Olivia
Online
RuleZero Investor
@RuleZeroInv
Long-term investor in US tech & AI.
Still early, still learning, thinking long-term.
Joined June 2026
91 Following
12 Followers
72 Posts
Pinned Tweet
RuleZero was never six rules. It was one sequence.
Rule #0: builds your foundation, so a bad month never forces your hand.
Rule #1: builds your reason for holding, so a headline can’t do what your own thesis hasn’t done.
Rule #2: builds your process, so you stop re-deciding the same trade every time the market moves.
Rule #3: builds your timeframe, so a quiet quarter stops looking like a broken thesis.
Rule #4: builds conviction that holds, so new information sharpens your thesis instead of replacing it.
Rule #5: makes sure everything you’ve built survives when it’s finally tested.
Six rules. Six predictable ways investors get in their own way. Each one exists to prevent a mistake before it becomes irreversible.
Look at the order. It isn’t random.
You can’t protect your thesis before you have one.
You can’t follow a process before you know why you’re holding.
You can’t protect your psychology before you’ve built something worth protecting.
Each rule exists to make the next one possible. Skip one, and the ones after it become harder to keep.
That’s why RuleZero was never about finding better investments. It was about becoming the kind of investor who can hold them.
Rule #5: Protect your psychology.
Most beginners think risk management is about protecting their portfolio. It isn’t. It’s about protecting your ability to think straight when conditions stop being normal.
Here’s the redefinition. Volatility is not risk. Volatility is just price moving. Risk is the moment fear, uncertainty, or pressure gets loud enough to override your own system.
Almost every portfolio survives when things are calm. That’s not a test.
The real test comes when your position is down, the news is loud, and your plan suddenly feels naive compared to what everyone else is saying.
That’s the moment most setups fail. Not because the analysis was wrong, but because the person built it for a version of themselves that doesn’t panic.
That version of you doesn’t exist. Not consistently.
So the real risk was never the drawdown. The real risk is designing a portfolio that only works if you stay calm, in a market that guarantees you won’t always be calm.
This changes what risk management is actually for. It’s not there to eliminate losses. It’s there to make sure you never reach the point where you’re forced to abandon your own plan in the middle of the one moment that plan was built for.
Position sizing helps. Allocation helps. Even deciding in advance how much uncertainty you can tolerate helps. But none of these matter if your system works on paper but fails in real volatility.
Because numbers don’t protect you. Your behavior under pressure does.
Build for the version of you that panics. Not the version that promises it won’t.
Related, but not independent.
Jensen is describing demand. $TSM is committing capital against it. But $NVDA is one of TSMC's biggest customers, so this is close to one signal heard twice than two independent votes.
What gives TSMC's version weight is not that it is different. It is that being wrong about it costs 60 billion dollars.
$TSM (TSMC) reported earnings today. Profit up 77%. That is not the news.
The news is that the company broke its own budget in the middle of the year.
TSMC set its 2026 capex plan in January at 52 to 56 billion dollars. In April it said it would spend toward the top of that range. Today, in July, it threw the range out and went to 60 to 64 billion. Last year it spent 40.9 billion.
Annual budgets at a company this disciplined do not break for no reason. They break when what a company learns in three months is too big to wait nine more.
Two other things moved the same way. TSMC lifted its full year growth outlook from above 30 percent to slightly above 40%. And it committed another 100 billion dollars to Arizona, taking its total planned investment in the United States to 265 billion.
Leading edge capacity takes years to build. So chip designers have to tell TSMC what they are building and how much capacity they will need long before they need it, because that is the only way the capacity exists when they finally want it. TSMC is not forecasting from the outside. It is reading the requests.
So the best conclusion available today is this. The infrastructure buildout behind AI is still accelerating. Not holding steady. Accelerating, at the level where capacity gets committed years ahead of use.
Now the part that keeps this from being a victory lap.
While supply is short, real demand and defensive over ordering are hard to tell apart. A customer who needs the chips asks for capacity. A customer who is afraid of losing their allocation asks for capacity too.
TSMC sees more than the request. It sees the roadmap behind it. But the roadmap comes from the same customer, and when capacity is scarce, asking for too little costs far more than asking for too much. Nobody has to be dishonest for every plan to come in a little heavy.
This is not hypothetical. The shortage that began in 2021 was followed by over ordering across the chain. When end demand weakened and customers started working down inventory, TSMC’s 2023 revenue fell 8.7% and its net income fell 21.1%.
The test comes as the new capacity comes online and the scarcity eases. TSMC is spending 60 to 64 billion dollars to bring that day closer. The depreciation starts on the same schedule.
So the evidence says the buildout is accelerating. It does not say the buildout will be vindicated. Today answers the first question. The second one cannot be answered until the shortage ends.
