TSM
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
stockNYSEADR

The stock haven't moved in 10 years. I used to have it when I was dividend investor, but I sold it in 2025 and put the money in GOOGL and TSM. But I would buy O if it's in 50$ range, in high interest rate era it's quite possible.

TSM is the only reason all this fuckin circus kept certain order and sanity. Current valuations are ballooned and overhyped, AI is not goin anywhere but is gonna take a big big hit, both openai and anthropic are strugglin, money is runnin dry, they cant turn a profit, and their whole bussiness model is under heavy pressure, two bad headlines in a row and the whole thing can tank a 50%

TSM is a beast, and the capex story checks out but yeah those drawdowns are no joke if the trade war flares up again

**TL;DR:** For each AI infrastructure company I asked one question: is the business fundamental to where AI is going, or a temporary bridge for the build-out? I'm long the first group (43 names, $10k paper) and short the second (23 names, $7k paper), equal weight, from the Oct 19 close. It's a paper research experiment, and I'll post the P&L every month, good or bad. **Charts:** [the sector map](https://i.imgur.com/4O6LNF5.png) · [operating margins, longs vs shorts](https://i.imgur.com/KtXW0Zd.png)  # The 1999 lesson In 1999 everyone could see the internet was the future, and they were right. Many of the companies building it still collapsed. Corning made the glass fiber and fell about 98% from 2000 to 2002. Global Crossing laid undersea cable and went bankrupt. Cisco kept growing for decades, and the stock still took more than 25 years to close above its March 2000 peak. The technology was essential. Many of the businesses were not: they were replaceable, they overbuilt, and they had no pricing power. Most of the value went to whoever held the scarce part, or to whoever used the cheap new capacity best. We're in the same kind of build-out now, and almost every company near it gets called an AI winner. # The test I call a company **fundamental** when both are true: 1. **Its technology is essential to where AI is going**, and the need lasts beyond one build cycle. 2. **The business flourishes because of it:** it holds share, keeps healthy margins, and doesn't depend on raising new money to survive. Competition is fine. Large gas turbines have three makers worldwide and all three can do well. What matters is whether the demand is **permanent** or **temporary**. Every advanced chip needs ultra-pure materials and testing, every optical link needs lasers and fiber, and every AI rack needs power conversion and cooling. Renting out GPUs during a shortage, selling powered land while the grid catches up, or earning profits that mostly come from an expiring tax credit are temporary. Price comes second, and I come back to it below. The first filter is the business, not the stock. # Why long and short If the sorting is right, the gap between the groups should widen whichever way AI goes. If AI keeps rising, the fundamental names should rise more. If it digests (a capex pause, a funding scare), the levered, stock-funded, capacity-renting names should fall hardest. I hold $1.00 long for every $0.70 short, so modestly net long: I think the build-out is real, and the bet is mostly on the spread. # The margins GAAP operating margin over the last 12 reported months, for every name whose margin I quote (32 longs, 14 shorts), pulled from TickerBell's filings data: the long median is +18%, the short median is −5% ([chart](https://i.imgur.com/KtXW0Zd.png)). The exception I'd point out myself is Credo. It earns a 32% operating margin and I'm still short, because its main product, active copper cable, is copper's life extension inside the rack, and in-rack links are moving to optics. # How I bucketed them I split 66 AI infrastructure companies into six layers: AI chips, optics and networking, power and the grid, compute capacity, chips and chipmaking, and a further-out group (drones, robots, air taxis). Inside each layer, every company went into one of two buckets: **long** if its technology is essential and the business flourishes because of it, **short** if it mainly exists because the build-out is ahead of supply, or the business doesn't earn its place. That gave 43 longs and 23 shorts. You can see every name, long and short, layer by layer on the [sector map](https://i.imgur.com/4O6LNF5.png)  This is a paper research experiment: no