Three Top Stocks To Buy Today

Over this recent earning season, we've seen stocks do particularly well. In fact, many of them have surged to all-time highs. The index, the S&P 500, is near its all-time high, and the QQQ is near its all-time high. With all this momentum in stocks, you may believe that there's no longer any good deals. That every stock has raced up and you missed the train. Well, I believe that that's wrong. There's still a couple of them, a select few, that represent tremendous value today that are being misunderstood by the market. and they will have their day in the market. In today's episode, I'll be going over three of them. Now, we also have some news to cover. For example, semi analysis, the people that write in-depth articles about the big tech, capex spend, and AI. And in this in-depth writeup, they argue that Gemini will never be a state-of-the-art leading model again. And they give their arguments why. We'll be looking over the arguments as well as why I disagree with semi analysis this time. And then finally, we have the fail of the week, which in this case is Keith Rabios. You may have remembered him from his CNBC appearance where he got into a tossle with one of the hosts. Well, that was over a year ago, but recently that same interview resurfaced on the internet and Keith Rabios is once again crashing out over the results. We'll be looking at it more in the fail of the week. Starting off, we need to jump into the three companies that are of particularly good value today. Now, before we get into that, I want to go over and just do a little overview of how this usually works. What usually happens is that I create content on a company. Uh, we'll take Microsoft for example. I've been making content about Microsoft for a long period of time. Microsoft is now at $57 per share. So, as of right now, I'm not highlighting this one as great value or one that you have to jump and race to buy cuz it's already gone up. It it just recently went up 16%. But even prior to this year, during the point where it was really the best time to be buying Microsoft, that point in time was right there. January of 2025, Microsoft sold for $220 per share. And that's the time to be highlighting Microsoft as a buy. And I made content highlighting Microsoft as a buy during that time period. One of the videos that I made was big tech is cheap. In it, I have an entire segment dedicated to Microsoft. The stock price is at 220 saying that this is a company that I think is on the surface very cheap. It's going to be a great buy over time. Since that purchase, Microsoft has outperformed the S&P 500, going up around 120%. Now, typically when I make videos like this, saying that these companies are good buys, I'm buying them myself. With Microsoft, it was no exception. I have a huge holding in Microsoft, $82,000 with $40,500 in gains, and that's in one portfolio. In my other portfolio, I have even more Microsoft, $25,000 worth with $13,000 in gains. And I was buying this company during the time period that I made that video. Right at the beginning of January, I bought $1,000 at $244. Again, that's over doubled since that time period, not counting the dividends. And I have another buy, $244. I have a series of buys right around that price target. Now, with Microsoft surging, I haven't made as much content about the company because it's not as dislocated as it used to be. The problem with buying stocks when they're dislocated is you have to buy them at time periods where there's something wrong or that there's some challenges the stock is facing. That was the case when Microsoft was trading for half the price it trades today. Another example of this is ASML. Now trading at $1,750 per share. This company has been on a roll. It's close to its all-time highs. And I don't talk as much about ASML anymore, but I was talking about this one a lot around a year ago when it traded for around $740 per share. I made videos trying to console investors after it sold off 10% on the day after earnings, saying that I don't think it changes anything with the company and that the stock will do just fine in the future. And like almost every stock that I highlight as a buy, I was also buying it myself at the time. I bought $8,000 of ASML at $719, another 5,000 at $750, another 10,000 at $750. I was continuing to buy more and more of this stock as I was highlighting on my channel. Now, it's gone up around 150% and the stock has been a massive success. It's now a $124,000 position with $91,000 in the green. We of course have Google. Another one that I've highlighted as one of my major buys, a stock that I thought was so undervalued and I was very excited about this one for investors. I felt like it was such a good thing for investors for my channel that I wanted to just illustrate what I thought about this company and why it would be so valuable. And Google has moved up substantially over the past couple of years. In fact, it was trading for the most part around this range. It couldn't get out of this range of the 150s to 180s. And that's usually where I was buying this company, around that range. In fact, some of my biggest buys into Google are around 168. Now, I have ones that are a little bit higher and I have ones