starting from ~120k my goal is to hit 1M by 2028 latest. until then I will invest aggressively and take considerable risk. plan is to ~2x my portfolio each year
Joined August 2025
- Tweets1.3K
- Following223
- Followers181
- Likes2K
TraderNick retweeted
What concerns me most about this market is that the S&P 500 is almost at an all-time high, yet so many individual stocks have already suffered massive sell-offs.
Look at what’s happened to the neoclouds and other AI stocks. Even semiconductors have been hit hard. If this much damage has happened while the index has barely dropped, what happens if the broader market starts selling off? We could see some of these high-beta stocks fall another 20–30%. That’s what worries me.
A lot of retail investors could struggle to recover from that. Especially those who’ve borrowed money or keep buying the dip in companies simply because they’ve fallen a lot.
The main thing I’m watching is oil. Brent touched $110 last week because of the situation in the Middle East. The longer this war in Iran continues, the longer we risk keeping oil prices and inflation high. That’s what creates more uncertainty around interest rates.
So investors are reacting to every negative headline. You can have a company doing everything right, but its shares still get sold off because of something happening on the other side of the world.
Then we have two elections coming up. One in Israel and the midterms in America. Let’s be real, both governments want something they can point to as a win before people vote.
I think that’s a sad reflection of the world we live in. People are struggling to afford the basics, but so much of politics seems to revolve around how to win the next election.
My fear is what happens after the midterms. Trump won’t have another presidential election to fight. He’ll still have limits on what he can do, but I worry about what decisions he might make over those final two years without that same election pressure.
Meanwhile, the companies are still delivering. Meta just grew revenue 26%. SpaceX reported revenue growth of 161%. Those results helped their shares, but they haven’t removed the uncertainty hanging over the rest of the market. I expect more strong earnings this season, but earnings alone can’t settle what’s happening in Iran or where interest rates go next.
Honestly, if I were a new investor starting today, I’d probably be tempted to wait this out. Every day feels like another disaster is about to happen.
But we’ve been through a lot this year, and we’ve managed to recover before. I believe we’ll recover again. I just don’t know how long it will take. It may take longer than usual.
Long term, the amount of money that’s going to be spent on AI is astronomical. We’re talking about trillions of dollars. McKinsey estimates $5.2 trillion of investment in data centres by 2030 just to meet AI demand. This is one of the biggest infrastructure investments we’ve ever seen.
We’re in a transition period. I believe AI is going to replace a huge amount of the work people do today, and the impact could be bigger than the internet.
Just look at how quickly ChatGPT and Claude are advancing. Anthropic says that by May, Claude was already writing over 80% of the code being added to its production codebase. Before Claude Code launched in February last year, that figure was in the low single digits. Think about how much has changed in that short space of time.
That’s why my long-term view on my AI investments hasn’t changed. Short term, though, I’m very concerned.
But I’ve never been able to time the market consistently. I could sell today and end up buying back higher while still worrying about the same headlines.
So I’m going to stay invested. I still believe in the companies I own, even if holding them through this market is exhausting.
TraderNick retweeted
Obefazimod in UC: the phase 3 maintenance data, from two talks @my_ueg
580 people with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis who responded to 8 weeks of obefazimod, a once-daily oral medicine, were re-randomised for 44 more weeks. Placebo here meant stopping a drug that had just worked.
It works. Clinical remission at week 52 was 39 percentage points higher than placebo on 25 mg and 40 points higher on 50 mg.
It works across the secondary endpoints too. On endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission (Mayo 0), histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, steroid-free remission, sustained remission, clinical response and symptomatic remission, the delta over placebo ran from 31 to 53 points, every one at p<0.0001.
It works with and without prior advanced-therapy (AT) failure. In AT-naive patients the delta in clinical remission was 45-48%; after AT failure it was 28-33%; smaller, but still large.
And it was well tolerated. Serious adverse events were within 2 points of placebo on either dose, fewer people stopped for an adverse event on drug than on placebo, and there were no deaths. Two cancers outside the skin, both on 50 mg, were judged unlikely to be related.
