2025 stock favorites

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/5/2025 at 7:34 AM, newnative said:

Well, it took a big dip, didn't it?   But, then it came back, didn't it? 

As I just posted, property over the long term has been proven to increase in value.  However, that's not what the member said.  He basically said, "you can never lose" and I disagree with that.  As you have said, sometimes, for some reasons, property can take a "big dip" and some people lose. 

[swissie]

On 1/5/2025 at 2:44 AM, Digitalbanana said:

Observe the stock derivatives, they will give you the probabilities of where a price will move between over a period, and always realize the volatility will always revert to a mean.

Therefore use VIX Volatility indexes or Bollinger Bands.

[tomazbodner]

Was Celestica for me

 

[swissie]

On 1/4/2025 at 3:00 AM, jas007 said:

That's what the TradeVision software does.  They can figure out, through all the options trades, where market makers have to buy and where they have to sell. The software isn't perfect, but seems to show some good results.  Better on some stocks than others, if you look at the backtesting data. But it's definitely just a trading thing.  

 

One of these days, I'm going to perhaps try a small account that is traded entirely by AI.  Just put in some money and let it work.  See what happens. 

 

probably will be more like a casino, going forward. 

No secret, that software based trading systems produce better results than "traditional chart reading" in combination with "gut feelings" of short term traders (eliminating emotions).

Unfortunately, systems that produce good results are quickly adopted by too many traders, thus defeating the system from within.

[newnative]

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I just posted, property over the long term has been proven to increase in value.  However, that's not what the member said.  He basically said, "you can never lose" and I disagree with that.  As you have said, sometimes, for some reasons, property can take a "big dip" and some people lose. 

      Yes, of course, if you sell a stock, or a property, that has dipped below the price you paid for it, you will incur a loss.  Obviously, if you don't need the money, don't sell in a dip.   As I showed in the examples I used in my earlier post, if you can wait, they'll likely recover.  

     The very last condo I bought in the US was a foreclosure that I purchased in 2009, after I sold the condo I mentioned in my earlier post.  I paid $170,000 and I thought I had gotten a bargain.  Little did I know, the real estate dip was still dipping, and the condo's value dropped to $160,000 in 2010.  Had I sold then, I would have lost money. 

    Meanwhile, I had made the decision to move to Thailand in June 2010.  So, instead of selling at a loss, I rented the condo instead, with my brother-in-law managing it for me.  Eventually, the real estate market improved and I sold the condo at a profit several years later.   That same condo has continued to appreciate--as most real estate does--and Zillow tells me it is now worth $277, 500.

[newnative]

52 minutes ago, swissie said:

Nice yield over time. But as a comparison:

In the early 1980 the Dow Jones Industrial hit 1000. Today it's over 42'000.

Conclusion: R/E is good, stocks are better.

Caution: The DJI reflects "industrial growth", not to be repeated in western economies for the next 50 years. High Tech may bring similar stellar performances for the next 50 years. Maybe/possibly/perhaps/hopefully.

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, newnative said:

Yes, of course, if you sell a stock, or a property, that has dipped below the price you paid for it, you will incur a loss. 

History has proven proven property increases in value over the long term.  The same can not be said for stock.  Some stocks go to worthless, and the company goes bust, and is dissolved.  Not the same same as property. 

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, newnative said:

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, swissie said:

Nice yield over time. But as a comparison:

In the early 1980 the Dow Jones Industrial hit 1000. Today it's over 42'000.

Conclusion: R/E is good, stocks are better.

Caution: The DJI reflects "industrial growth", not to be repeated in western economies for the next 50 years. High Tech may bring similar stellar performances for the next 50 years. Maybe/possibly/perhaps/hopefully.

That's one opinion.  

 

I utilized both.  Both served me well.

 

 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

You graph proves my point.

 

See years 2009 and 2011?  Prices dropped. 

 

You said this:  "Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers"  Your own graph shows this as incorrect.

 

If you said words like, "over the long term, property only gains in value" or similar, I would have agreed, but you said "property never losers" and that's incorrect. 

Just like stocks, one has to buy & sell smartly.  Just because the graph shows drops, doesn't mean one's holdings dropped, whether RE or stocks.

[swissie]

21 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

Yep! Selling into a Bull Market means selling a sack of potatoes for 10$ only to buy it back for 11 $.

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, swissie said:

Yep! Selling into a Bull Market means selling a sack of potatoes for 10$ only to buy it back for 11 $.