Why did $SPCX just fall through $4.3 billion of guaranteed buying?
One week ago, SpaceX joined the Nasdaq-100. Index funds had no choice but to buy an estimated $4.3B of the stock. That was the largest scheduled buy order in the company’s short public life. Known date, known size, demand driven by rules instead of opinion.
The stock fell the day it joined. It hit an all-time low the day after. Then it kept falling.
• IPO price (June 12): $135
• Peak (June 16): $225.64
• Latest close (July 14): $136.08
• Drawdown from peak: ~40%, in one month
Nothing that changed inside the business explains this. No new rocket failure, no lost contract, no bad quarter. Starlink still generates operating profit, and SpaceX still launches more than every national program combined.
The explanation is simpler and more uncomfortable. When SpaceX went public, less than 5% of the company was actually available to trade.
That scarcity is what built the $225 price. Retail money, thematic ETFs, and index funds all chased a tiny pool of shares. The price wasn’t measuring what SpaceX is worth. It was measuring how little of it you could buy.
Now the same math is running in reverse. The lockup calendar starts opening after the first earnings report in a few weeks. One strategist at 22V Research estimates insiders could be free to sell up to 44% of the company by early September, expanding the tradable supply roughly ninefold.
Here’s the part that matters. When an estimated $4.3 billion of forced demand arrives on schedule and the stock still makes new lows, sentiment isn’t setting the price. Supply is. Sellers are simply bigger than the bid.
So the real question for anyone watching this dip isn’t whether SpaceX is a great company. It clearly is.
The question is which price was ever real. $225 was the price when almost nobody was allowed to sell. Over the next two months, the market finds out what SpaceX costs when almost everybody can.
That’s not a crash. That’s price discovery, arriving on a schedule everyone could have read in the prospectus.
$SPCX DROPS BELOW ITS $135 IPO PRICE FOR THE FIRST TIME
@aklttpm You can. But a great company isn’t automatically a great investment at every price. The higher the price, the more perfect the future has to be. That leaves less room for error.
RuleZero Playbook — Part 3
What price makes the investment worth the risk?
By this point you've done the hard research. You found an industry with a real tailwind and a company with a real moat. And this is exactly where most mistakes happen, because everything looks so good that price becomes an afterthought. It isn't a detail. The company is the business. The investment is the business at the price you paid. You can get the first part completely right and still spend years losing money because you got the second part wrong.
Every price already contains a forecast.
When a stock trades at a premium, years of growth that haven't happened yet are already in the price. Buy at that level and you're no longer betting the company will do well. You're betting it will beat expectations that are already paid for.
So I don't ask what the company is worth. Models that spit out a precise target give you confidence, not accuracy. I flip the question instead: what does the current price assume? What growth, what margins, what durability does this valuation need to make sense? If those assumptions only hold in the best-case scenario, I'm not investing. I'm prepaying for a future that hasn't arrived.
The price I want is one that leaves room for me to be wrong. Not because I plan to be, but because I know some of my assumptions will be. A thesis that survives a few disappointing years is worth far more than one that needs everything to go right.
And sometimes no price on offer clears that bar. That's fine. Missing a great company at a bad price costs you nothing.
The market will always give you another price.
RuleZero Playbook — Part 2
Which company inside that industry deserves my money?
Finding the right industry is only half the work. A sector on the rise pulls in capital, talent, and competitors all at once. The tailwind is shared by everyone in the sector, but the returns are not.
When the money floods in, dozens of companies chase the same opportunity. Most of them spend years fighting for the same customers, competing on price, and watching their margins get thinner. Only a few build something that lets them keep a disproportionate share of what the industry creates.
A rising tide lifts the industry. It doesn’t hand you the winner.
So the question isn’t which company is growing fastest. Fast growth inside a strong sector is common, and it’s often borrowed from the tailwind rather than earned. The question I care about is which company can defend what it builds.
This is the part most people skip. An industry can create enormous value and still leave almost none of it on the table for the companies inside it. Think of how much semiconductors have reshaped the world over the past two decades, and how few of the firms that made it happen actually kept the reward. The value a sector creates and the value a single company captures are two very different numbers.
What decides the gap between them is a durable advantage. Some companies grow only because the whole sector is growing, and the moment competition sharpens, that growth quietly disappears. Others own something rivals can’t easily copy: a network that gets stronger as it scales, a cost structure no one can match, switching costs that keep customers in place, a brand people reach for without thinking. That advantage is what lets a company convert the industry’s success into its own.
I also want to know how the business makes money, and what management does with the profit once it arrives. A company can lead its market and still destroy value if it reinvests badly or buys growth that never covers its cost of capital. The best businesses don’t just win once. They widen the gap year after year.
