Jeff Fischer

Thoughts I've shared with new investors: 1. View the stock market as a savings account that you keep adding to. Regularly invest money you don't foresee needing for at least 3 years, and ideally that you'll keep invested for much longer.

Shares become long-term this summer, and I’ve protected gains (a rare move for me) with long puts. In January, the market fed me some big realizations about my risk versus my objectives. I no longer need be so focused on growth. Keep upside. But also aim to keep more of what you have. Time to downshift. Especially now. So, I raised more cash and protected some positions. Why especially now? Valuations aren’t low. Expectations seem high. The AI story is a giant unknown, even for the tech giants — let alone all the companies reliant on a few customers. The bigger macro seems to be a growing mess. The U.S. is in a sorry state. The place has to start getting along with itself much better. So much wasted opportunity — and wastefulness. It will catch up with us. As for $CRDO, exactly: customer concentration, unknown how well it’ll grow in optics, or how quickly copper will phase out; pricey shares. And amazing results. Blowout. And the stock still declined. I haven’t shared much this year because sometimes you need space to think things through. And I generally move slowly. And do you ahare some or all? But I have highlighted Credo, Figure, IBRX and others here more than others, so I’m glad you brought it up. It’s been on my mind to share. Of course, my thoughts are most relevant to me given where I’m at and what my goals are. Credo might double the next three years for all we know. It’s a well-run company and I think management is on top of all the changes. But lately many related stocks have drifted lower, including AVGO. While LITE has soared, of course. I also sold down some smaller software in January/Feb and added MSFT exposure instead. Generally, I’ve gotten a bit more battened down. Until I find new things to really like. 😃

@OptionWell Jeff, I was wondering what you thought about $CRDO. I know you were early and there is concentration risk with customers, but how are you thinking about it? small allocation of shares? Mostly income via options? Both?

$CRDO, $APP, $IBRX. It doesn’t matter, it’s just a day, but today was one for the books for all three. Things you never expect happen all the time with investing.

Why we are still a buy - Needham on $TTD We spent the day in NYC yesterday at our favorite AdTech conference, hosted by Tom Triscari. We asked every AdTech executive we met- "What's going on at TTD?" They all had an answer. Call me if you want quotes (unattributed). My synthesis is below, and we retain our buy rating, after many conversations and debates with industry insiders about TTD. What AdTech industry executives agree on: The Publicis vs TTD skirmish that has spilled into the public is: a) a power struggle over economic splits; b) bad for both companies, and their client-brands; and c) will be short-lived. Negotiating skills are a key media industry valuation driver, and the only thing that is unusual here is the "airing of dirty laundry" in the press, which is very rare for Publicis (indicating to us that they are really irritated with TTD's negotiating posture). Why we Maintain our BUY Rating Wh'at's news about this? Everyone that follows TTD knows that the big ad agency holding companies (Hold Cos) feel betrayed because TTD has been signing up their big brand clients directly, thereby disintermediating them. TTD disclosed in 2025 that JSA's (joint service agreements) account for >60% of their reported revenue, and we think it's higher at the Hold Cos. A key implication is that Publicis can NOT stop brands spending money on TTD in cases where TTD has a JSA contract with the brand directly. Those clients have contracts for "volume discounts" tied to minimum spending levels on the TTD platform, we believe. So long as TTD is transparent with those brands, they will keep renewing their JSAs, we believe. Publicis can only control spending by clients that do NOT have a direct JSA with TTD, and we heard from several of those brands that they will not follow Publicis' advice about TTD. Math: We estimate that Publicis was 10% of TTD's reported revenue of $2.9B in FY25, or about $290mm. We estimate that 70% of Publicis' brand clients have JSAs with TTD directly, and therefore are unaffected by Publicis' recommendations. That leaves a maximum of 30% ($87mm) at risk from Publicis, compared with $2.9B of actual TTD reported revs in FY25. Economically, this is a tempest in a tea pot, in our view. We retain our buy because we believe that TTD's significant decline so far in 2026 and over the past 12 months already takes into account TTD's tense relationships with the Hold Cos, the high level of senior FTE turnover at TTD, and clients grumbling about Kokai and TTD's high take rates. On the upside, we are optimistic that OpenAI will rely on TTD to bring them demand for their new ad units, and this new revenue stream is not yet in our estimates. We are also positive on TTD's CTV and RMN revenue growth. Defensively, TTD unique strategic position is hard to replace. TTD represents the largest global brands. If they try to leave TTD, they are forced to use either Walled Gardens like GOOGL or AMZN (heavily conflicted by their owned media ad units) or relatively tiny DSPs like Viant, MNTN, TBLA, and others that aren't realistic alternatives for the largest global brands, in our view. Part of TTD's stickiness is the lack of scaled independent competitors, which buys TTD time, but not infinite immunity.