One could downsize and take some profit, but for those already in a downsized property, what you describe is correct. 

[KhunHeineken]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Just like stocks, one has to buy & sell smartly.  Just because the graph shows drops, doesn't mean one's holdings dropped, whether RE or stocks.

 

"Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers" - YOUR words, not mine.

 

Property is not like stock.  One example is say a worker is transferred by their employer and has to sell.  They may take a loss on the sale.  They really don't have a chance to "sell smartly."  They need the equity from the sale to buy in a new location.  

 

There are many other examples where not everyone makes money on property.   

[swissie]

49 minutes ago, newnative said:

   No reason you can't do real estate and stocks--especially since, unless you like living in the open air, one needs to keep a roof over one's head anyway.  Might as well make some money while you're sheltering yourself.  

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?

For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.

True "wealth building" works in other ways.

So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".

Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

[KhunHeineken]

5 minutes ago, swissie said:

R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

Capital growth rate, compared to the interest rate, would be vital if that was one's strategy.  

[newnative]

47 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market.  It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value. 

       While you are living in a property you own, if it is appreciating, you are realizing an eventual profit on your original investment, even if you have not yet sold it.   So, you are making money for yourself keeping a roof over your head, even if you haven't cashed in yet.   

      I've owned about 30 properties, both here and in the US, and every one of them increased in value--the last US one I mentioned took a couple of years.  Other than making them attractive, I didn't do anything special.  Real estate appreciates.  While I was living in each of them, I was earning money as they appreciated, rather than a landlord earning money if I rented, instead.   

       When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here.  

[newnative]

1 hour ago, swissie said:

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?

For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.

True "wealth building" works in other ways.

So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".

Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

    Absolute nonsense regarding the reason mortgages in the US are for 30 years--starting with the fact that not all mortgages in the US are even for 30 years.  In 1972, when my Dad retired and we moved back to the US from Okinawa, he and my  Mom wanted to buy a house.  Because of his age--55--the bank would only give him a 20-year mortgage.  Had nothing to do with how long a house would supposedly last.  The house my parents bought, by the way, is still going strong. 

      You can get mortgages in the US for 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, and, even some 40-year mortgages are available.  The length of the mortgage has nothing to do with the house, itself.  Rather, it's usually the combination of the buyer's finances and how many years they want to be paying off a mortgage. 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, swissie said:

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?

For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.

True "wealth building" works in other ways.

So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".

Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

That's one of the most ridiculous and ignorant replies I've read in a long time.  You know absolutely nothing about USA RE, building, construction or mortgages.

[swissie]

13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's one of the most ridiculous and ignorant replies I've read in a long time.  You know absolutely nothing about USA RE, building, construction or mortgages.

Uhhh: I am confident that you will find the time to outline why my comments are "ridiculus". Take your time, point by point. Something like
a)
b)
c)

[swissie]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

       While you are living in a property you own, if it is appreciating, you are realizing an eventual profit on your original investment, even if you have not yet sold it.   So, you are making money for yourself keeping a roof over your head, even if you haven't cashed in yet.   

      I've owned about 30 properties, both here and in the US, and every one of them increased in value--the last US one I mentioned took a couple of years.  Other than making them attractive, I didn't do anything special.  Real estate appreciates.  While I was living in each of them, I was earning money as they appreciated, rather than a landlord earning money if I rented, instead.   

       When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here.  

Quote: "When you sell, you aren't necessarily always buying back into the 'same market'.   In some cases, people are making a change to a different city, state, or country.  But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here".

Yes indeed. The Farmers "Up North" have sold their farms (their sons not wanting to farm anymore). They bought a lavish motorhome and live in Arizona. Plenty of cash left, to support more than an occasional square dance. Some of them enjoying a "second spring", sometimes disturbing 30 year old marriages.

Never have I seen happier old folks. By selling their land in exchange for a lavish motorhome with plenty of cash left. In other words: One must not necessarily buy into "the same market". 

 
Some buy into the "Thai-Market", but that's another story.

[KhunLA]

6 hours ago, swissie said:

Uhhh: I am confident that you will find the time to outline why my comments are "ridiculus". Take your time, point by point. Something like
a)
b)
c)

Everything you stated was incorrect.  But if want point to point ...