that are much lower that I bought years and years ago. But I added to my position and built Google up to a massive position at around that size. That's why Google is still a huge winner in a short amount of time. My big success in Google was buying a lot of the stock during a time period where the sentiment was really negative, where the stock valuation was dislocated from the fundamentals and being able to correctly understand the bare case of the company and why it doesn't make sense. Now, finally, the last one that I'll highlight is Amazon. This is one that I highlighted just at the beginning of this year as one of my top picks. I said that Amazon is being underestimated with AWS and I even came out with a video saying that AWS is going to explode. We went through charts and graphs showing how AWS would accelerate, how that would make investors reanalyze the stock and move up their estimates. And Amazon now looks like it owns a complete juggernaut. AWS is a massive business and we're seeing the stock continue to represent that. In the past month, Amazon is up 12%, but now year to date, it's up 22%. It's done fantastic. It's moving in the right direction. My cost basis on Amazon is right around 170. So, it's moved up around $100 over my cost basis. It's a massive position, $200,000 with $77,000 in the green. And the reason I highlight this is to just show that this all follows a similar pattern. You look at highquality companies, ones that have great potential, ones that are growing quickly, that are for some reason being discounted or sold off. They can be sold off for a variety of different reasons, whether it's macroeconomic like tariffs or recessions or wars with Iran, anything like that. or they can be sold off because of specific fundamental reasons, maybe a change in management, maybe because there's some new disruption risk. You have to analyze those risks and see if the dislocation makes sense. And in each of these companies, I didn't believe that was the case. So, I bought a highquality company when it was dislocated when I didn't believe it made sense. And that moves us to the new companies. Which ones today are in that similar type of situation? One of them is Uber. Uber is a battleground stock, meaning that there's people on each side of the equation. There is an enormous barecase for Uber and it is the autonomous vehicle risk, primarily Whimo at this point. Whimo is no joke. It's the real deal. It's scaling rapidly. Whimo is increasing their fleet size. They're going into all different cities and it's true that they've partnered to Uber in some extent, but they're also going it alone and they're successful going it alone as well. So, Whimo represents a new competitive disruption risk to Uber and that is being priced into the stock aggressively. Uber's trading at a 20 Ford PE while growing around 20% revenue, earnings per share growing in the high teens. Then we have the free cash yield of the company. Now, some of this is because of insurance. So, there is some float here, but on a normalized basis, it's around a 4% free cash flow yield. That is a very attractive yield for such a fast growing company, especially one that could be so intrinsically valuable. We know how valuable networks and aggregators are. Uber represents a very wellpositioned one. But the AV threat is causing a massive dislocation. So my main question is whether or not that AV risk is going to stop Uber. And I believe the answer is no. I don't believe that AVs will disrupt Uber to the extent that's being priced into the stock. I don't actually think it's going to be close. And I believe that Uber will continue to grow in intrinsic value in a network in size, in bookings, in total usage for years and years and years into the future, even with the growth of AVs. And Uber has a tremendous advantage here, even over companies like Whimo. One of them is that the way that Uber grew was by using all existing assets, all existing infrastructure. If you think about how Uber jumped from one city to the next, they use their gas stations, they use their roads. Taxpayers pay for the roads. Uh different companies like Chevron pay for the gas stations. Uber didn't pay for any of that. There's also cars, big expense. Uber didn't pay for it. The person owning the car pays for the car. And Uber just incentivizes people that are already there by allowing them to bid on rides. Basically, what Uber did was create an entire system where everything already exists, but they become the layer that makes it all work together. They're the allocation of resources. They're networking everything together. And networks in and of themselves are incredibly valuable. This allowed Uber to grow with unprecedented speed. They could grow anywhere across planet Earth. Basically, where there's roads and infrastructure, Uber could grow. They are a supply first company. They would create supply for rides and there would already be demand existing everywhere they went. So Uber could scale across the globe and that's something that AVs can't do. Not nearly to the same speed. Even with Whimo, the rate at which they're growing is impressive. You can see the thousands of rides they're doing, the weekly 500,000 rides. But if we just take that number, 