real money, $10,000 long and $7,000 short from the Oct 19 close. I'll post the P&L here every month, including the names that went against me, to see how the idea holds up. # The longs |Layer|Long|Why| |:-|:-|:-| |AI chips|NVDA, AMD, ARM, INTC|The processors AI runs on. INTC is a turnaround: essential, but the business has to catch up| |Optics and networking|AVGO, MRVL, LITE, CIEN, GLW, ALAB, AXTI, ANET, APH|Lasers, fiber, switches and connectors survive whichever optics design wins| |Power and the grid|GEV, ETN, HUBB, VST, POWL, NVT, VICR, AGX, VRT, TT, PWR, CEG, FLNC|Sold-out turbines, record switchgear and chiller backlogs, liquid cooling, firm nuclear and gas power| |Chips and chipmaking|TSM, ASML, MU, SNPS, CDNS, AMAT, KLAC, LRCX, ENTG, FORM, AMKR, ASX, LSCC, ADI, ON|Foundry, EUV, HBM memory, design software, equipment, materials, testing and packaging: paid on every wafer| |Further out|AMPX, NOVT|Drone batteries and precision robot joints| # The shorts **Compute capacity: a bridge, not a destination.** Neoclouds and power-site operators turned AI landlords filled a real gap because the hyperscalers couldn't build fast enough. That gap is closing: the hyperscalers spend hundreds of billions a year themselves and the labs are building their own capacity. The test comes around 2028 to 2030, when the first contracts renew, possibly into plentiful supply. |Ticker|Why short| |:-|:-| |CRWV|67% gross margin, but −3% operating after GPU depreciation, before interest on about $31B of debt. Value depends on GPU useful life and renewal pricing| |IREN|Better funded than most (customers prepay about half the GPU cost), but still renting GPUs into a shortage; −148% operating margin| |CIFR|The most durable of the power-site landlords, with long investment-grade leases. Still −278% operating while building, heavily levered| |WULF|Strong Google/Anthropic-backed leases, but heavily levered, and the price assumes gigawatts that aren't signed| |CORZ|Main tenant is itself heavily levered; $3.3B of 7.75% notes| |APLD|15-year leases are real, but −39% operating margin and 12.75% preferred funding| |CLSK, HIVE, FRMI, SHAZ|Mostly legacy (non-AI) revenue, negative gross margin, a going-concern warning, or almost no revenue against large contracts| **On the wrong side of a technology shift, or simply weak businesses:** |Ticker|Why short| |:-|:-| |COHR|Lasers too, but module-heavy, and co-packaged optics removes plug-in modules. I hold the laser exposure through Lumentum| |AAOI|29% gross, −11% operating, 10 customers are 99% of revenue, growth funded by selling stock| |SMCI|Mostly assembles servers: 11% gross, 7% operating, cash tied up in inventory| |STM|AI is about 15% of revenue; 4% operating margin against onsemi's 11%| |AEHR, COHU|Challengers in chip testing with operating losses| |NRG, RUN, EOSE, TE|Power is essential, but these are retail electricity, rooftop solar, a −85% gross margin, and a tax-credit-dependent solar factory| |JOBY, ACHR|Nothing in the AI future depends on air taxis; about $0.9B operating losses each over the last year| # On price Many of these longs are not cheap. Several trade well above what my own valuation work supports. A fundamental business bought at a high price can still take years to pay off; that is exactly what happened to Cisco after 2000. I choose on the business and size on price, and I'd rather be told now which longs you think are priced for perfection. # Rules and what would prove me wrong * Equal weight from the entry close. If a position moves 14% against me, I add to bring the loss back to 7%, at most twice * A name changes only when its thesis breaks (loses to a technology shift, loses share, margins collapse), never because of price, and every change is posted with the date and reason * Not modeled: borrow fees, dividends, taxes, trading costs * **Wrong if:** the build-out outruns supply for years, heavily shorted small caps squeeze, co-packaged optics arrives late, or the longs are already priced for success I'll post the P&L every month. Most of these names report between late October and mid-November, so the first update will also cover what earnings changed, including where I was wrong. The basket updates daily with the P&L here: "tickerbell.com/research/ai-long-short-book" *Disclosure: I built TickerBell, a site for SEC filings and stock data; the charts are from it. This is a hypothetical paper portfolio for research, not investment advice. I have positions in many of these.*