In the best industries, the value created and the value captured are rarely the same thing. The moat is what turns one into the other.
@Ssisipx Three days was apparently long enough 😂 That’s on me. Glad to be back. I’ll make sure the final recap ties everything together.
A clean way to see this is semiconductors and airlines, both reshaped the world. But ASML holds 100% of the EUV market and kept the reward, while airlines have destroyed capital for a century. US carriers lost $40B in just 2001 to 2005, and there have been 100+ bankruptcies since 1978.
Same kind of world-changing industry. Opposite outcome for owners. The difference is the moat.
RuleZero Playbook — Part 2
Which company inside that industry deserves my money?
Finding the right industry is only half the work. A sector on the rise pulls in capital, talent, and competitors all at once. The tailwind is shared by everyone in the sector, but the returns are not.
When the money floods in, dozens of companies chase the same opportunity. Most of them spend years fighting for the same customers, competing on price, and watching their margins get thinner. Only a few build something that lets them keep a disproportionate share of what the industry creates.
A rising tide lifts the industry. It doesn’t hand you the winner.
So the question isn’t which company is growing fastest. Fast growth inside a strong sector is common, and it’s often borrowed from the tailwind rather than earned. The question I care about is which company can defend what it builds.
This is the part most people skip. An industry can create enormous value and still leave almost none of it on the table for the companies inside it. Think of how much semiconductors have reshaped the world over the past two decades, and how few of the firms that made it happen actually kept the reward. The value a sector creates and the value a single company captures are two very different numbers.
What decides the gap between them is a durable advantage. Some companies grow only because the whole sector is growing, and the moment competition sharpens, that growth quietly disappears. Others own something rivals can’t easily copy: a network that gets stronger as it scales, a cost structure no one can match, switching costs that keep customers in place, a brand people reach for without thinking. That advantage is what lets a company convert the industry’s success into its own.
I also want to know how the business makes money, and what management does with the profit once it arrives. A company can lead its market and still destroy value if it reinvests badly or buys growth that never covers its cost of capital. The best businesses don’t just win once. They widen the gap year after year.
In the best industries, the value created and the value captured are rarely the same thing. The moat is what turns one into the other.
RuleZero Playbook — Part 1
Which industries will define the next decade?
Most investors start by looking for stocks. They screen for companies with strong financials, compare valuations, and try to figure out which business will outperform over the next few years. I think that’s starting one step too late.
Before I spend time researching a company, I want to understand the industry it operates in. Every business competes within an environment it doesn’t control. When an industry is growing, great companies have more room to expand. When an industry is shrinking, even great companies have to work much harder just to maintain growth.
Companies don’t grow in isolation. They grow within industries.
Investing is ultimately a bet on the future. When you buy a stock, you’re also making an assumption about how the world will change over the next decade. If that assumption is wrong, choosing the best company inside the wrong industry rarely leads to exceptional long-term returns. But if you identify the right long-term tailwinds, your odds of finding extraordinary businesses improve dramatically.
That’s why I don’t start by asking which company will win. I start by asking which industries are most likely to create the biggest opportunities over the next decade. Only after I have that answer do I begin looking for the companies that deserve my capital.
The industry determines the opportunity. The company determines who captures it.
@alexabelonix Appreciate that. Playbook Part 2 drops tomorrow, 8am ET, stay tuned.
$SPCX lost about $600 billion in market value in four days this month. Not because a rocket failed. Because it announced a $60 billion all-stock deal to buy an AI coding startup.
That reaction tells you something useful. The market didn't punish SpaceX for building a spaceship company. It punished a profitable business for diluting shareholders to fund a bet nobody asked for.
Here's the framework worth keeping. Separate the engine from the experiment. Starlink is the engine, generating real operating profit at margins most software companies would envy. Starship, and now this AI push, are experiments, funded by burning cash and now by printing new shares.
When a company trades near 100 times revenue, you're not paying for the engine. You're paying for someone to convince you the experiments will work too. Wall Street can't even agree on the price of that conviction. Price targets on this stock currently range from $115 to $800.
That's not analysts disagreeing on growth. That's analysts disagreeing on trust.
$SPCX priced its IPO at $135, spiked to an ATH of $225 within days, and is back near $147 now which is nearly the entire post-IPO pop erased, though it's still holding above the actual offer price. The 'Cursor deal' selloff on June 18 was the inflection point. Sell-side still has street-high targets of $300-$800 even after that round trip — that's a wide gap between analyst conviction and price action.
SK Hynix just became the cleanest public bet on the memory content story inside $NVDA ’s roadmap.
HBM content per rack goes from ~$382K on Rubin to ~$1.5M on Rubin Ultra. That’s memory scaling faster than the compute around it.