... already pointed out, you can get a mortgage for as many years as you want, as long as you qualify.  The bank will push 30 yrs, as big profit maker, and if that's all you can afford, that's fine.  You can also pay it off as fast as you want also.  My mortgages were 5 & 10 yrs long, and paid off even earlier.

... every house I bought was 30+ yrs old, and now probably knocking on 100 yrs old

... first one was 18" thick stone on 1st floor, and other 2 were red brick

... and no, the house does appreciate, not just the land, no matter how large the land lot is.  Townhouses & condos appreciate nicely, and have little to no land.  As materials & labor cost rise every year, so does older house prices.  Since the industry is well established.

 

Unlike Thailand, where new & better, and cheaper materials have arrived or been produced since I've been here, along with lots of competition now; Global House & HomePro when we built our 2nd & 3rd house.

 

When I first got here, 2020, it was all ma/pa shops, or a crappy HomeMart at Udon Thani.  Then the 2 above arrived, and now there a couple more huge DIY place in ever metro area.

 

That has kept the cost of construction low, and yes, in TH, the land is the main appreciating factor.  Or was for our homes and land investments.  Not sure about townhouses & condo.  Townhouses rise a bit, but unless condo in a very desirable area, then not so much, if at all.  Again, newer & better being built all the time, so why buy old.

 

Point for point, you were wrong on every one concerning the USA.  Certainly doesn't mean there are not crappy home building out there, but not in my experiences, from 1978-2000, as home owner, investor, or RE agent, w/RE license.

[jas007]

10 hours ago, swissie said:

I agree. A combination of R/E and stocks are best. R/E has the advantage that you can buy it with OPM (other peoples money). This is generally known as a "mortgage".

A mortgage in the US usually runs for 30 years. Why is that?

For a very practical reason: Houses in Europe are designed to last for 2 to 3 generations. Unless much mainainance is invested, a house in the US is desighned to last for 30 years. The duration of the mortgage.

True "wealth building" works in other ways.

So it's the "land" that produces the value over time and not the house. Most "American Houses" would not get any building-permit in Europe. The construction considered as "too flimsy".

Considering the fact, that the US home consists of a basic framework of 2x4 lumber, no wonder that hurricanes like those structures.

There's a ring of truth to all of that, but on the whole, they'e gross generalizations.  

 

While it's true that many houses built in the USA are flimsy and not built so well, everyone knows that.  Why people buy them and why banks loan money on them is beyond me. In any event, that's not the whole story.  Smart investors also know that build quality can vary tremendously, and location, location, location is often the most important factor to consider.  A well built home in a prime location is as good as gold.  I have friends who used to be builders.  One would build houses one at a time, the other guy and his partner were into building entire subdivisions.  The one house at a time guy built very high quality houses, the other guys put up hundreds of houses using the cheapest materials they could find.  People would buy them anyway.

 

In an area I used live, there was a house down the block that was constructed over a period of about two years.  People there every day, working on that house.  I'm not sure what it ultimately cost, but it must have been millions.  Location, location, location. Of course, it's easy enough to find absolute junk houses in what are prime locations.  People buy them for a small fortune, tear them down, and built something nice. 

 

 

[jas007]

12 hours ago, swissie said:

No secret, that software based trading systems produce better results than "traditional chart reading" in combination with "gut feelings" of short term traders (eliminating emotions).

Unfortunately, systems that produce good results are quickly adopted by too many traders, thus defeating the system from within.

 I thought about that, but I figure that most of the market is dominated by large institutions who probably have their own trading rules and asset allocation guidelines.  And then there are stocks that they don't own at all, for whatever reason, or stocks "off the radar" of most investors.  So for now, maybe it's worth a try.  In a sense, small individual investors have a lot of advantages. 

[KhunHeineken]

15 hours ago, newnative said:

While you are living in a property you own, if it is appreciating, you are realizing an eventual profit on your original investment, even if you have not yet sold it. 

There are no "profits" until it's sold.  Profits can not be released without selling.  Do you agree, or disagree?

 

15 hours ago, newnative said:

So, you are making money for yourself keeping a roof over your head, even if you haven't cashed in yet.   

Which proves the point I am making.  To "make the money" you have to "cash in" but after casing in, you need another roof over your head and you will be buying back into a market that is most likely at the top, because that's why you sold.  Not withstanding moving location or downsizing. 

 

16 hours ago, newnative said:

I've owned about 30 properties, both here and in the US, and every one of them increased in value-

Once again, this is a time based factor.  Over the long term, I accept what you say.  Over the short term, many have lost, for many different reasons.