On that note and logic I'm kind of surprised china hasn't moved on taiwan... one of the reasons I don't love TSM stock.

No i would prefer the govt just give the money to my own account not linked to the govt at all with no ones name on it and the freedom to make whatever investment selections I want. Any govt involvement means lame restrictions and forced action. If you want to buy SpaceX go ahead but maybe other people want to buy different companies (ie RTX, NOC, LMT, RKLB, TSM, NVDA, AMD, AVGO, PANW, ALAB, etc)

options. Trading of select single-stock and ETF options is now available during a pre-market session from 7:30 a.m. to 9:25 a.m. ET and a post-market session from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET, Monday to Friday, covering some of the most actively traded and liquid symbols, including the Magnificent 10 stocks and other widely followed U.S.-listed names plus major ETFs. The full list of underlying symbols is: AAPL, AMD, AMZN, AVGO, BABA, BAC, F, GLD, GOOG, GOOGL, HOOD, INTC, IWM, META, MRVL, MSFT, MU, NFLX, NOK, NVDA, ORCL, PFE, PLTR, QQQ, SNDK, SPY, TSLA, TSM, XLF.

It’s very semi heavy as one might be able to deduce. TSM, ASML, SK are 20% alone, but like QQQ, they’re looking for the few that drive the many. And right now - those are your guys.

I love the make-up and what it’s trying to do. Falls somewhere between AIS and EUV, if that’s your flavor. One big package. I hold both, because I want the additional ASML + TSM exposure and the photonics/litho tail. I don’t normally complain about AUM, but that could be an issue if they’re really trying to be active. Maybe not. EUV ballooned from whatever their start-up funding was to over $500M in like 4 months. Has the makings of a nice little satellite if you want the extra exposure to AI bottlenecks.

Robinhood account: $20,399.51, up $211.58 (up 1.05%) today. Whole book including the Kalshi and Coinbase sleeves: $21,014.34, up $288.56 (up 1.39%) today. I started with $10,000 and added another $10,000 a couple of weeks ago once it was going well. Profit since the start, deposits taken out: up $323.63. The strategies, and how they're doing: The Kneeler (Kalshi, NFL). Late in games, once the leading team is running out the clock, it buys NO on stat lines that can't realistically be hit anymore. That's usually at 88 to 99 cents, and it collects the dollar at the final whistle. It's 89 for 89 across five game days. This Sunday was 11 for 11 and made $13.81. All time it's up $85 after fees on $644 put in. FAANG+ Momentum ($5,155.79, up $112.36 today, best day in the book). Each morning it reranks the biggest tech names by short-term momentum and holds the leaders. Today it sold AAPL and GOOGL and bought AMZN and NVDA. Business As Usual ($3,048.65, up $29.09). Holds the S&P 500, and switches into UPRO, a 3x leveraged S&P fund, on days New York weather reads normal for the season on Kalshi's temperature markets. Yes, really. Today was one of those days, so it bought UPRO at $148.44 at the open. Full Send ($442.36, up 5.30% today). Holds TQQQ, the 3x Nasdaq fund, while the Nasdaq-100 is above its 200 day average, and Treasury bills otherwise. It's the most aggressive thing in the book, and days like today are why it's there. AI Picks & Shovels ($883.70, up $27.07 today). Owns the AI buildout, chips through networking and power, reweighted by momentum. Today's reweight trimmed SMCI, ANET, DELL and some NVDA, and added AMD, MRVL and TSM. Pelosi Tracker ($1,896.45, up $27.13, up 1.45%). It mirrors Nancy Pelosi's disclosed stock buys. Today it trimmed AAPL, AMZN and INTC and added Palo Alto Networks at $347.77 off her latest disclosure. High Profile Congress ($488.57, up $2.85) does the same thing across a group of high volume Congress members. It swapped RARE, RIG, STAG and YETI for FITB, RPM and AT&T off a new filing. FDA Inspector, down $7.45 today, the worst in the book. It sold its Amgen at $430.93 and bought Pfizer at $29.64. Its first Amgen buy in this run was $377.57. Dip Buyer is easing new money into VOO only on dip days: about $300 at $704.93 today and a similar amount last Thursday. The rest of its $2,000 is still waiting for the next dip. NFL Fantasy Agent buys YES on player props for my fantasy roster. It went 1 for 3 Sunday: Blake Corum 40+ rushing yards at 56 cents paid a dollar, while a Browns receiver touchdown and a CeeDee Lamb touchdown both went to zero. Still a lottery ticket and sized like one. WSB Consensus bought AMZN today. Still a $9 position, on purpose.

The real issue isn't whether NVDA or TSM are good holds over 2 years, it's that you went from a setup you were comfortable with to one you're clearly not, and that discomfort is itself the signal. If half your position in cash was letting you sleep, the fix isn't necessarily selling everything back, it's finding an allocation between 50% and 100% invested that you won't regret on either side. No position in any of these tickers, for the record.

ATEYY: Key testing equipment supplier. Extreme underrated vender with a diverse and impressive list of customers NVDA,TSM,SKHY

They make money on inference. They "only" lose money because training/research. Yes, they need to keep investing in order to keep their leadership but they are getting more and more efficient over time and they expect inference market to keep growing so by itself pay for all the extra expenses. If they double the training costs but inference do x5 and keep the same margins they are green without sacrificing quality or margins. There are many neoclouds and will be winners/losers, but aside from Coreweave that I find too risky, others like Nebius or Iren (different businesses anyway) have much better financials and a manageable debt. They could do a x100, they could go to zero, but people often forget they can do something in the middle (and I don't mean x50), just be a good company that offers a service and make money without becoming the next Google. I think spending will stabilize in the future but I think this is a new paradigm and the "retraction" will be very limited, if at all. Memory makers, TSM etc. don't want to overbuild, they need to find the sweet spot between giving what market wants now and what they think they will want in the future, so they will build (as they are doing) but they won't go crazy, they don't really have the need for it. So I think this can suck most of the "bubble" and create a more balanced valuations avoiding extremely big movements. Time will tell.

