Roni Valentino

Warren Buffett's Stock Investment Rules 📉 When the stock falls: • Down 5% → No action • Down 15% → Increase position by 10% • Down 25% → Increase position by 25% 📈 When the stock rises: • Up 5% → Hold • Up 15% → Continue holding • Up 25% → Sell 10% • Up 35% → Sell 20% • Up 45% → Sell 30% • Up 60% → Sell 40% • Up 100% → Exit the position Investing takes more than a set of percentages. Know why you own a stock, how much risk you can take, and what would make you change your mind.

Whenever I feel demotivated i rewatch this... Elon Musk in a living room in 2008, 12 days from bankruptcy, pitching a $109,000 car to people

A few weeks before he died, Charlie Munger was asked about the richest man in the world. He said he didn’t really consider Elon Musk that rich. In the clip, the 99-year-old explains it simply: “I don’t regard Elon Musk as truly that rich because I don’t think it’s sure that everything he’s working on can work.” He thought a fortune that size almost always has a lot of luck in it. Musk picked the right things to double down on, then kept borrowing against them. “He’s used leverage so much that he’s doubled down right to the edge of extinction, maybe two or three times.” Munger’s own approach was straightforward: “I never bet against him and I never bet with him.” He said the rest of his life worked better treating Musk as if he didn’t exist. I still prefer that kind of discipline over trying to guess who wins the next big narrative.

Warren Buffett: Selling a stock just because it went down is stupid.

A lot of people treat Buffett like some kind of financial savant who can scan a balance sheet and instantly know what something’s worth. But the more I’ve looked into what he actually did during the 2008 crisis, the more it seems like his real edge wasn’t IQ. It was temperament. He’s said a hundred times that you don’t need a genius level brain to invest well. You just need the right disposition. That sounds like classic Buffett humblebragging until you sit with it. Everybody knows you’re supposed to read the filings. Everybody knows you should make your own call. Everybody knows you shouldn’t panic just because the market is melting down. The problem is there’s a massive gap between knowing that and actually doing it. Human nature wants to act. It wants to feel involved. It’s extremely hard to sit there while Lehman and AIG are calling, the market’s getting worse by the day, and everyone else is scrambling, and still just open the 10-K, go through it page by page, mark up the red flags, and then calmly say no. Most people in that environment get hit from both sides: their own emotions and the pressure coming from everyone around them. Even if you know the rational move is to stay disciplined, watching other people rush in while you do nothing creates a feeling of isolation that’s tough to handle. For regular people, staying clear headed in a real crisis usually means fighting your own instincts the whole time. What makes Buffett different is that for him, it probably doesn’t even feel like discipline. Turning down Lehman and AIG doesn’t register as missing out. The fact that everyone else is moving doesn’t create anxiety. He’s just the kind of person who wants to finish the document before he decides. That state matches his natural wiring. This gets at something most people overlook in investing: psychological cost. If the approach you’re using keeps fighting your actual personality, it doesn’t matter how logically sound it is. You won’t stick with it. You’ll be in constant internal friction, and eventually something will give. That’s why temperament is a real gift. If you’re trying to learn from Buffett, don’t just copy the visible moves, reading the filings, making the notes, saying no. Figure out your own baseline. If you’re naturally reactive and you try to force yourself to stay detached during a crisis the way he does, you’ll probably crack the first time things actually get ugly. If you’re naturally cautious but you start chasing whatever everyone else is buying just to keep up, the stress will keep you up at night. The people who last usually aren’t the ones who look the most like Buffett. They’re the ones who found a way of operating that doesn’t constantly fight who they are.

“If you're not willing to react with equanimity to a market price decline of 50%, you're not fit to be a common shareholder.” — Charlie Munger

Who won? Haha.