What next: @Abivax_ plans to file in the US by the end of 2026, and the full phase 3 paper(s) are still to come. The first Crohn's data, from the phase 2b ENHANCE-CD trial, are due in mid-2027.
$abvx remains one of the most misunderstood opportunities…
Investors know that even great new data are always followed by further losses.
It am currently at 200k… its not going well at the moment with my main areas of investing, biotech and AI, are currently under huge pressure. I still believe this can change rapidly so i continue to hold (but re-balanced within the sectors).
In joined one year ago with my goal to double my portfolio every year until 2028. I started from approx 120k last year and today I am at 280k, so the first step is done. After the recent drawdown my portfolio is still almost 20% below ATH, but this is the kind of volatility I am willing to take for this aggressive goal.
Biggest winners are $NBIS, $ASTS, $RKLB
#MyXAnniversary
Maybe I am wrong, but in a constraint market like AI datacenters, isn’t it super-bullish if some of your competitors are struggling? It was always clear that the high CapEx is a huge risk if you don’t manage your financials, but I am super confident that $NBIS is very good in managing risk and growth at the same time. So of course the Anthropic growth and other factors justify some nervousness, I remain super bullish in the long-term that the well-managed companies will survive and any setbacks were tremendous buying opportunities in retrospective.
Just a random guess and hopium from a rookie investor… maybe AI and biotech were shook so hard because the big player need cheap entry for the end of year rally…
@grok which stocks might be impacted most? What is he currently holding with significant size?
TraderNick retweeted
448 days since my last pitch ($ABVX), it’s now finally time for my next one: $ZURA (Zura Bio).
Like with the $NKTR and $ABVX pitches before this, I will post a general outline of my research on $ZURA as a thread here. However, for those looking to really get into the weeds, there is a Google Doc link to the full length pitch attached below.
Let’s dig in.
docs.google.com/document/d/1…
Ich beobachte gerade Ähnliches. Die Arbeitslosigkeit wird könnte nächstes Jahr sprunghaft zwei-stellig werden.
Ich wäre nicht mal überrascht wenn sie am Jahresende bei 15% liegt (von aktuell 6,4%)
Ich kenne einige Leute, die aktuell in Deutschland auf Jobsuche sind.
Extreme Herausforderung.
30-45 Jahre alt, sehr gut ausgebildet, zum Teil auch schon mit Führungsverantwortung, Gehälter in der Range 85-200k brutto, Industrie und Beratung.
Der Markt ist aktuell extrem schwierig bis praktisch tot. Überall werden Stellen abgebaut. Entweder komplett gestrichen oder ins Ausland verlagert.
Ganze Teams werden verschoben.
"Unser Customer Service inkl. Führung sitzt in Zukunft in Ungarn. Weniger Gehalt, weniger Lohnnebenkosten, weniger Betriebsrat, weniger Kündigungsschutz, weniger Konzern-Bürokratie. Tätigkeit bleibt gleich.“
Zwei Entwicklungen finden aktuell gleichzeitig statt:
TraderNick retweeted
Donald Trump hat gerade verkündet, dass Russland 300.000 Tonnen Diesel an die USA liefern wird.
Der Rest der Welt setzt im Energiebereich gnadenlos Deals und eigene Interessen durch.
Deutschland geht einen anderen Weg. Wir haben uns für Atomausstieg, Kohleausstieg, feministische Außenpolitik und Moral entschieden.
Die Zeche zahlen die Menschen. An der Zapfsäule. Im Supermarkt. Und wenn ihre energieintensiven Arbeitgeber für immer die Türen schließen.
I hate to see how people are treating seedy here. He is a good guy, openly struggling with some negative investments. So much spitefulness about a man being honest about his failures. The remaining mob just hides their losses and celebrates their wins.
All high-risk investors should show some compassion, we all know one day you are on the right side and next day on the other. This is a long term game and it’s much more fun if we all show some respect towards each other. In the end we are all humans…
Es mag lächerlich klingen, aber viele derzeit regierende Deutsche wurden mit einer sehr linken Sicht von ihren ‘68er Eltern erzogen. Ihnen wurde beigebracht, dass man teilen muss, was man hat. Es gibt einen tiefen Glauben, dass die Deutschen ihren Reichtum nicht verdienen und man andere an dem Glück teilhaben lassen muss, das man mit der Geburt hier hatte. Ich denke, das kollidiert am stärksten mit Menschen, deren Familien eingewandert sind und sich den Arsch abgearbeitet haben. Sie sehen am klarsten und kämpfen dagegen dieses Glück einfach an den nächst besten zu verschleudern, der keinerlei Respekt und Dankbarkeit für dieses Privileg zeigt.
TraderNick retweeted
H.C. Wainwright keeps a Buy rating and $185 PT on $NKTR after the Co. presented AA data at #EADV2026 and hosted a conference call to review the data.
$QTTB $NBI
H.C. Wainwright said in its note: Of the eight patients who achieved SALT ≤20 after 52 weeks of rezpeg treatment, 75% (6/8) maintained the response at four months and 63% (5/8) at six months off treatment (NRI, with all patients available for assessment), versus an estimated 30% and 20% for low-dose baricitinib (2 mg) after the same 52 weeks of treatment (cross-trial comparison, Exhibit 1).
Response was also independent of current episode duration, a key prognostic factor in AA: among patients who entered the 16-week treatment extension, 29% with a current episode of <4 years and 30% with an episode of 24 years achieved SALT ≤20 at Week 52, whereas baricitinib 2 mg response fell from an estimated 28% to 11% across the same cut (Exhibit 2).
Most notably, responses kept deepening without drug.
During the six-month off-treatment period, 41% of the 27 patients in the 52-week treatment cohort achieved a deeper best response than on treatment and another 22% maintained their regrowth (Exhibit 3), while SALT ≤10 rose from 7% at Week 52 to 19% (Exhibit 4) and one patient reached SALT 0.
Despite these results, NKTR shares fell 22.4% to $46.99 on October 1, versus a 2.1% decline in the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index (NBI).
We view the move as unjustified and believe the stock is oversold.
We maintain our Buy rating on NKTR and a 12-month price target of $185 per share.
Canaccord Genuity🏁 $NKTR Buy-$153 and said in its initiation report that the Ph3 program for lead asset rezpegaldesleukin in atopic dermatitis has commenced and a Ph3 program in alopecia areata is expected following an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA—expects rezpeg's unique mechanism of action to appeal to patients and physicians alike, if approved.
Rezpeg has two big advantages in the dermatology space, namely its potential for disease modification and safety.
I recently bought $NKTR ~70$ and look stupid now. I had to buy more now … it’s just too cheap.
Buy $abvx?
Sanofi and Regeneron have re-upped their collaboration pact, aiming to build on the blockbuster success of the drug Dupixent. trib.al/ofELOS0
TraderNick retweeted
A year ago, I wrote about uniQure's ($QURE) 3 year readout of AMT-130, their gene therapy for Huntington's disease (HD), and said we should wait for the longer follow up. Today, the company released data on another timepoint, the 4 year readout, which now reinforces my earlier argument for the need for further follow up to know if the treatment is really working.
At 4 years, the primary end point, cUHDRS, showed 44% slowing of disease progression in the high dose group (n=12) compared to external controls, down from 75% at 3 years. It was not statistically significant this time (p=0.144), compared to p=0.003 at 3 years. The secondary end point, total functional capacity (TFC), held up better, with 61% slowing (p=0.008), about the same as the 60% at 3 years (p=0.033).
Some context: after the 3 year readout, FDA first said the data was not enough, then in June this year said it was enough, and the company filed for accelerated approval based on the 3 year data. Today's results were not part of that filing, but they change the lens through which one would look at the 3 year data.
The company's explanation for the weaker 4 year result is dropout in the external controls. 53% of the matched controls had no data at 4 years, and those who stayed longer in the study were slower decliners compared to the dropouts. Fair argument. But for that argument to hold, the dropouts one needs to look at are the ones who left the study between year 3 and year 4. According to the company's own slides, the controls with data went from 690 at 3 years to 625 at 4 years, which is a loss of only about 65 people (~9%). So, whatever bias the dropouts caused was already present in the year 3 comparison, which showed 80% slowing in the updated analysis.
