I look at.

Wärtsilä is a company that effectively acts as the key player in global maritime trade and the electrical grid. They are an "industrial" company that makes giant engines, but they have become a high-tech service and software business that solves the "instability problem" of the 21st century (their term).
If Wärtsilä's engine on a cargo ship in the middle of the ocean, or if one of their power plants goes offline, the consequences are catastrophic, both financially and logistically. This creates an incredible level of trust; as of mid-2026, customers are so reliant on Wärtsilä that they have essentially pre-funded the company’s growth, providing over a billion euros in advance payments. This allows the company to operate without debt and with a "fortress" balance sheet that most industrials would envy.
The competitive moat here is built on a (very) long-term contract. When a shipowner or a utility company installs Wärtsilä hardware, they are locked into a three-decade ecosystem. You can’t just swap out a massive engine mid-voyage or hire a random mechanic to fix a proprietary system. So today, more than half of the company's revenue now comes from high-margin services and software. This moat is being widened by the shift to green energy. As shipping regulations tighten, Wärtsilä is the only player offering engines that are "future-proof"—capable of running on hydrogen, ammonia, or methanol. They aren't just selling engines; they are selling a license to stay in business in a decarbonising world.
It is not a maturing company. Wärtsilä is pivoting into the "Energy Balancing" and "AI Data Center" markets. As we add more wind and solar power to the grid, the energy supply becomes intermittent. Wärtsilä’s engines are the "insurance policy" because they can ramp up to full power in just two minutes when the wind stops blowing. Simultaneously, AI data centers—which require massive, uninterrupted power—are becoming a huge growth driver. In early 2026 alone, they booked record-breaking orders for data centre power plants because their technology is actually more cost-effective than traditional gas turbines for these specific needs.
Ofc, they are not without competition, but they are niche and specialised enough. Like GE Vernova in the power sector. But they focus on gas turbines. These are massive machines designed to provide baseload power for entire cities. Wärtsilä, by contrast, focuses on reciprocating engines (smaller, modular units).
Or MAN Energy Solutions. They win in scale, but Wartsilia distinguished enough by pioneering in "Future Fuels" (like Ammonia and Hydrogen) and has a more integrated digital software suite.
Last semi-annual report in July confirmed a lot of the bullish story: The company is currently generating a return on its capital of over 70%. Because they have roughly €1.7 billion in net cash and a record-breaking order book of nearly €9 billion, they are in a position where they don't need to borrow money to expand. They are effectively a self-funding growth machine.

Today, they are not undervalued (sorry). However, given the nature of their work and the effectiveness of their business, they are also not crazy overvalued. In fact, at 30e, I'd say they are at the lower end of fair value (which is always interesting for quality companies).

I used a 9% WACC and 5-8% organic growth to do my DCF (which I think is relatively conservative). At 30 euros, you can expect a solid annual return of about 11–13% based on their organic growth (they have over 40% in total order intake, and over 5% in net sales, which is normal since many of the 2026 orders will only materialise in 2028-30) and dividends. However, if the price were to dip under 27e, it would represent an appealing opportunity to buy a world-class franchise at a discount. I am itching to buy, but have set an alert at 27e.

What do you think? Had you heard of them before? Does the company interest you?

Vermögenssteuer wie in der Schweiz, weir nehmen besser den Satz von GE.

to be fair GE also had a really significant conglomerate discount and once split up the market cap of each of their 3 new companies is significantly greater than GE as a combined entity.

Okay, well all the well established companies are already at the top of all major indexes. The rest of the stuff you listed are either not in the S&P500/total market index at all, or in such small amounts they are negligible. You are also missing the entire rest of the world which adds much needed diversification. So SWISX should be added with SWPPX.

If you're that concerned about risk, owning individual companies is among the riskiest things you can do. Look at the top companies by decade and you will see how often they move in and out of favor. Just because GOOGL and APPL are strong performers in the 2010s and 2020s, doesn't mean they will be in 2030, 2040, or 2050. Look what happened to IBM, GE, Kodak, Sears, AT&T, Intel, Cisco, etc over the years.