 

Another member who disagreed with me posted a graph for the US that actually proved my point on two occasions. 

 

I remember during the GFC you could buy a house in many cities in America for next to nothing.  You can only go up from there, but how about we discuss the thousands of people that sold.  Did they get to see any "increase in value?" 

 

16 hours ago, newnative said:

But, in any case, buying back into the same market has not been a problem for me--either in the US or here.  

No one said it was a problem.  It just takes more of the profits from the sale of the "roof over your head" property. 

 

 

 

[newnative]

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

There are no "profits" until it's sold.  Profits can not be released without selling.  Do you agree, or disagree?

 

Which proves the point I am making.  To "make the money" you have to "cash in" but after casing in, you need another roof over your head and you will be buying back into a market that is most likely at the top, because that's why you sold.  Not withstanding moving location or downsizing. 

 

Once again, this is a time based factor.  Over the long term, I accept what you say.  Over the short term, many have lost, for many different reasons.

 

Another member who disagreed with me posted a graph for the US that actually proved my point on two occasions. 

 

I remember during the GFC you could buy a house in many cities in America for next to nothing.  You can only go up from there, but how about we discuss the thousands of people that sold.  Did they get to see any "increase in value?" 

 

No one said it was a problem.  It just takes more of the profits from the sale of the "roof over your head" property. 

 

 

 

        I've said what I wanted to say, and made the points I wanted to make, in my previous posts.  No need to rehash them.  I also responded to a clueless, apparently European, poster who made the ridiculous claim that the reason America has 30-year mortgages is because American homes go tumbling to the ground after 30 years.   My Florida sister in her 1920s bungalow would get a good laugh out of that.

      You're welcome to disagree with what I said but what I write comes from the experiences of buying and selling some 30 properties, both condos and houses, here and in the US.   I will say that there are a lot of factors that go into real estate and it can often be too time-consuming to try to explain in detail how you can make something work--like selling a property at a profit and then buying another similar property in the exact same area--and make the same or even bigger profit, in a short period of time.  It can take more than your one or two sentence sometimes exaggerated observations. 

[KhunHeineken]

36 minutes ago, newnative said:

You're welcome to disagree with what I said

Yes, and I do disagree with what you said. 

 

By your thinking, I can buy a condo today, and sell next month, and I must make money, because property ALWAYS increases in value.

 

In my opinion, that's just rubbish, and you know it is, but you will not say it because you have a conflict of interest.  You buy and flip properties here. You have said this in other threads.

 

Once again, and for clarity purposes, over the long term, and it's a very long term when it comes to property as an investment vehicle, property increases in value, but to say property ALWAYS increases in value if incorrect.   There are boom bust cycles. Peaks and troughs.  Just like any other investment.  

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Everything you stated was incorrect.  But if want point to point ...

... already pointed out, you can get a mortgage for as many years as you want, as long as you qualify.  The bank will push 30 yrs, as big profit maker, and if that's all you can afford, that's fine.  You can also pay it off as fast as you want also.  My mortgages were 5 & 10 yrs long, and paid off even earlier.

... every house I bought was 30+ yrs old, and now probably knocking on 100 yrs old

... first one was 18" thick stone on 1st floor, and other 2 were red brick

... and no, the house does appreciate, not just the land, no matter how large the land lot is.  Townhouses & condos appreciate nicely, and have little to no land.  As materials & labor cost rise every year, so does older house prices.  Since the industry is well established.

 

Unlike Thailand, where new & better, and cheaper materials have arrived or been produced since I've been here, along with lots of competition now; Global House & HomePro when we built our 2nd & 3rd house.

 

When I first got here, 2020, it was all ma/pa shops, or a crappy HomeMart at Udon Thani.  Then the 2 above arrived, and now there a couple more huge DIY place in ever metro area.

 

That has kept the cost of construction low, and yes, in TH, the land is the main appreciating factor.  Or was for our homes and land investments.  Not sure about townhouses & condo.  Townhouses rise a bit, but unless condo in a very desirable area, then not so much, if at all.  Again, newer & better being built all the time, so why buy old.

 

Point for point, you were wrong on every one concerning the USA.  Certainly doesn't mean there are not crappy home building out there, but not in my experiences, from 1978-2000, as home owner, investor, or RE agent, w/RE license.