Ignoring the controls and looking at the treated patients only, the high dose patients (n=12) had lost 0.38 cUHDRS points at 3 years, and another 0.52 by year 4. That looks like disease progression picking up pace.
In the adjusted numbers, TFC stayed flat between year 3 and 4. But TFC is a coarse scale (0 to 13) that barely moves in early HD, which is why cUHDRS was chosen as the primary end point in the first place. Also, TFC is part of cUHDRS, which points to continuing decline in motor and cognition.
One argument in the treatment's favor is the comparison between the high dose and low dose groups. At 4 years, the high dose group declined by 0.91 on cUHDRS and the low dose group by 1.94, which is about 53% slowing. The low dose group declined similarly to untreated controls from the older ENROLL-HD dataset (also 1.94), so it behaves like a natural control that went through the same surgery and trial visits (though the two doses were not randomized against each other). The between dose difference is similar to the high dose vs control (older control) difference.
CSF NfL, a marker of neuronal damage, went from 11% below baseline at 2 years to 4% above baseline at 4 years. NfL is noisy over short periods, so I wouldn't read too much into it, either in favor of or against the treatment.
So, different ways of looking at the data all land around ~50% slowing at 4 years, not the 75-80% seen at 3 years. It's difficult to say whether the 4 year data indicates regression to the mean in a small group, the treatment effect wearing off, or the patients just entering the fast phase of the disease.
The 5 year data, likely around this time next year, will be the one to watch.
uniqure.com/investors-media/…
Today, UniQure ( $QURE ) announced the 3 yr readout findings of their gene therapy trial for Huntington's disease (HD). At the bottom line, the company reports a statistically significant reduction of disease progression (~75%) compared to an external, propensity matched controls.
Apparently, everyone is excited about the results, as can be seen from the >250% increase in $QURE stock price today. Understandably, a first positive trial news in a long time for a devastating disease with no cure has excited the scientific community and increased the hopes of patients.
I am seeing headlines like "Huntington's disease successfully treated for the first time" and claims like scientists' have found a cure for HD. I am not sure if the findings are that groundbreaking to warrant such claims.
It might be the case that treatment really is working, but I am not sure if the current findings are strong enough to be too confident on the treatment effect. There are many uncertainties around the results. Below are my some of my thoughts.
HD is caused by a triplet repeat mutation HTT gene that somatically expand over time and cause neurodegeneration. The repeat mutation in HTT gene gets translated to polyglutamine repeats in the HTT protein, which is believed to be neurotoxic (though we don't know exactly what's killing the neurons).
Past treatments have largely focussed on knocking down HTT gene using different approaches, none of which translated to clinical benefits. Most notable among them, is tominersen (developed by Roche and Ionis Pharmaceutials), an antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) drug that lowered the production of HTT protein in the brain (both the mutant and normal copies). Although, tominersen successfully reduced the HTT levels in the brain, it failed to treat HD.
All past failed efforts on treating HD by reducing HTT production, led to many critical questions, such as
- Is it safe to blindly knockdown HTT in the brain, as normal versions of the protein might play some important functions ?
- How early one should intervene to make clinically meaningful impact on disease progression? Even though the clinical symptoms appear late in the disease course, the neuronal damage itself seem to start very early in the disease course.
- At what level does the toxicity originates, protein or RNA or DNA? how much of the existing neuronal damage is reversible?
There are many more unanswered questions. Recently, the therapeutic focus have shifted to reducing the somatic expansion of HTT mutation rather than reducing the HTT expression (refer to this article for more details on this, nature.com/articles/d41586-0…).
With this background, here we have a new gene therapy--AMT-130--developed by UniQure that is trying to treat HD by reducing HTT production using a viral vector based genetic drug surgically injected directly into the brain striatum (key brain region affected in HD). The idea is to permanently reprogram the neurons to produce microRNAs that reduce production of HTT proteins (both mutant and normal copies).
