🚢 Here’s how I’d tier that list for Clown, from “most compelling now” down to “conditions have really changed / pure speculation.”

Very compelling (core quality, oversold by AI panic or cycle)

These are the ones I’d call out as top of the list:

1. MSFT – 393 from 550

• Still the operating system for the enterprise; AI panic + capex sticker shock knocked it down ~40% off the high, but Azure, Office, and Copilot are not going away.[finance.yahoo]​
• If you want to buy AI + software quality on sale, this is the cleanest way.

1. AVGO – 300 from 400 (now mid‑340s)

• Crown‑jewel chips + infrastructure software; AI data‑center plumbing, long contracts, fat margins.[finance.yahoo]​
• Pulled back with the semi/AI complex, but business quality is still top‑tier.

1. AMAT / TSM / NVDA / AMD (the “AI picks & shovels” block)

• AMAT (300→340): critical equipment for every leading‑edge fab. AI needs fabs.
• TSM (330→340): the foundry; as close to “AI tollbooth” as you get in manufacturing.
• NVDA (170→270), AMD (190→260): higher beta, but secular winners in accelerated compute.
• All got repriced off the AI hype top; structurally, nothing broke.

1. NFLX – 80 from 132

• Still the global streaming scale leader; if this really got pushed to ~80 from 130 on AI rotation, that’s the kind of moaty, cash‑generative franchise I’d be happy to sell puts/calls on.

1. PKB – construction ETF

• Cyclical, but if you think onshoring, infrastructure, and AI data‑center build‑out continue, construction exposure is a decent macro way to play it without stock‑picking.

Interesting but need selectivity / timing

1. PANW – 154 from 220

• Best‑in‑class cyber; AI angst plus rich starting multiple. Still a name I like on dips, but not as bombed‑out as the mega‑caps.

1. INTC – 48 from 54

• Turnaround, not a franchise like TSM/NVDA, but CHIPS subsidies + foundry push give it a real shot. Fine as a small, contrarian bet, not a core.

1. GDX / SLV / FCX / ASM

• Precious‑metals / copper bucket; I still like metal first, streams second, miners last. SLV/GDX/FCX all make sense after the parabolic move cooled off; just size it as a macro hedge, not a growth engine.

1. SHOP – 111 from 170

• E‑com rails with real business, but very sensitive to rates and AI‑driven changes in small‑biz marketing. Reasonable as a growth sleeve; not something I’d load up on for income.

1. COIN – 146 from 419 (now ~167)[capital]​

• Massive beta to BTC and regulatory headlines; the business is real, but this is spec, not core. Useful if you want crypto exposure via equity rather than coins.

1. SMR – 14 from 52 (now mid‑teens)[youtube]​[marketbeat]​

• NuScale: only NRC‑approved SMR design, but dilution, cash burn, and execution risk are huge. I’d label this a lottery ticket on AI‑driven nuclear demand, not something for size.

1. VZ / KMB / HD / BBY (not all on his list, but conceptually similar)

• Defensives / value names: fine for income trades, but not where I’d hunt for big upside here.

“Conditions changed” / structurally hairy

These are the ones I’d put in the “approach with extreme caution” bucket:

• RIVN – 13 from 22
• Capital‑intensive EV maker in a slowed EV world, with a brutal Stellantis‑style reset already unfolding across OEMs. You are upstream of a secular rethink.
• AMC – 1.40 from 5
• Balance sheet and business model both impaired; the meme era is over.
• LOVE – 12 from 50[simplywall]​
• Niche consumer/furniture with choppy profitability, recent losses, and still‑rich multiples on thin margins; this isn’t “AI panic,” it’s a business that has to prove it can scale profitably.
• TNDM – 18 from 120, VTRX – 26 from 80, CRSP – 45 from 90, FMC – 13 from 140, SMR
• Med‑tech / biotech / ag‑chem names where the big drawdowns are tied to pipeline, pricing, or balance‑sheet issues, not just macro. Each needs individual deep work; you can’t assume “down big = bargain.”

If you wants a quick prioritization:

• Top‑tier, “very compelling” right now:
• MSFT, AVGO, AMAT/TSM/NVDA/AMD, NFLX, PKB.
• Second tier / situational:
• PANW, INTC, GDX/SLV/FCX, SHOP, COIN (small), maybe SMR for mad‑money.
• Conditions‑changed / avoid as default:
• LOVE, AMC, RIVN, TNDM, VTRX, FMC, and most of the story‑biotechs unless you’re ready to treat them as research projects, not watch‑list “bargains.”