I'm only saying this once. Most traders will buy the wrong stocks this month chasing momentum. Here is my November focus: AVOID FOR NOW: ❌ $NVDA Great company, bad entry ❌ $PLTR High momentum, poor risk/reward ❌ $APP Pure hype priced in ❌ $CRM Asymmetric downside risk ❌ $MDB Demanding valuation LIMIT ORDERS SET: ✅ $GOOGL Buy zone: $270–$275 ✅ $JNJ Buy zone: $260–$266 ✅ $INTC Buy zone: $45–$50 ✅ $BABA Buy zone: $90–$97 DIP BUYING RADAR: 👀 $AMZN Scale into weakness 👀 $META Re-enter at structural support 👀 $AVGO Accumulate on macro fear 👀 $TSLA Only on aggressive washouts Real money isn't made chasing green candles. It's made acquiring quality during market noise. Save this list. (NFA) If you find this information helpful, please like, follow, and share Join the pinned group on my profile

Fun fact: as of today in 2026, Berkshire Hathaway’s portfolio turnover rate under Buffett is around 2%. That means 98% of its holdings have barely changed over the course of a year. Over the past 60 years, among his core holdings: Coca-Cola has been held from 1988 to the present. A full 38 years. American Express has been held from 1964 to the present. 62 years. Over the same period, the average annual turnover rate for mutual funds on Wall Street has been roughly between 70% and 100%. In other words, Wall Street fund managers basically turn over their entire portfolios every year. Buffett’s holdings, meanwhile, stay put for decades. The old man once said something that’s been quoted thousands of times. You guys can chew on this: "If you aren’t willing to hold a stock for 10 years, then you shouldn’t hold it for even 10 minutes." After this latest plunge in U.S. stocks in 2026, many people have suddenly realized that a 95-year-old man, using a strategy unchanged for 60 years, has outperformed every influencer fund manager who spent the whole year chasing trends, AI, and semiconductors. Doing nothing doesn’t mean doing nothing. Doing nothing means understanding one thing over 60 years.

Buffett’s 13 Key Criteria for Buying Stocks 1. A leader in a major industry. 2. A P/E ratio of 5 after deducting cash. 3. A dividend yield of 6%+. 4. A gross margin of 60%+. 5. A return on equity of 20%+. 6. A net profit margin of 15%+. 7. The business does not require reinvestment of capital. Asset-light operations. 8. Products that can withstand inflation, with the ability to raise prices independently. 9. Low debt, or low interest-bearing debt. The cash on the company’s books can keep it afloat even if it has no revenue for three years. 10. The brand is a national flagship brand, known to young and old alike. 11. Honest and trustworthy management, with no history of deceiving or taking advantage of small shareholders. 12.A simple core business, with resources focused on a single niche market. 13. Demand that never goes out of style, an oligopolistic supply side, ideally a business built on the mouth + addiction + high repeat purchase rates.

Mark Andreessen said this two years ago: In the S&P 500, 492 companies are basically bonds. Only eight are call options. A recent discussion on The Pomp Podcast dug into this idea, and the guest strongly agreed. With AI accelerating, he believes this split is only getting sharper. The eight “call options” are the Magnificent 7: Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta, and Tesla. These companies are being forced to spend enormous amounts of capital in the race for AI dominance. The upside could be huge, but the risk that the payoff never materializes is also high. Meanwhile, most other companies are starting to look like bonds. They’re still profitable, but they’ve lost their growth characteristics. European stocks have gone nowhere since 2007. Many emerging markets have delivered less than inflation over 20 years. Traditional names like Ford and GM still sell products, but their long-term returns are unlikely to beat the broader market. The bigger point is that moats are disappearing. AI-native companies can scale quickly, but even they eventually face competition. Large incumbents can spend aggressively, yet true durable monopolies are becoming rarer. When most businesses lose their ability to compound at high rates, the market increasingly separates into a small group of high-upside “options” and a large group of low-growth “bonds.” That’s one reason the guest remains bullish on Bitcoin. In a world where corporate moats keep thinning, hard assets with fixed supply become more valuable. Do you think most companies are really turning into bonds, or will AI eventually reopen growth opportunities across the broader market?