They don't seem to build houses very fire resistant in America though. 

 

 

[jas007]

Back to stocks.  

 

The other day, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a jobs report that showed explosive job growth in December.  In response, the yield on the 10 year bond is approaching 5% and the market tanked, or I should say dropped a lot. Some stocks are now in correction territory, especially some high flying tech and speculative tech stocks.

 

My theory going forward:  I don't believe the jobs report for one second. Lately, many of the jobs reports have been revised downward at a later date.  Perhaps the Biden administration is deliberately trying to leave Trump with a mess? That's exactly what the Democrats are now trying to do.   A phony jobs report would be just the ticket to shake up the markets. I'm sure a lot of the official reports have been phony or fudged. For example, no one believes that inflation in 2024 was only 2.5% or whatever. And yet that's what was reported. 

 

Anyway, the markets have been disrupted because large banks and other institutions have little choice but to react to the official news and the movement of the bond market.  They have rules they follow and don't deviate.  If the 10 year yield is 5%, they go with that number and adjust their portfolios accordingly.  If the stock market corrects, they make the appropriate adjustments there. They have no choice.  They're managing large pools of other people's money and they don't want to be seen as gamblers. 

 

And yet Trump takes office in a matter of days. Perhaps they'll start reporting real numbers.  And I'm sure the powers that be will do everything humanly possible to push down interest rates.  It's that or a system collapse.  It may be a system collapse either way, but I'll go with the lower interest rates.  Why not?  It's the only hope.

 

So, I'm ignoring the market moves right now and I'm buying more of what's already working well for me. Palantir and Tesla. I've also been buying a little NVDA. And maybe some more oil stocks just for stability. XOM and OXY.  Anything I buy going forward I'm not buying to trade, I'm buying for what they will be in a few years.  

[newnative]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, and I do disagree with what you said. 

 

By your thinking, I can buy a condo today, and sell next month, and I must make money, because property ALWAYS increases in value.

 

In my opinion, that's just rubbish, and you know it is, but you will not say it because you have a conflict of interest.  You buy and flip properties here. You have said this in other threads.

 

Once again, and for clarity purposes, over the long term, and it's a very long term when it comes to property as an investment vehicle, property increases in value, but to say property ALWAYS increases in value if incorrect.   There are boom bust cycles. Peaks and troughs.  Just like any other investment.  

 

 

      Guess I'm forced to respond once again because you have misquoted me left and right by way of purporting to know my 'thinking'.  I have never thought, or said, in any post and at any time, either on this thread or any other thread on Thai Visa or Asean Now, that property ALWAYS increases in value.  What I said was 'Real estate appreciates.'  There are always exceptions and, of course, not every property always increases in value, as you, and everyone else, well knows.  Duh.  I suppose you have to dot every i and cross every t even if something is common knowledge.   But, yes, it has certainly been my experience that, as an investment, real estate appreciates, some short-term and some over time--see my foreclosure example in a previous post for one that took several years after one of the 'troughs' you mention. 

      I also never said you can buy a condo today and sell it next month at a profit--although I'm sure some have done just that at certain times and in certain hot markets.   I have not.  But, I have sold some condos at a profit having held them for less than a year.  That can work if you've gotten a low off-plan price and the condo project has increased in value by the time it opens.  See The Base Central Pattaya, as one good example.  Wish I had had more than just one of those.   That can also work if you buy, say, a View Talay condo shell in foreign quota at a low, unfinished price, take a few months to finish it, and then sell it in less than a year at a profit to a foreigner who wants the work done for him.  Years ago, when VT was still the big cheese,  I did have more than just one of those.   None of this is brain surgery or rocket science--thank goodness.

    Whether I build a property to either live in or sell, or buy a property to fix up and either live in or sell, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the property will increase or decrease in value.  Flipping, or not flipping, does not enter into a property's current or future value.  You are also incorrect when you say it takes 'a very long term' for 'property as an investment vehicle' to increase in value.  It certainly can take a long time but to state 'for clarity purposes' that that is always the case is wrong.  There are very few 'always' in real estate, in my experience.  Rather, real estate has tons of variables and does not lend itself to the blanket statements you make.

[Lacessit]

Precious metals and some shares - not all - have served me well over the years, although I only buy those listed on the ASX.

 

My stock pick for 2025 is BHP. IMO it is undervalued, goes ex dividend early March.

 

I have put my money where my mouth is.