For a few years now the hyperscalers have been spending agressively, but it seems to me like spending this money is actually the easy part of the equation.
If we add up the contracted, not yet delivered cloud demand (Remaining Performance Obligations - **RPO**) of the hyperscalers (**Microsoft**, **Oracle**, **Google** and **Amazon**), we get a sum of about **$2.3 Trillion**. In order to serve this massive RPO, **MSFT**, **GOOGL**, **AMZN**, and **META** are spending about **$660 Billion** a year, moving from asset-light software companies into owners of physical plants, real estate, and equipment.
The real battle for big tech isn't buying servers, but rather securing **24/7 power**. That kind of energy commitment completely breaks traditional budgeting. As JPMorgan put it, "***money can't buy you electric power***" when a project's start date depends on a years-long grid-connection queue. Out of these hyperscalers, Oracle is the outlier, it carries net debt of about **3x** operating cash flow (an order of magnitude above the others), and its free cash flow has gone negative.
I have to say, these companies remain among the most cash-generative business ever built, and they're funding roughly half the build from cash and the other half from debt markets. T. Rowe's Dom Rizzo argues the funding gap is "***not that big***" against balance sheets like these, and that unlike 1998 (the dot-com bubble) the fundamentals are still accelerating.
Now the interesting part is that if we follow the money trail down the supply chain, we can see exactly who is extracting the value. It starts with the regulated utilities like **Southern**, **Duke** and **Dominion** who are accelerating capex to build grid capacity. These guys face huge regulatory hurdles and political blowback from residential ratepayers over increasing electricity bills. To go around the regulations, **NextEra** for instance is using a hybrid strategy by restarting a **nuclear plant** (Duane Arnold) for Google.
Because the public grid is too slow, big tech are also chasing independent producers like **Constellation**, **Vistra**, and **Talen energy**. These companies have **24/7** power and they spend almost nothing to expand. Amazon and Meta are locking up deals with Vistra, Microsoft contracted to restart the **Three Mile Island** nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, and Google signed for small modular reactors with **Kairos**.
One layer down, we arrive to the equipment makers like **Vertiv**, **GE Vernova**, **Eaton** and **Caterpillar** which are facing an increasing days inventory outstanding (**DIO**). Usually this is looked at as constraint on these companies, but as the gross margins also keep on rising for some of them, hitting a record for Vertiv and GE Vernova, this is pure pricing power.
There are so many other layers that plays into this like, cooling systems, precision HVAC, advanced packaging & foundry equipment, copper mining & refining, etc etc. that won't fit into this single post.
The takeaway is big tech is bleeding money and the wealth is pooling at the bottom with nuclear operators collecting and hardware manfucaturers hitting record margins while the payers wait for delivery.
If you're interested to read more, I have the full write up with plots & figures on my free substack:
[https://secaura.substack.com/p/the-two-trillion-dollar-bottleneck](https://secaura.substack.com/p/the-two-trillion-dollar-bottleneck)

GE is probably the textbook case of this lol.

The downfall of GE is a perfect example of what you just described. Mandatory culling 10% of your workforce every year sounds great for short-term efficiency, but It ultimately killed them in the end.

Google, Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft, CocaCola, GE Vernova, GE Aerospace

Is it horrible? No.
You are doing what we did. In 1991, I started my Dividend Reinvestment Plans. I ended up with 15 of them. PFE, INTC, and GE being the big dogs of the 1990s in their sectors.
Each one of those big dogs turned into piles of poo.
If I would have invested all that money I put into the DRiPs, into the S&P 500, I would have $4,200,000 more in wealth. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.
I could have taken a 3% distribution, $126,000 each year which is way more than my dividend payments.
Luckily, our 401ks and IRAs were invested in the S&P 500 Index, so we are not destitute.
We make more in Dividends each year, than I make in SS payments. We do not make more in dividends than both of us collect in SS payments.
I still add dividend payers to the portfolio. I started a position in PG in 2026.

QTRX is selling really low because of their problems commercializing their product, and an investor meeting where they admitted this was their own fault they didn’t meet earnings targets. But they just hired a new chief of commercialization who was president of GE healthcare. The problem, which proved clinical utility loud and clear, was not the problem. It just needs to be sold. You might think the market is taken for their Alzheimer’s diagnostic blood assay after the new Eli Lilly approval today, but the real gold is in the fact they offer the only assay that tests multiple different bio markers - which are going to move into the TBI and Parkinson’s market, as shown by the Michael J Fox foundations official backing of them. They’re going to have THE Parkinson’s blood biomarker diagnostic test on the market, and will likely go on to show better clinical utility for their multiple marker assay than the single protein one being popularized now

GEV, GE, SMCI, NNE, VOO

TSMC is one of my core holdings, but if you want a list of "long term wide moat impenetrable moats" search up TCI management 13F (Chris Hohn). I bought Visa a while ago, now appreciated a bit I am never selling, same with GE Aerospace, S&P Global.

Welch had the benefit of driving a really great company into the ground - there was plenty of meat on the bone to strip. The guy sucked GE dry, and Immelt inherited Jack’s dumpster fire.

GEV/GE

The problem with GE is they stopped being a conglomerate and started being a finance company which was the main reason for their downfall. GE capital and Immelt were garbage.