U.S. stocks have fallen so much. If you're looking to invest for the long term, these 6 ETFs are worth a look The Nasdaq has fallen for 4 consecutive weeks, and plenty of tech stocks have also pulled back significantly If you don't want to research individual stocks and pore over earnings reports every day, you might want to pay more attention to ETFs I've put together 6 fairly representative U.S. stock ETFs covering tech growth, broad-market indexes, dividends, and short-term U.S. Treasuries. Each has its own characteristics ① $VOO｜S&P 500 ETF Covers about 500 large U.S. listed companies, including tech giants like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft An annual expense ratio of just 0.03%, making it a good foundational choice for long-term U.S. stock allocations ② $QQQM｜Nasdaq 100 ETF More focused on tech and growth companies, with higher weightings in areas like AI, semiconductors, and software An annual expense ratio of 0.15%. It offers more growth potential, but its volatility will also be more pronounced when tech stocks pull back ③ $RSP｜Equal-Weight S&P 500 ETF This one is pretty interesting Although it also invests in S&P 500 constituents, it uses an equal-weight strategy, reducing the influence of a handful of tech giants on overall performance An annual expense ratio of 0.20%. If you're concerned that U.S. stocks are too dependent on a few tech giants, this one is worth a look ④ $SCHD｜High Dividend ETF Primarily invests in U.S. companies with strong financials and a sustained ability to pay dividends An annual expense ratio of 0.06%, making it a good fit for those interested in dividend income and value investing ⑤ $VIG｜Dividend Growth ETF Somewhat different from SCHD, it focuses more on high-quality companies that can keep raising their dividends An annual expense ratio of 0.04%, suitable for investors focused on long-term dividend growth ⑥ $SGOV｜Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF Primarily invests in U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 months or less An annual expense ratio of 0.09%. Its price fluctuations are relatively small, and its returns mainly come from interest on short-term U.S. Treasuries. If you don't want to take on too much stock market volatility for now, you could also consider using it to manage idle U.S. dollar funds These 6 ETFs each have their own characteristics. For long-term investing, you should still choose based on your risk tolerance and investment goals I've also put the relevant data into a comparison chart for easy reference later. If you’re interested, check out the link in my bio. Markets go up and down, so there's no need to rush to catch the bottom. Just go at your own pace. DYOR

I’m only saying this once. Most people will chase the bounce this morning. After last week’s AI sell-off and today’s NVDA headline: AVOID FOR NOW ❌ $NVDA – Great company, new headline risk on top of valuation concerns ❌ $PLTR – Still high momentum, poor risk/reward ❌ $APP – Hype not fully washed out WATCHING ✅ $GOOGL – Still looking for $270–275 ✅ $AMZN – Only on further weakness ✅ $META – Structural support only Futures are green, but I’m not rushing. Cash remains a position until the risk/reward improves. Are you adding on the open, or still waiting? (Free daily levels in my WhatsApp group. Link in bio.)

Let's be real. Today's $NVDA news isn't about a scandal. It is about the valuation premium finally cracking. Key person risk is massive here. We are mapping out the exact repricing levels in my WS group. Link in bio.

A $5 trillion company with no clear Plan B. That’s the real conversation around $NVDA right now. Jensen Huang isn’t just the CEO. For years, the market has treated him as the product. The vision, the execution, the relationships, the ability to keep the entire AI supply chain moving at full speed. A large part of the premium in the stock is a personality premium. Now the board has opened an investigation tied to his personal life and reported foreign intelligence concerns. Huang has already acknowledged the affair. This raises a simple question most people have avoided: What happens to the valuation if the key person risk is no longer theoretical? • How much of the current multiple is actually priced for “Jensen stays and keeps delivering”? • Does the board have a credible succession plan that the market has ever been shown? • If leadership uncertainty lasts more than a few weeks, does the stock deserve a lower multiple even if the business remains strong? Great companies can survive founder risk. The market just usually demands a discount until the succession is proven. I’m not saying the business is broken. I’m saying a $5T company that has been treated as inseparable from one person should have that risk re-examined when headlines hit the founder directly. How are you thinking about key person risk in $NVDA after today’s news? Is it already in the price, or still under-appreciated? (Daily risk notes and positioning in my free WhatsApp group. Link in bio.)

Top of the Democratic agenda on day 1 needs to be a pause on advanced AI development, regulation of this out of control industry, and a ban on artificial superintelligence.