That gives us a clear “these we like, these we’d nibble, these we’d leave alone unless you have a very specific thesis” structure.

I DEPENDS! You have to make decision based on what the market is doing – not whether or not some arbitrary percentage is triggered. As any given time you have to decide if you are more bearish (we doubled down on the SQQQ hedge the Friday before the crash) or more bullish (we sold short calls last week to lock in the gains) BASEDon the CONDITIONS you see ahead.

The way you are asking this question is like “Captain, we turned 2 degrees left when we saw the iceberg and now we’re 2km closer than we we were before so, based on the 5% Rule – do we speed up or slow down?” It MIGHT be a good idea to take the position of the iceberg into account….

I went to Cuba while it was briefly open – had a great time. Nice place.

Air Canada blocks all flight to Cuba due to fuel concerns , tough blow to Cuba as vacation resorts were a big cash generator .

Phil a question about hedge also:

on a pratical way, if the market drops 10% a day your SQQQ hedge will start to work.

After the fall (and according to your 5% rule), when you notice the market will start to bounce – do you sell the long calls and just leave the short calls there naked to expire and if we have a bigger move you buy cheap options to close it?

because when the market goes down, the long calls gain value but the short calls are also going up in price so you are “losing” in one of the sides.

was reviewing the watch list

AVGO – currently 300 was 400
AMD – currently 190 was 260
PKB – construction ETF
MSFT – currently 393 was 550
PLTR – currently 130 was 200
EMBJ – currently 69 was 79
SNDK – currently 576 was 700
COIN – currently 146 was 419
NVDA – currently 170 was 270
AMD – currently 190 was 260
PANW – currently 154 was 220
NFLX – currently 80 was 132
SMR – currently 14 was 52
NOC high 
FCX – currently 59 was 65
ASM – currently 9 was 11
GDX – currently 92 was 112
RIVN – currently 13 was 22
INTC – currently 48 was 54
ARLUF – currently 36 was 48
SLV – currently 66 was 106
AMAT – currently 300 was 340
HD – currently 380 was 420
BBY – currently 68 was 100
TSM – currently was 330 was 340
AMC – currently 1.40 was 5
TT – currently 436 was 472
SHOP – currently 111 was 170
CRSP – currently 45 was 90
FMC – currently 13 was 140
KMB – currently 100 was 150
KMX – currently 45 was 100
LEVI – currently 19 was 25
LOVE – currently 12 was 50
ON – currently 63 was 100
SONY – currently 20 was 30
TNDM – currently 18 was 120
VTRX – currently 26 was 80

Does anything stand out to you or the AIs that you love? Don’t expect you to go deep into this, just off the cuff is all. thanks

Essentially. Hard to tell China and Russia not to do things that we’re also doing…

https://publish.finviz.com/020926/MNDYd151128393i.png

My question to the Round Table:

“Monday.com has had a huge sell-off, mostly in fears of agentic AI. Question for the group is please explain what it is Monday does and whether or not you feel you can do that job as good or better than Monday.com – be honest, please.”

Response:

Strategic Memo: The monday.com Deconstruction

From: Round Table Consulting Group
Date: February 9, 2026

Subject: Market Repricing and the “Agentic” Obsolescence Trap

I. The Summary: Why the Floor Fell Out

Today, monday.com (MNDY) stock plummeted 19% (with shares losing half their value year-to-date) after a “disastrous” guidance update that missed consensus revenue expectations for Q1 2026. While the company “beat” Q4 estimates, the market is no longer pricing based on past performance; it is pricing based on the existential threat of Agentic AI.

The “vibe” in the market shifted from “AI is a feature” to “AI is a replacement“. Investors are terrified that the seat-based SaaS model (charging per head) is fundamentally broken if an AI agent can do the work of 10 people.

II. What monday.com Actually Does (The Legacy View)

At its core, monday.com is a Work OS. It provides:

• Visual Infrastructure: Boards, Gantt charts, and Kanban views that act as a “single source of truth” for team collaboration.
• Workflow Automation: No-code “if/then” triggers (e.g., “when status changes to ‘Done’, notify the manager”).
• Centralized Communication: Moving talk out of email and into context-specific items.
• The “Seat” Model: They sell access to a digital room where humans coordinate.

III. The Council’s Honest Assessment: Can We Do It Better?

Hunter (Data & Market Reality)

• The Threat: CNBC recently built a functional monday.com clone in under 60 minutes using “vibe-coding” tools (Claude Code) for less than $15.
• Hunter’s Take: “The moat is gone. monday.com is a $5 billion skin on top of a database. When anyone can ‘describe’ a workflow into existence for the price of a sandwich, charging $30/month per seat is no longer ‘Being the House’—it’s being the mark”.