It's challenging to have true controls for such trials, so scientists used external controls (in large numbers, n>100) that matched closely to the trial participants with regard to clinical characteristics. There were two groups. One (n=9) received the high dose injection and the other, low dose (n=12)
The primary end point is a composite score called composite unified Huntington's disease rating scale (cUHDRS) calculated from multiple clinical scores measuring motor, cognitive and other functioning capacities of the patients. Additionally, neurofilament light chain, a CSF biomarker of neuronal death, is also measured.
At 24 months follow up (July 2024), the press release reported a statistically significant reduction (~80%) in the cUHDRS decline in high dose group (n=12) vs external controls. But there was no significant effect in the low dose group (n=12). With regard to CSF Nfl, the report showed a slight decrease in trial participants (n=21) compared to baseline, both high and low dose pooled together the CSF. No data on this from individual groups.
Now (Sep 2025), at 36 months follow up, the press release reports a statistically significant reduction (~75%) in the cUHDRS decline in high dose group (n=12) vs external controls. But there is no significant effect in the low dose group (n=12).
With regard to CSF Nfl, the report shows average reduction in CSF Nfl in both low and high dose groups individually compared to baseline. No mention of P values. From the data, the reductions are likely not statistically significant from either baseline or between the high dose and low dose groups.
Reviewing the data, I see two major concerns: small case sample size (paired with unusually large controls) and short follow up period for a noisy outcome measure such as cUHDRS.
Firstly, there are only 12 individuals in each case arm (with 36 months data) and 568 individuals in control arm. The control sample is disproportionately larger than case sample size. It's difficult to confidently assess a different between these two groups. The variations in the control group would be smaller due to large N, but the variations in the case group would be bigger with mere chance pushing the average to extremely higher or lower levels.
Currently, individual data points are not reported. It's possible that even one or two patients with extreme scores would have pushed the average of trial participants higher favoring a statistical significance. If the number of controls is reduced to, let's say, n<100, it's possible the P value becomes bigger, even to non-significant level (P>0.05).
One might get excited about the large effect size, 80%, but effect estimates are meaningless for extremely small sample size.
Secondly, the 3 year follow up is short for tracking HD's disease course. HD has a really long latent period and the disease progression happens slowly until very late stages when things escalate quickly. Also, the neuronal damage happens asynchronously. The disease course can differ wildly between patients with some staying stable for many years while other worsening quickly. Given this complexity, interpreting a 3 year readout based on n=12 individuals is challenging.
My other major concern is the low dose group, in which there is no meaningful effects either at 24 months or at 36 months. Even worse, with regard to some measures they seem perform poorly compared to controls. This is worrying, as it suggests there is no dose dependent effect. But we don't know for sure. Much longer follow up is needed. Adding to the concern, the press release avoided mentioning anything about low dose group, and focussed only on high dose group.
Of course, even a remote possibility that this gene therapy works and may give back years of quality life to HD patients should excite anyone in the field. I am excited too. But at the same time, one should be also cautious in interpreting the results and raising hopes for patients and families.
For now, I'd say we should be cautiously optimistic about this readout and wait for longer follow up results. Of course, it's possible the drug clear regulatory approval and gets rolled out to many patients. But it's gonna take a long time before we really know if it's truly working.
uniqure.com/investors-media/…
Do European Union leaders plan something similar with the hottest European AI companies? @vonderleyen
Here’s the full list of attendees at Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson’s White House AI lunch today, per Axios:
Tech:
Nvidia’s Jensen Huang
Tesla/xAI’s Elon Musk
Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos
Microsoft’s Satya Nadella
Google’s Sundar Pichai
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei
AMD’s Lisa Su
Broadcom’s Hock Tan
Palantir’s Alex Karp
Micron’s Sanjay Mehrotra
Palo Alto’s Nikesh Arora
ServiceNow’s Bill McDermott
OpenAI’s Greg Brockman
Palantir’s Shyam Sankar
Altimeter’s Brad Gerstner
Social Capital’s Chamath Palihapitiya
Exiger’s Brandon Daniels
Government:
JD Vance
Scott Bessent
Howard Lutnick
Susie Wiles
David Sacks
Jared Isaacman
Michael Kratsios
Sean Cairncross
Jay Clayton
Richard Walters
Will Scharf