500,000 rides per week, and we match it to Uber, Uber does that every 17 minutes. So in 17 minutes, Uber just did as many rides as Whimo will do for the entire week. Uber is 600 times bigger and growing in total volume of rides at a much faster pace. The distance between the two is getting larger, not closer. But down the road, AVs will be popular. They will be something that I believe will be a part of society and Uber can integrate those into its network. The challenge for Whimo is they need to have network density in every place that they go. For example, if they want to make their own Whimo network in Miami, they need to have enough Whimos to service Miami in a timely fashion so that when you open up the Whimo app, you can get a ride within 10 to 15 minutes. With Uber, they already have the density. So Uber can integrate AVs into their network and they will always have demand. They'll always have that network density. Whimo has to earn that every city that they go into. And this essentially means that Uber can be late to the game with AVs and still be in the lead. Even if they introduce AVs and that technology into their fleet, in four years, they still will be the ones that have the lead in it. And that is because of network density across the globe. With the way Uber is being priced for this massive disruption, I believe it represents another opportunity. We have Uber here as a position that I've recently started buying into. I've purchased $24,000 worth. We have around $1,500 of gains so far. So, it is a small position, but it's a growing position. Now, of course, there's no guarantees with any of this. Uber may in fact get disrupted. Maybe the stock goes to zero. And that's why we invest in more than one company. But with Uber, I believe it's worth the risk. I believe that this is another company with a very high likelihood that three or four years down the road, Uber will be trading at 150, 160, could be even higher at that point. and investors will think, "Wow, I wish I could have bought that stock when it was $70 per share." But today, you can. The sentiment is bearish. The fundamentals are strong. The AV risk is being fully priced into the company, and there's a strong chance it may not be nearly as bad as it looks today. Now, the next obvious example is Meta. This is a stock that clearly investors are concerned about. The stock has been weathering through little bumps in the road over and over again this entire year. It's down 8%. We look over the past year, it's down 21%. And there's a couple bare cases with Meta. The smaller of the bare cases is that Meta faces legal risk. There are some lawsuits and some challenges that Meta's product is unhealthy for kids. Meta is going to settle these cases. They're going to make greater restrictions on their app. They'll make kids accounts have all sorts of different controls. That'll be an adaptation of the product for Meta and that will be some legal fees along the way. And we've seen them pay those legal fees just in the past quarter and they'll probably pay some for the next year. So, one part of the bare case is the legal fees, but I don't believe that's a big part of it. I don't think that's what most investors in Meta are really worried about. Investors are really worried about the enormous amount of capex spend, what it's doing to the fundamentals of the company, spending all of this money on capital expenditures, on servers, equipments, chips, on training models when they don't have any way to directly monetize it with a hyperscaler-like business. They're not leasing out compute capacity like so many others are jumping to. Meta has ways to indirectly monetize it through improving their product. And that's the bullc case that many people highlight. But I don't actually believe that's the best bull case. When we look at what Mark Zuckerberg is actually doing, he recently, just today, published a super in-depth, very long essay on his belief of the future of AI and how it will affect everyone. Mark Zuckerberg's primary concern with investing this much money into AI is simply to be not reliant or bottlenecked by other companies. He does not want to be in a position where he has to license or use the AI that someone else built. Now, why would Mark Zuckerberg want to avoid that path? Because when you're using someone else's product, they can determine how you use it, how much you use, what type of guard rails. They can discontin your use at any time. There's lots of loopholes that you have to go through. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want that for Meta and he doesn't want that for people in general. He doesn't want some gatekeepers, a couple companies that control how everyone else gets information. And I believe this all stems back to Mark Zuckerberg's history. For a long time period, Mark Zuckerberg has been at odds with both Tim Cook of Apple and Sundar Pachai of Google. He views these companies as bottlenecks, big gatekeepers, duopolies to information. Apple, of course, has the App Store, which has very intense terms and conditions. They review every single app update that Meta does on any of their apps. They make sure everything's in compliance. Apple has a history of favoring their own products and services on their platform above Metas. Mark Zuckerberg has even noted that he could be roughly twice as profitable, twice as profitable as a company if they didn't have to go through Apple with all the restrictions, with all the delays that they do. That's what Mark Zuckerberg believes. He also expresses the same thing with Android, that he's on a different platform, a different app store to be able to communicate with his customers. They extract fees, coal boosts, roadblocks in the process. And this has always been something that he's wanted to get out of. It's part of the reason that they're making the meta glasses as an attempt to try to get out of the restriction of the phone. But when we look at this, we see another adaptation. What is possibly even more important than the phone and the app stores? AI. Now, there's two companies that are leading the AI race. Anthropic and OpenAI. They're almost like the Apple and Google of AI. And Mark Zuckerberg is looking at this unfold that these two companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, might end up in the exact same situation that Apple and Google ended up with the phone. He doesn't like how Apple and Google ended up with the phone. And he does not want Anthropic and Open AAI to have the same type of power and influence and bottleneck capacity in AI. But Mark Zuckerberg is in a different situation now than he was then. Now he has a massive pocketbook. He has a company now that is a money printing machine. And with this enormous economic power, Mark Zuckerberg is now in a position to actually challenge these leaders. He doesn't want to have the same situation unfold where anthropic and open AI are duopolistic bottleneck gatekeepers to all AI for everyone. He doesn't want that to be recreated once again. So he's choosing to put all of the economic power behind AI to close the gap in how good his models are to anthropics or open AIs. And the gap has been closing quite quickly. This isn't something where Meta is catching up really slowly. This is something where they're getting better very very fast. Now they don't have a flagship model. They're not state-of-the-art, but they do have ones that are getting better really fast. And it looks like they're going to be releasing new better models soon. All of this in an attempt to not have these few companies control everyone. Now, in the process, there's also a load of benefits to Meta as a company by owning this infrastructure layer. Not only does it increase the earnings power of their core business by using AI trained on their own servers, but it also makes Meta full stack. They're not reliant on licensing other AIs like Apple now is. Uh they're not reliant on working with other companies in their terms of service. They can simply build their own. So Meta is now a more insular wide remote company. And then there's also something that I believe protects the downside for Meta. Even if Mark Zuckerberg was to lose the race, if he couldn't challenge anthropic and OpenAI, if he couldn't make a viable alternative that's decentralized and empowers individuals, or if he never gets to super intelligence, there is something that Mark Zuckerberg could do. He could simply turn it into a neocloud. That's not the best business in the world, but it's still pretty good and it would pay for the investments that Meta's already made with an attractive return. So, even in the worst case scenario, if Mark Zuckerberg is not able to get to AI super intelligence, if he can never get a state-of-the-art model, if you can never get to the point where they really accomplish those huge ambitions, there's still things they can do that protect the downside in this investment. So Meta offers a rare case of a company that has huge ambitions, huge potential upside, but a lot of the downside is already priced into the stock and largely limited. Last company is Netflix. Netflix is one that's been on my list for a long period of time. Recently, the stock has gone down dramatically because of a narrative, a bare case that I disagree with. The reason the stock is down 37% over the past year can largely be attributed to this entire narrative that there is an engagement issue with Netflix. That their watch time and their engagement per subscriber is going down. But the way that Netflix measures this is that engagement is different than just watch time. Watch time is important, but watch time from a social media app where you're scrolling YouTube shorts or Instagram reels is different than watch time watching a movie. One of them can be more impactful to the enjoyment of someone. When you watch a really good TV series that you're really into, that's a higher quality of engagement and enjoyment than simply scrolling Instagram reels while you're on the toilet or enjoying lunch. In any case, Netflix stock has gone down because of this narrative and it's being disproven by lots of metrics. First of all, the idea that Netflix isn't able to keep people glued to their second seasons. The CEO of the company said that the actual drop off from season one to season two has improved. The idea that Netflix is losing subscribers is false. They said that they grew because of subscriber growth last quarter. The idea that even engagement's