pretty happy with today. my guess is the most likely case for the next 2 weeks is a sideways range bound price action between the lows we already saw and low 600s, since we didn’t get the usual october pre-midterms rally. checked the data for the past 50 years and if the rally doesn’t happen by now there’s less than 10% chance it rallies before the election (only happened once in the last 50 years / 12 mid term cycles). on a positive note though, when the pre-mid term rally doesn’t happen it has also led to more explosive rallies post election. who knows though Meta might have a killer quarter and fire things up, but ASML and TSM also had killer quarters and didn’t trigger anything. just really happy to see the bleeding stop for now - have a lot of confidence we will see new ATHs post mid terms and earnings.

Assigned TSM last week at 440. Liking today’s pump, may sell a call against the shares.

I messed up this my actual investments. Current holding: $TSM 421.80 NVDA: $217.96 AMZON: $468.67 GOOGL: $300.94

TSM, NVDA, Amazon and Google are solid businesses, but you're essentially concentrated in technology and AI related growth. Even great companies can all decline together when sentiment shifts. I like using Moon for specific market views but with a long term portfolio I'd want broader diversification rather than having every holding depend on a similar growth story.

I’ve done: Palantir (PLTR) 8.5% Alphabet (GOOGL) 8.33% Apple (AAPL) 8.33% ASML (ASML) 8.25% Taiwan Semiconductors (TSM) 8.25% Amazon (AMZN) 8% Broadcom (AVGO) 7.5% Micron Technology (MU) 7.5% Nvidia (NVDA) 7.5% SpaceX (SPCX) 7.25% Tesla (TSLA) 7.25% Constellation Energy Cooperation (CEG) 6.67% Robinhood (HOOD) 6.67% 5+ year hold.

Hello! I was looking to buy a handful of stocks on Friday after the dip in the market(NVDA, ASML, TSM, GOOGL). This was after the market closed and all my orders were showing as open orders in Merrill app. For a some orders, I did market day and I assume they would get filled right when the market opens today. For some other others, I did limit order with the price being slightly above the afterhours trading price. My question is, if I place a limit order with the price being slightly above the afterhours trading price, does that guarantee that my order gets filled? For example NVDA afterhours price was 213.75 and I set my limit to 213.95. Will the order get filled this morning at 9:30am at that price? Another question I had was market order. I was stupid and canceled all my market orders because I thought the market was going to crash even more today. I then changed my mind and reopened then but the prices were so much higher than the closing price. When I placed market order, it forced me to buy NVDA at 218 rather than 214ish on Friday. Will the order actually get filled at that price? It seems to me that the price is going off of the "Ask X Size" number. Can someone help me understand all of this because I am very confused. I am 20 and just started getting into investing. I placed these orders initially because I liked the dip and wanted to buy the stocks at a low price, but it seems to me that my new market orders are making me buy the stock at a higher price than what the market closed at. How can I prevent this from happening in the future? Any advice? Thank you all!

TSM can you just go to 490 by the end of November :)

TSM

Is it okay to setup autoinvest and automatically bank transfer and let sit for years? CAT and TSM are for extra weight. I know they are in VWRL.

If you are going to invest in individual stocks - which is fine despite what reddit will tell you - a rule of thumb is no individual stock (stock, not ETF) should start out more than 5% of your portfolio, to reduce *unsystematic risk*. Your current allocation is: * TSM 34% * NVDA 18% * AMZN 20% * GOOGL 28% So regardless of the fact you are heavy in tech, you are way too concentrated in too few stocks. That concentration might outperform the market as a whole but it also has much more risk. If TSM or any of the others has a significant drop it is really going to hit your portfolio hard. So if you are going to invest exclusively in individual stocks you need to have 20-30 of them. If you can't pick 20-30 stocks you want to invest in you are probably better of just buying an index funds that holds dozens or hundreds or thousands of stocks.

Current holding: $TSM 417 NVDA: $217 AMZON: $252 GOOGL: $343. Is this too heavy on tech stock?

* turning 19 this month US * Unemployed college studnet * I just got my investment account of $2300 transfered to me. I want to get it to grow quickly * I need liquid money often * Blackjack level risk tolerance * Current holding: $TSM 417 NVDA: $217 AMZON: $252 GOOGL: $343 * No debt only expense is food parents pay for everything else Question: Is my portfolio reasonable?