Global expansion-first approval in Asia!! Anktiva now approved in Macau, China today. Paradigm change of treating the immune system unstoppable.

Just received amazingly exciting analysis of the first 20 subjects without cancer but with Lynch Syndrome ( now fully enrolled with 138 randomized to either Anktiva plus our Adeno CANCER VACCINE versus placebo). This first set of biological immune data from NCI ( Dr Jeff Schlom) and his team is so exciting and confirms the immune stimulating effect of Anktiva re ALC. Also it shows that as we age the baseline ALC is low but Anktiva changes that level..really exciting especially in light of the JAMA paper that shows 1 in 5 Americans suffer from lymphopenia and that with a low ALC this results in a significant lower lifespan. More to come! The cancer vaccine trials are underway!

A Quick Options Update Though still up strongly the last 12 months, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are now both flat the past 6 months, bouncing around a narrow range. Even as many stocks in both indexes have been hit hard. I'm enjoying freedom from watching the market much, but I've still been inclined to write more covered calls than usual, and that'll likely continue. Open Option Income Positions $AAPL 3/20 $270 Calls $FIGR 3/20 $30 Puts $V 3/20 $330 Calls $MA 3/27 $530 Calls $NFLX 3/27 $101 Calls $META 4/17 $685 Calls $FIGR 5/15 $45 Puts (rolled from 3/20) Bull Put Spreads Targeting Income Meanwhile, longer-term income-oriented bull put spreads continue to "dry" like paint, and a new slightly more aggressive one was set up on $MSFT. If I'm wrong on Microsoft, I'll be able to point at myself and say, "But it was Microsoft. You can hardly blame yourself for being wrong on Microsoft." $APP 1/15/27 $400/$250 bull put spread Rec'd net $56/share credit Max risk $94/share Break-even $344 Stock at setup: $471 $LMND 1/15/27 $75/$35 bull put spread Rec'd net $19/share credit Max risk $21/share Break-even $56 Stock at setup: $74.85 $TSM 1/15/27 $310/$240 bull put spread Rec'd net $21.5/share credit Max risk $48.5/share Break-even $288.5 Stock at setup: $340 $MSFT 1/21/28 $450/$215 bull put spread Rec'd net $69/share Max risk $166/share Break-even $381 Stock at setup: $420 I think APP's margins are so high it's a risk. That invites competition. But, the risk is capped, and it's one that I may close early. The nice thing about bull put spreads is they aren't dramatic movers even on declines, relative to naked puts or stock ownership. I don't believe the software company repricing to lower value multiples will revert much, if at all; except (in part) for the handful of companies that capture AI as large new revenue streams, and boost growth as a result. Or perhaps over several years, to some degree, if AI fears prove overblown (50/50 chance of that at best). I think it's likely that the tech giants will start to spend less on data center cap ex within 2-3 years, and the market will be well ahead of that. Overall, it seems we're in a wait-and-see period while all these data centers get built, and some giant IPOs gear up. Investors who are seeking out returns beyond tech, in tried and true long-term compounders (or simply in indexes), are probably on the one path that you can more readily count on right now.

@_jasongray Next year. Thanks!

@OptionWell Thanks for the heads up. When can we expect your new book to arrive?

The IPO share lockup at Figure ($FIGR) expires tomorrow, March 10. I generally view these as a non-event, or as a chance to add shares if you want to own them for the long haul and a lower price is offered.

Rob didn’t just speak these words. He lived them. He dedicated his life to protecting others, the planet, and the future we all share.