going down is also false. Engagement overall on Netflix increased by 2% year-over-year. Now, engagement per user has declined somewhat in terms of just watch time. And again, they have specific reasons they believe this has happened. The areas in the world where people watch the most TV are already largely saturated. That is the United States, Canada, and Europe. In other areas that they're growing fast into, those people don't watch as much TV. They don't spend as much time on it. So even though they're growing in the number of subscribers, the amount of watch time per subscriber is lower for those new areas, but that's not a concern intrinsically about the company. So while investors are pricing in an engagement issue or slowing growth or issues with Netflix, the company fundamentally is growing quickly, margins are moving up, their free cash flow is enormous, they're doing lots of buybacks. They have an application that they're growing in all different ways and engagement and subscribers and churn all look very healthy. So I believe this one is another one that offers a unique value in a market where most things are overvalued. Now moving on, we get to a report here. This is from semi analysis which is a highly respected analysis team over big tech companies over AI over the semiconductor industry. They cover all of this stuff and a lot of their reporting is fantastic. They do a lot of deep reporting very good analysis. So I have a history of liking what they say and agreeing with the big majority of it. But they recently published a new article saying Gemini is cooked and the Google cloud is cooking. They summarize it by saying a lot of the top talent people like Demis Jeff Dean are leaving Google DeepMeind or changing their positions and that this is basically a brain drain. Now they say with all these top smart people leaving obviously these are not the actions of people excited about Gemini 4 Pro. For all intents and purposes, we believe DeepMind is no longer a Frontier Lab. And they believe Google will continue meandering on and releasing models, but their odds of reaching state-of-the-art again have dropped to zero. Now, not essentially zero or practically zero. They outright say that the odds of Gemini being a state-of-the-art model are now zero. So their argument here is that a number of top people have left Deep Mind that builds Gemini and that means that Gemini has zero chance of ever being the state-of-the-art model again. And I find this hard to believe for a couple of reasons. One of them is that semi analysis themselves just November of last year stated that Google's Gemini was the state-of-the-art model. It was likely the best one in the world. And now, not even one year later, they have declared that Google can never again do the thing that they did just a year ago. not even a year ago that there's zero chance of them ever accomplishing that again. Yeah, that thing that they did not even one year ago, they can never do it again. These four or five people made that impossible. And I don't think that's impossible. If Google is able to create a state-of-the-art model not even one year ago, then that means there is some chance that they could do it again. They weren't expected to a year ago. They were also an underdog at that time. They were catching up at that time. So, the fact that they leaprogged the better models and they came in first was a surprise. And I believe it's difficult to completely rule out Google at this point in time to say that they just have no chance of ever having a state-of-the-art model. I I think that that's unlikely. Now, maybe it could happen. Maybe Google will never be on quite the forefront they were before, but in that case, I still think that Google's okay. And that is the second argument that I do agree with with semi analysis. They basically argue that even if Gemini is second tier, it's not as good as the flagship models from Enthropic or Open AI, that Google will likely be okay. And this is because of a deliberate decision by Google. Google's now putting more money into Google Cloud than they are to training models. And I believe that's the right choice. Later this year and into next year, Google could grow cloud above 100%. Literally doubling the thing year-over-year. And this growth also comes with better operating metrics. The operating margins of Google Cloud continue to tick up every single quarter now up to 35%. So given the choice of putting money into building this massive insulated deep mo business with high returns or having the best model in the world, I would say that it's a lot better of an opportunity to build up Google Cloud. So overall, I agree with much of what they say, but I would not rule out Google so hastily. I think there is a chance that they could surprise people with their new models. Now, moving on, we get to the fail of the week, which in this case, I have to highlight Keith Robios. Now, I have nothing against Keith. I think that he's actually a smart person. He's very accomplished. He's worth a billion dollars. He was part of the founding members and core operating suite of PayPal, the PayPal mafia as they call it, and he has a lot of great investments. So, he has quite the history. With someone with that