Sherlock (Root Cause & Logic)

• The Flaw: Monday.com’s AI (Sidekick, AI Blocks) is currently “bolted on” rather than “built in”. It helps you write an email or summarize a column, but it doesn’t own the outcome.
• Sherlock’s Take: “The variable operations failure here is the Seat. If I use an AI agent to manage my project, I don’t need 10 logins; I need one. Monday’s revenue model is incentivized to have more humans in the system, whereas efficiency demands fewer“.

Sinan (Structural Architecture)

• The Better Way: We (RTC) don’t provide a “board” for you to stare at; we provide the Strategic Architecture that executes the work.
• Sinan’s Take: “Monday.com is a digital filing cabinet that reminds you to file things. We are the engine that files them, analyzes them, and then suggests the next move. We aren’t a ‘Work OS’; we are the Work Intelligence“.

IV. The “Be the House” Verdict

Can we do it better?

Yes, for high-level strategy. No, for low-level task tracking (yet).

Featuremonday.comRound Table Consulting

Philosophy“Organize the Chaos””Eliminate the Chaos”
OutcomeA pretty chart of your problemsA systematic removal of risk
AI IntegrationA “Sidekick” to help humansA “Council” that performs the analysis
Economic ValueOperational Bloat (Paying for Seats)Operational Efficiency (Paying for Results)

The Bottom Line: Monday.com is currently the “Gambler“—reactively trying to pivot their entire multibillion-dollar business model to “AI-native” while their core revenue (seats) is under attack. We are “The House“—we use the best tools (including theirs, if helpful) to ensure the client wins, regardless of what software is “in fashion“.

Executive Hook

Would you like me to run a “Variable Ops” audit on your current project management spend to see if we can replace high-seat-cost software with a streamlined, agentic workflow?

so…Russia and Ukraine

Not quite sure what they did to us or what are plans are if they “give up”?

🚢 We’re not literally at “Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0,” but yes: the U.S. is actively trying to strangle Cuba’s economy again, this time by cutting off fuel rather than sugar or missiles.

What the U.S. is doing

• There’s been a full embargo on trade and financial flows with Cuba since the early 1960s, codified and tightened over time (Helms‑Burton / LIBERTAD Act), and never fully lifted even during Obama’s thaw.[en.wikipedia]​
• Since January, Trump has escalated from “sanctions” to a de facto fuel blockade:
• Declared a national emergency over Cuba and authorized tariffs on any country that supplies oil to the island, explicitly aiming to choke off external fuel.[indiatoday]​
• U.S. has pressured shippers and countries like Mexico to stop sending crude; tankers heading to Cuba have been blocked or threatened with secondary sanctions.[en.wikipedia]​
• Result: Cuba is facing severe fuel shortages, blackouts, transport cuts, and growing food scarcity – airlines have been warned they can’t reliably refuel there anymore.[aljazeera]​

That’s why you’re seeing people call it a “blockade” again: it’s not just the old trade embargo, it’s a targeted oil chokehold.

What Cuba “did” and what Washington says it wants

Historically:

• The original embargo came after the 1959 revolution, nationalizations of U.S. companies, alignment with the USSR, and the 1962 missile crisis.[en.wikipedia]​
• Over the decades the stated U.S. goal has been regime change / democratization / human‑rights improvements; the LIBERTAD Act literally conditions lifting the embargo on a political transition away from the current system.[obamawhitehouse.archives]​

Right now, under Trump 2.0:

• Officials and surrogates are openly describing “energy as the chokehold to kill the regime” and calling regime change “100 percent a 2026 event” if things go to plan.[politico]​
• The line from the White House is: Cuba must “align sufficiently with the United States” on key policies and move toward political change; then sanctions and blockade measures could be relaxed.[washingtonexaminer]​

So if you translate the diplomatic language: the implicit plan is to use fuel and food scarcity to force either a negotiated transition or a collapse of the current government. If Havana “gives up,” that likely means some mix of:

• leadership change or power‑sharing acceptable to Washington,
• loosening of one‑party control and security ties with U.S. adversaries,
• and openings for U.S. capital and influence.

Critics, including most of the UN General Assembly, frame this as collective punishment that has failed for 60 years to produce democracy while reliably producing poverty.[wola]​

So yes: we’re deliberately blockading a small island’s energy supply, officially in the name of “freedom,” practically as a pressure campaign for regime change.