I love that $AAPL isn't spending fortunes on an AI buildout, instead leveraging the work of others. Although this approach has risk, it provides flexibility to partner with the best over time (from an OpenAI deal in 2024, to now Gemini); also, financial freedom, avoiding getting caught on endless refresh cycles, while avoiding many risks.

$ZS I think (and we'll find out), that ppl are simply not understanding the firm versus software. Zscaler is not a workflow app. It's not a "Monday . com." It’s an inline security enforcement fabric sitting in the traffic path of enterprises. You cannot "vibe code" the things ZS does: • A globally distributed inspection network • Inline policy enforcement at 0.5T transactions per day • Hundreds of PoPs across continents (this is metal, racks, and chips not "code") • A zero trust control plane embedded into enterprise architecture Actually the opposite. If AI explodes the number of applications (and it will), agents, APIs, and east west workload traffic, that increases Zscaler’s surface area. More code --> more services --> more access control --> more runtime inspection. Security demand compounds. If anything, AI proliferation strengthens the thesis. When a company becomes a customer of Zscaler, their user and workload traffic is routed through Zscaler’s global edge network (its PoPs) where policy is enforced inline. This is data center locations with racks of servers running the Zero Trust Exchange software all connected to major ISPs and backbone networks. Like ya know, metal, and wires, and chips, and plastic and stuff. It's embedded into network architecture • Ripping out VPNs • Replacing branch firewalls • Tied into identity providers • Tied into endpoint posture • Feeding data to SOC workflows Not "vibe code."

Good, clear thinking from @ToddWenning -- link in the second post.

AI needs to create more good jobs rather than destroy millions of jobs, and be profitable for the companies spending hundreds of billions building it, for a bullish outlook for the economy. Getting there will likely be rocky, because first of course it appears it'll replace jobs.

@LOGOinvestor I thought the same, though the test gave it only a 10% chance of being fake. Either way, I think the sentiment is right: software companies are in a position to capture new, lucrative AI "waves," leading to whole new products, if they work on it and have some luck.

@OptionWell first of all bill would not answer an email from an investor so take all this with some salt

It’ll be very interesting, and probably great investing, when the software companies that pivot well enough to lead in AI agents and other AI applications begin to be spotted. I’d give $NOW better than even odds.

I agree with the arguments that companies won't abandon their software providers, and take a few years to change to a hodgepodge of new AI-based systems (and all the business risk that entails) just to save about 5% of their operating budget. Instead, you start to use AI on top of your existing systems. So, the two main bear arguments for SaaS really seem to be: 1) headcount reductions, especially for seat-based models. If you need fewer employees, it's a direct hit to those models, as not all can easily changeover to usage-based models. 2) The future. Current companies aren't likely to abandon their existing SaaS systems, but will the new companies forming today look to SaaS providers to build from zero, or will they look to AI solutions? In other words, is SaaS the older generation's solution? Time will tell. And finally, margin concerns. But margins should only be pressured if alternative (cheaper) solutions can truly compete with existing SaaS. There has been free open source software for years, and it doesn't affect margins, because it doesn't compete well enough.

The main hurdle to this thinking is the upkeep that software needs, and the personalized use cases, by company, that something like $NOW or $VEEV provides, not to mention compliance and interoperability with other systems of record. Sure, that can be replicated eventually you would think, but that seems many years away at the very least. So, you have these foundational legacy benefits against the risk of perhaps fewer white collar workers using the software. Even so, the best software companies are likely to be much stronger and larger five years from now. But the AI upheaval, which adds so much uncertainty on long-term value dynamics, likely means lower multiples are here to stay for most or all software companies (including security and data crunching eventually, imo). For now at least. Until the best of them prove their lasting resilience some years from now.

The tech giants continue to go after every dollar of value they can capture, and as they build data centers and need to capitalize as much as possible on the expense, they could go after the highest-value software markets that they can disrupt. They already have enterprise clients in their clouds and using their data centers. With coding less expensive, they can, one-by-one, bundle still more software solutions into the mix. The sensible target: the currently most-profitable software (or most eyeballs). Even if you monetize it differently. It isn't that software has become a horrible business. It's that every tech giant can more easily start to offer more software. We've already seen how the tech giants leave no stone unturned in a quest to keep growing and take others' margin. How is this idea wrongheaded?