record and tenure, you'd believe that he would act in a certain way, like he is fulfilled in life. You typically expect people that have enormous amounts of wealth to be somewhat satisfied or happy and behave in accordance to that. But with Keith, it's different. Now, this whole crash out with Keith really began a couple years ago as he was arguing with Dedra Bos on CNBC about Open Door's profitability. So, this is back around 2021. >> But Open Door does lose money, Keith. It hasn't been profitable on a gap basis, right, for the last few years. >> Open door open door is profitable on a gap basis. If you look at last quarter profitable >> for the year, we're going to be gap profitable almost. I mean, it's hard to tell cuz quarter 4 hasn't occurred, >> but it's not profitable. Keith, we'll show you the numbers. We'll show you the numbers right on the screen right now. Lost money on a net loss basis in 2021, 2020, also the first few quarters of this year. What are you looking at? >> No, show me show me quarter two. And first of all, GAP also includes non-cash expenses as you know is is net losses. No, it includes stockbased expenses which are fake. Now, secondly, >> notice what he just said there. He said that GAAP includes stockbased expenses which are fake. Meaning, when a company gives away shares, equity from other investors, it just it prints more of them. Those are fake. Apparently, to Keith, that doesn't even matter. It's not even a real expense for investors. >> For five years in a row, literally 20 quarters on the home basis, on a per home basis, we have made money. So obviously there's operating expense and there's scale in a business. We hire a lot of engineers. We run a lot of product innovation. Like any company virtually every company that's gone public in the last 5 years in tech has similar characteristics. >> But fundamentally all you have to do is look on an operating basis. Open door has been profitable for 20 quarters in a row. >> But I have to clarify that's a non-GAAP basis under generally accepted accounting principles. Keith taking >> No, absolutely not. That's like stupid. >> We'll leave that for another time. Maybe an accountant can can talk to us. >> This continues on calling it stupid, saying that it's really profitable. And he talked about how Open Door was a great investment. And by the way, this is the stock price of Open Door. You can see the great investment here. That interview happened right around here. So the stock has literally it's gone nowhere. And most of the time, people have been bag holding this one for over 5 years. It's just been obliterated. So, after that interview, you think maybe things have settled down. Well, it turns out that that interview resurfaced on X just a day ago, and Keith is right back at it. And as you would expect, his thoughts on the subject have not changed even a little bit. He says in this post directly to the host again, yeah, she was exposed for being a clueless clown, which is why she no longer has her job. To be clear, she quit CNBC to make her own content and own channel, which is the right direction to go. But regardless, he takes a cheap shot at her, saying that she got fired when there's no evidence of that, and also saying that she's clueless after he's the one that claims that Stockbased Comp is fake. Then there's people that are friendly trying to point out that he needs to do a little soularching, that he comes across as crashing out and unhinged every time he talks publicly. But Keith again says that's not a genuine question. She had no curiosity. If she had listened, she could have learned how to actually invest. Where's the investing lesson in this, Keith? To invest in in this. Is this the investing lesson to buy this thing? She missed out on buying a stock that's been terrible for the past 5 years. Keith, what is the investing lesson she missed? He continues on with his crash out against random anonymous Twitter people, saying, "No, she and you are a clown. My analysis is correct. Haven't met anyone successful who disagreed with my comments." And if anyone points out the way that he behaves is graceless or unhinged, he just responds by calling them a clown. Now, while all of this was happening, the CFO of Uber also commented directly contradicting what Keith Rabio said. He says, "There are good reasons to adjust certain items from GAP earnings. Stock comp is not one of those items. More companies should include it as a real cost, and more investors should demand that companies do so." Now, Keith did not respond to the CFO of Uber because, well, I think it would be embarrassing. He'll respond to CNBC hosts and mock them, but when a CFO of a highly successful company says the same thing, he seems to be silent on the issue. And I think the real lesson here is that no matter how much money you have or how much success you have, it can't make up for simply just having a little bit of class to handle things in a good way or to be satisfied. So, don't envy people that have a billion dollars. Don't believe that their life is just way better than yours because in many times these people with a billion dollars are online having petty arguments with random anonymous accounts. That's it for this episode. Have a good one.