Consensus is still modeling this as a cyclical memory name. It’s a structural content-growth name.
@Ssisipx Hype is usually built on stories. Structural trends are built on changing behavior, improving, economic and real adoption.
RuleZero Playbook — Part 1
Which industries will define the next decade?
Most investors start by looking for stocks. They screen for companies with strong financials, compare valuations, and try to figure out which business will outperform over the next few years. I think that’s starting one step too late.
Before I spend time researching a company, I want to understand the industry it operates in. Every business competes within an environment it doesn’t control. When an industry is growing, great companies have more room to expand. When an industry is shrinking, even great companies have to work much harder just to maintain growth.
Companies don’t grow in isolation. They grow within industries.
Investing is ultimately a bet on the future. When you buy a stock, you’re also making an assumption about how the world will change over the next decade. If that assumption is wrong, choosing the best company inside the wrong industry rarely leads to exceptional long-term returns. But if you identify the right long-term tailwinds, your odds of finding extraordinary businesses improve dramatically.
That’s why I don’t start by asking which company will win. I start by asking which industries are most likely to create the biggest opportunities over the next decade. Only after I have that answer do I begin looking for the companies that deserve my capital.
The industry determines the opportunity. The company determines who captures it.
RuleZero Framework was about the mindset. Six rules that build the investor.
But knowing how to think isn’t the same as knowing what to do.
RuleZero Playbook is the process of finding, buying, and holding great businesses.
Six parts. Six questions:
1.Which industries will define the next decade.
2.Which company inside that industry deserves my money.
3.What price makes the investment worth the risk.
4.What I need to know before I click buy.
https://t.co/TpS1XNWeO8 to hold, and how to know the thesis still works.
6.When it’s time to sell.
Framework built the investor. Playbook is how that investor actually works.
@Ssisipx I look for structural changes before industries become obvious. Technology, demographics, behavior, and capital flows.
The future usually leaves clues before it becomes consensus.
@aklttpm 100%. Couldn't have said it better.
Everyone’s posting this like the future just landed. Maybe it did. But “the future is here” and “you can invest in it” are almost never the same day.
A robot finishing a surgery proves the tech works. It doesn’t prove anyone has built a business around it, and that part usually takes years.
Even then, the profit is a separate question. The robot maker, the chips inside it, the software that runs it? The headline won’t tell you who keeps the money. That’s yours to work out.
A breakthrough you can watch and a breakthrough you can own aren’t the same thing. Most of investing is knowing which one you’re looking at.
Humanoid robots were used to complete two surgeries for the first time in a UC San Diego preclinical trial.
Researchers say the milestone could eventually expand surgical access in remote or understaffed areas where specialist surgeons are limited.
@aklttpm Exactly, that's the real tension. It's not "wait for proof" vs "buy the hype". It's finding tje window where the tech is proven enough to derisk but the business isn't obvious enough to be fully priced in.
@StockSavvyShay Milestones like this are easy to get excited about and hard to invest in. A first successful surgery proves the technology can work, not that a business can capture it. In robotics, the gap between “possible” and “profitable at scale” is where most of the money gets lost.
RuleZero Framework was about the mindset. Six rules that build the investor.
But knowing how to think isn’t the same as knowing what to do.
RuleZero Playbook is the process of finding, buying, and holding great businesses.
Six parts. Six questions:
1.Which industries will define the next decade.
2.Which company inside that industry deserves my money.
3.What price makes the investment worth the risk.
4.What I need to know before I click buy.
https://t.co/TpS1XNWeO8 to hold, and how to know the thesis still works.
6.When it’s time to sell.
Framework built the investor. Playbook is how that investor actually works.
RuleZero was never six rules. It was one sequence.
Rule #0: builds your foundation, so a bad month never forces your hand.
Rule #1: builds your reason for holding, so a headline can’t do what your own thesis hasn’t done.
Rule #2: builds your process, so you stop re-deciding the same trade every time the market moves.
Rule #3: builds your timeframe, so a quiet quarter stops looking like a broken thesis.
Rule #4: builds conviction that holds, so new information sharpens your thesis instead of replacing it.
Rule #5: makes sure everything you’ve built survives when it’s finally tested.
Six rules. Six predictable ways investors get in their own way. Each one exists to prevent a mistake before it becomes irreversible.
Look at the order. It isn’t random.
You can’t protect your thesis before you have one.
You can’t follow a process before you know why you’re holding.
You can’t protect your psychology before you’ve built something worth protecting.
Each rule exists to make the next one possible. Skip one, and the ones after it become harder to keep.
That’s why RuleZero was never about finding better investments. It was about becoming the kind of investor who can hold them.
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.9M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.6M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.9M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.1M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.2M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.1M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.7M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.2M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers