Panic or Patience? Why I’m Holding My Falling Stocks

– Lessons from the Past –

The market feels like an EF-2 tornado on the verge of becoming an EF-3 or more right now. Every headline seems to scream uncertainty, every chart shows unwelcome downward trends, and the little voice in my head keeps asking, “Is it time to bail?”

Like many investors navigating these choppy waters, I’ve been watching some of my portfolio positions shed value. It’s a natural, albeit uncomfortable, part of the investment journey. But when the red on the screen persists, the temptation to cut losses and run becomes incredibly strong. Lately, this internal debate has centered around a few specific holdings: Intel (INTC), Pfizer (PFE), QuantumScape (QS), and Boeing (BA). They represent different sectors, different risk profiles, and different reasons for their recent struggles, yet they all share one thing in common in my portfolio right now: they are currently underwater.

This isn’t just a theoretical exercise for me; it’s about my own capital, my own long-term goals, and my conviction in the investment philosophy I’ve tried to cultivate over the years. I’ve spent hours poring over financial statements, reading analyst reports, following news cycles, and, perhaps most importantly, confronting my own psychological biases.

The question isn’t just if these stocks are falling – the data clearly shows they are – but why they are falling, what their future prospects look like, and whether the current market price reflects their intrinsic value or is merely a victim of broader fear and short-term sentiment.

So, let’s explore. I want to share my thinking process, the data I’ve considered, the fears I’ve wrestled with, the reasons I considered selling these positions, and ultimately, the data-driven, personal conviction that has led me to the decision to hold them, perhaps even adding to them should the opportunity arise. This isn’t financial advice – my situation, risk tolerance, and goals are unique to me – but I hope sharing my objective approach combined with a personal viewpoint can resonate with others facing similar dilemmas.

The Uncomfortable Truth: Why the Thought of Selling Even Crossed My Mind

Let’s be honest: seeing your investments decline is painful. It triggers a primal fear of loss. My initial gut reaction, especially after significant drops, was defensive. The “sell” button looked like a lifeboat in a stormy sea. There were several logical (and some emotional) reasons why I seriously considered reducing or exiting my positions in INTC, PFE, QS, and BA.

1. Protecting Capital / Avoiding Further Losses: This is the most obvious driver. If a stock is falling, the immediate fear is that it will fall further. Selling allows you to lock in the current loss, yes, but prevents potentially larger future losses. In a volatile and uncertain economic climate – marked by persistent inflation concerns, fluctuating interest rate expectations, geopolitical instability, and whispers of recession (or growth slowdown) – the instinct is to move to safety, to preserve what capital remains. Looking at the price charts of these four companies, it’s easy to see the downward momentum that fuels this fear.
2. Opportunity Cost: Money tied up in a falling stock is money that isn’t earning returns elsewhere. If I sold, I could theoretically reinvest that capital into assets perceived as safer, less volatile, or with better immediate growth prospects. The opportunity cost of holding underperforming assets can be significant, especially in a market where some sectors or asset classes might be performing relatively better.
3. Validation of Concerns: Each of these companies faces specific, well-documented challenges (which I’ll detail later). The falling stock price acts as a market validation of these concerns. When the market is pricing in negative news or future headwinds, it’s easy to feel that holding is fighting the tide. Maybe the market, in its collective wisdom, is telling me something I should listen to.
4. Psychological Relief: There’s a certain mental burden to holding losing positions. Checking the portfolio and seeing red day after day can be stressful. Selling provides a sense of finality, a release from that daily anxiety. It’s a powerful, albeit non-objective, driver.

These are valid considerations, and ignoring the reasons to sell would be foolish. Smart investing isn’t just about buying; it’s about knowing when not to hold, or when to rebalance. But my investment philosophy is fundamentally long-term, and that requires looking beyond the immediate price action and understanding the underlying data and the company’s ability to navigate challenges.

The Most Expensive Lesson: Hindsight from 2009-2010

The current market volatility and economic headwinds feel unsettling, and the urge to retreat to safety is potent. But this isn’t the first time I’ve felt this pressure. In fact, the echoes of a past decision, made during a similarly fearful period, serve as a constant, humbling reminder of the potential cost of letting short-term fear override long-term conviction and a focus on future potential.

It was the period immediately following the depths of the 2008 financial crisis, roughly 2009 and into 2010. The global economy was fragile, credit markets had seized up, unemployment was high, and confidence was shattered. The stock market had seen a brutal decline, and while it had begun to recover, the future felt incredibly uncertain. News headlines were grim, and the prevailing sentiment was one of caution, if not outright pessimism. Many companies, even fundamentally sound ones, were trading at depressed valuations, bruised by the recession and facing uncertain near-term prospects.

In that environment, like many others, I held positions that had been significantly impacted by the downturn. Among them were companies that, at the time, seemed risky, facing their own set of challenges, and whose long-term trajectory felt less certain than it does in hindsight. Specifically, I remember holding positions in Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX), AMD (AMD), and a few others that were far from the dominant, seemingly invincible forces they are today.

Amazon was still primarily seen as an online retailer, albeit a growing one, but few fully grasped the future scale of its e-commerce dominance or the nascent power of AWS. Netflix was primarily a DVD-by-mail service just beginning its streaming transition, burning cash, and facing skepticism about its ability to compete. AMD was perpetually the underdog challenger to Intel, struggling for market share in a tough semiconductor landscape.

Watching these stocks flounder in the uncertain economy, hearing the pervasive negativity, and feeling the instinct to protect capital after the preceding market carnage, I made a decision I would later regret profoundly: I sold them.

My reasoning at the time felt sound. The economy was weak, their business models felt vulnerable (especially NFLX’s cash burn and transition), competition was fierce, and who knew how much further they could fall? Locking in the losses felt like a prudent move to preserve what was left and wait for “clearer skies.”

Oh, the clarity that hindsight provides.

Selling those positions in 2009-2010 turned out to be the single most costly investment mistake I have ever made. Based on their subsequent growth and stock price appreciation over the following decade-plus, the value of those specific holdings I sold, had I simply held onto them, would realistically be measured not just in millions, but well in excess of $15 million and more. It was a staggering sum left on the table, a direct consequence of fear overriding a long-term perspective and an insufficient appreciation for the future potential of those businesses.

Now, why dredge up this painful memory? Why highlight a past performance number that, frankly, makes me wince?

It’s crucial, absolutely crucial, to state upfront: Past performance is not indicative of future results. The market dynamics, the specific challenges, and the opportunities are different today. No one can guarantee that Intel, Pfizer, QuantumScape, or Boeing will replicate the meteoric rises seen by Amazon or Netflix (or even AMD) over the past 15 years. Comparing companies directly across different eras and industries is fraught with peril.

However, I bring it up because some of the factors influencing the investor psychology and decision-making process feel remarkably similar.

Just as in 2009-2010, we are in an economic environment characterized by significant uncertainty and fear. While the 2008 crisis stemmed from a financial system collapse, today’s turbulence feels, as you rightly put it, like a “self-induced economic coma by the political class” – a complex brew of post-pandemic fiscal and monetary policies, supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tensions, and energy market volatility that have created persistent inflationary pressures and unpredictable growth patterns. The cause is different, but the effect on market sentiment – the pressure to sell, the focus on immediate pain, the difficulty in seeing beyond the fog – shares unfortunate similarities.

The critical lesson learned from that costly mistake wasn’t just “don’t sell when things are bad.” It was about the importance of evaluating not just the current fundamentals of the companies in your portfolio, but, more importantly, their ability to pivot, adapt, and thrive into the future, even when facing significant headwinds in the present.

Amazon wasn’t just an online bookstore; it had the infrastructure and vision for cloud computing. Netflix wasn’t just mailing DVDs; it saw the future of streaming and original content. AMD wasn’t just chasing Intel; it had the technological expertise to eventually compete fiercely in crucial markets. Their current struggles in 2009-2010 obscured their future potential for adaptation and growth for someone like me, who was focused too much on the immediate economic pain and their present challenges.

This is the lens through which I must now view my current falling stocks – Intel, Pfizer, QuantumScape, and Boeing. Their current fundamentals are indeed challenged, contributing to their price declines. But the essential question, informed by that hard-won lesson, becomes: Do these companies possess the management, technology, market position, and strategic vision to navigate their current difficulties, pivot where necessary, and thrive in the years to come?

My Investment Compass: Why I Tend Towards Holding

Before I analyze each stock specifically through this “pivot and thrive” lens, it’s crucial to reiterate the principles that guide my decisions, especially during downturns. These principles are the foundation upon which my decision to hold is built.

1. Long-Term Perspective: I invest with a time horizon of years, often decades, not weeks or months. Daily or even monthly price fluctuations are noise compared to the long-term trajectory of a company and its industry. I am investing in the future earnings potential and growth of a business, not trading ticker symbols based on momentum.
2. Focus on Fundamentals & Future Potential: Stock price in the short term is driven by supply and demand, sentiment, and countless unpredictable factors. In the long term, however, stock price tends to follow the underlying performance of the business – its revenue, earnings, cash flow, debt, competitive position, management quality, and critically, its capacity for future adaptation. My analysis focuses heavily on these elements.
3. Valuation Matters: A falling stock price makes the business cheaper relative to its fundamentals. If the reasons for the price drop are temporary or don’t fundamentally impair the long-term value of the company or its ability to pivot, then a lower price represents a better opportunity to buy or hold, not a reason to sell. I look at metrics like Price-to-Earnings (P/E), Price-to-Sales (P/S), dividend yield, and free cash flow yield to gauge whether a stock is becoming undervalued relative to its future prospects.
4. Conviction in the Underlying Business’s Resilience: Did my original reasons for investing still hold true, and do I believe in the company’s ability to overcome its current challenges and capitalize on future trends? If the fundamental thesis, including the potential for resilience and adaptation, is broken, selling might be warranted. But if the thesis remains intact, a price drop can be an opportunity.
5. Avoiding Emotional Decisions: Fear and greed are the two biggest enemies of investors. Selling in a panic at the bottom is often the worst possible decision. My goal is to make rational choices based on data, my long-term plan, and the company’s potential to navigate the future, not react impulsively to market volatility or past regrets.

With this framework, sharpened by the costly lesson of 2009-2010, let’s look at each of the four stocks and the specific data points that informed my decision to hold, focusing on their current challenges and their potential to pivot and thrive.

Deep Dive: Analyzing the Fallen Angels and Their Potential to Pivot

Each of these companies is wrestling with distinct challenges, which is why their stock prices have suffered. My holding decision for each is rooted in a specific assessment of these challenges and the company’s ability to navigate them, drawing parallels (cautiously) to how companies in the past overcame their own periods of difficulty.

(Charts for Display purposes)

1. Intel (INTC): The Semiconductor Giant in Transition (Can it Pivot Back to Leadership?)

• The Pain: Intel’s stock has remained a challenging hold. They continue to face intense competition from AMD (CPUs) and Nvidia (GPUs, AI). Stumbles in manufacturing process node transitions have persisted, contributing to market share erosion. Billions are still being poured into building new fabs, a necessity but also a drain on resources during a period of fluctuating semiconductor demand, especially in the PC market. While the data center segment shows growth, competition, particularly in AI, is fierce. The market still prices in significant skepticism about their ability to execute their turnaround plan, now under new CEO Lip-Bu Tan who took over in April 2025. This complex execution challenge under new leadership is their current fundamental challenge.
• The Objective Data & Their Potential to Pivot and Thrive:
  • Manufacturing Turnaround (IDM 2.0): This remains the core of the potential pivot. The ambitious plan to regain process leadership continues. As of early 2025, progress has been made on Intel 7, Intel 4, and Intel 3. The critical Intel 18A node is now in risk manufacturing, targeting high-volume production in the second half of 2025 for products like Panther Lake. Recent announcements show ongoing development with variants like 18A-P and 18A-PT. Achieving leadership with 18A on schedule is paramount for competing with TSMC and represents the most significant technical pivot. Foundry Business (IFS): Establishing Intel Foundry Services as a major external provider is a key part of IDM 2.0 and a potential major pivot. IFS is being structured for more independence to attract customers. Revenue grew 7% in Q1 2025 (largely internal), but it still operates at a significant loss, reflecting the investment phase. Announcing design wins on 18A with major customers, including top cloud providers, are positive signs, though converting these into substantial external revenue and profitability is a long-term endeavor. CHIPS Act funding (up to $7.86 billion awarded) provides vital financial support. Geopolitical desire for diverse supply chains remains a tailwind.
  • Market Demand & Future Trends: Long-term semiconductor demand across data centers, AI, and other areas is robust. Intel is a foundational provider but needs to deliver competitive products in high-growth areas like AI accelerators. Their Data Center and AI revenue grew 8% in Q1 2025, a positive sign, but client computing revenue declined. Their focus on “AI PCs” and efforts in datacenter AI are key to future thriving.
  • Valuation and Dividend: After previous declines, valuation metrics became more attractive, but the ongoing investment and near-term financial pressures keep the valuation sensitive to execution. The dividend was suspended in August 2024 to prioritize investments, reflecting the capital demands of the turnaround.
  • Balance Sheet: While investing heavily, Intel still generates cash flow. However, the massive fab investments have increased debt levels. Access to capital markets and government subsidies (like the CHIPS Act) are and will remain crucial for funding this build-out, along with the push for manufacturing onshoring of critical industries, particularly after the Covid19 Pandemic micro-chip crunch.
• My Conviction: Holding Intel under its new leadership is a bet on the successful execution of the challenging IDM 2.0 pivot. Recent technical progress, particularly on 18A, and early signs of IFS customer traction are encouraging. The CHIPS Act funding is a significant positive. However, the financial results still highlight the difficulty and cost of the transition, with ongoing losses in IFS and profitability pressures. The new CEO’s ability to drive execution and improve financial performance will be key. The risks are still considerable, but the potential reward if Intel succeeds in regaining process leadership and building a viable foundry business, supported by strategic tailwinds, remains substantial and may still be underestimated by a market focused on near-term challenges. I continue to believe the plan is possible and represents a credible path to future leadership, and I am watching closely for execution under the new leadership.

(Charts for Display purposes)

2. Pfizer (PFE): The Pharmaceutical Giant Post-Pandemic Boom (Can it Pivot Beyond COVID-19?)

• The Pain: Pfizer’s stock soared during the pandemic thanks to its COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) and antiviral treatment (Paxlovid). The subsequent decline in demand for these products has led to a massive drop in revenue and, consequently, the stock price. Investors are concerned about the “patent cliff” (when key drug patents expire), the performance of the rest of their drug pipeline, and the integration of large, expensive acquisitions made to offset the COVID revenue decline. This is their “current fundamental challenge.”
• The Objective Data & Their Potential to Pivot and Thrive:
  • Core Business Strength & Diversification: Beyond the COVID products, Pfizer has a diversified portfolio of established drugs across various therapeutic areas (oncology, inflammation, internal medicine, vaccines). Data shows these segments continue to generate significant, stable revenue. While facing patent expirations, this core business provides a strong foundation from which to launch future growth – a base of operations while they pivot.
  • Pipeline Potential & Strategic Acquisitions: This is the key pivot mechanism for future growth. I’ve analyzed data on their R&D pipeline, looking at the number of candidates in different clinical trial phases and the therapeutic areas they target. Recent data from clinical trials for key potential blockbusters are crucial indicators of success in developing new revenue streams. The strategic acquisitions, notably Seagen, are data points showing Pfizer’s active effort to buy future growth and pivot into cutting-edge areas like oncology ADCs, specifically to offset lost COVID revenue and patent expirations. Integrating large companies is challenging, but Seagen’s technology represents a significant potential for future thriving.
  • Financial Strength & Dividend: Pfizer is a cash-generating machine from its base business. Even with reduced COVID revenue, they still produce substantial free cash flow. This financial strength allows them to fund R&D for internal pipeline pivots, make strategic acquisitions for external pivots, and support a significant dividend (yielding around 5.5% as of early 2025). This high yield provides a substantial income stream that offsets some of the stock price volatility and is a major reason for me to hold, particularly in an uncertain income-seeking environment. Data on their payout ratio and cash flow generation supports the sustainability of this dividend, signaling management’s commitment while they pivot.
  • Long-Term Healthcare Demand: The aging global population and advancements in medical science mean long-term demand for pharmaceutical products remains robust. Pfizer operates in a fundamentally growing industry, providing fertile ground for successful pivots.
• My Conviction: Holding Pfizer is based on the belief that the market is overly focused on the temporary drop in COVID product revenue and the patent cliff, while underappreciating the strength of the underlying business, the potential of the pipeline (bolstered by strategic acquisitions acting as pivots), and the value of the dividend. The data on their cash flow and dividend sustainability provides confidence while the company executes its pivot away from pandemic reliance towards its core strengths and new growth areas. While pipeline execution is always a risk in pharma, the breadth of Pfizer’s late-stage pipeline and the strategic value of acquisitions like Seagen suggest strong potential for future revenue growth that can eventually replace the lost COVID sales and expiring patents, allowing the company to thrive in a post-pandemic world. I see the current price as an attractive entry point for a dividend-paying healthcare giant capable of strategic adaptation.

(Charts for Display purposes)

3. QuantumScape (QS): The Moonshot Bet on Solid-State Batteries (Can it Pivot from Lab to Factory?)

• The Pain: QuantumScape is fundamentally different from Intel and Pfizer. It’s a pre-revenue, highly speculative technology company aiming to develop and commercialize solid-state batteries, primarily for electric vehicles. The stock price is incredibly volatile and has fallen dramatically from its post-SPAC hype highs. The reasons are clear: it’s still in the R&D phase, faces massive technical and manufacturing challenges, requires enormous capital, has a long timeline to commercialization, and competes in a rapidly evolving battery market. There’s significant execution risk. This is their “current fundamental challenge” – transitioning from R&D to production.
• The Objective Data & Their Potential to Pivot and Thrive:
  • Technology Progress: My holding thesis hinges entirely on their technical progress – their ability to make the fundamental pivot from lab-scale innovation to a viable commercial product. I track their reported data on battery performance: cycle life, power capability, temperature performance, and achieving multi-layer cells (e.g., 24-layer cells) which are necessary for commercial viability. Data showing successful testing of their A0 and B0 prototype samples with potential customers (like Volkswagen) is crucial validation that the technology itself is potentially sound. The ability to scale up production (making the leap from samples to mass manufacturing) is the next, critical data hurdle – the ultimate pivot point.
  • Partnerships: Their partnership with Volkswagen (VW) is a key data point validating their potential pivot. VW’s continued investment and testing indicate belief from a major potential customer. Data on milestones met within this partnership is vital. Success with VW could pave the way for partnerships with other automakers, accelerating their path to thriving.
  • Cash Position & Burn Rate: As a pre-revenue company, QuantumScape burns cash rapidly to fund R&D and build pilot production lines necessary for the manufacturing pivot. Data on their cash reserves and quarterly cash burn rate is critical. They need sufficient capital to reach commercialization without excessive dilution, which could impede their ability to pivot successfully. Recent funding rounds and cash balance reports indicate they have runway, but this needs constant monitoring.
  • Market Potential: The potential market for successful solid-state batteries in EVs is enormous – a key reason why the reward could justify the risk if they manage the manufacturing pivot. Longer range, faster charging, and potentially improved safety could capture significant market share and allow them to thrive.
• My Conviction: Holding QuantumScape is the highest-risk, highest-potential-reward position among these four. The decision is based purely on the belief in the potential of their specific solid-state technology to successfully make the pivot from a lab breakthrough to a manufacturable, commercially viable product. The data I track is centered on whether they continue to hit their technical milestones and demonstrate feasibility at larger scales. I understand this could go to zero if they fail to commercialize or face insurmountable manufacturing hurdles – the pivot fails. However, the potential market for successful solid-state batteries is enormous, offering the possibility of significant future upside if their technology proves viable and scalable. The current low stock price reflects the high risk and long timeline inherent in this kind of technological pivot. It’s a small, speculative part of my portfolio, reflecting its risk profile, but held with the conviction that a successful pivot could lead to outsized returns, a different kind of “thriving” story than the established giants.

(Charts for Display purposes)

4. Boeing (BA): The Aerospace Giant Navigating Turbulence (Can it Pivot Back to Operational Excellence?)

• The Pain: Boeing has been plagued by a series of self-inflicted wounds and external challenges. Two fatal 737 MAX crashes severely damaged its reputation and led to a grounding. More recently, quality control issues have persisted, leading to production delays, delivery halts, and intense scrutiny from regulators like the FAA. Supply chain problems have exacerbated production struggles. This has allowed Airbus to gain significant market share ground. Leadership turnover has also been a factor. This is their “current fundamental challenge” – operational dysfunction.
• The Objective Data & Their Potential to Pivot and Thrive:
  • Order Book: Despite its problems, Boeing has a massive backlog of aircraft orders from airlines globally. This is a key piece of data – it represents billions in future revenue and indicates strong long-term demand for aircraft. Airlines need to replace aging fleets and accommodate air travel growth. The duopoly in large commercial aircraft manufacturing (Boeing vs. Airbus) creates a high barrier to entry and ensures demand for Boeing’s products if they can deliver them consistently and safely – the foundation for thriving if they pivot operationally.
  • Production Rates & Quality Control: This is where the data looks challenging but is crucial for tracking the potential pivot back to operational health. Data on their actual vs. target production rates for key models (like the 737 MAX and 787) shows they are operating significantly below capacity. Data on regulatory audits, findings, and mandated improvements from the FAA are critical indicators of whether they are successfully addressing the quality control issues and making the necessary operational pivot. My decision to hold is a bet that they will eventually improve their manufacturing discipline and quality control processes, even if it takes time, allowing them to fulfill their backlog and thrive again.
  • Cash Flow: Boeing’s business model involves receiving progress payments during aircraft construction, leading to significant cash flow generation when production is flowing smoothly. The recent issues have negatively impacted cash flow. Tracking improvements in free cash flow generation as production rates hopefully recover will be a key data point for me indicating a successful operational pivot.
  • Industry Structure: The commercial aircraft market is effectively a duopoly. Airlines need both Boeing and Airbus. This structural advantage means that while Boeing is struggling, it’s unlikely to be replaced entirely. The market will support Boeing’s recovery if they execute the necessary operational changes.
  • New Leadership (Planned Transition): The recent announcement of a change in CEO signals the board’s recognition of the need for new direction and provides an opportunity for a leadership pivot. While transitions can be uncertain, it also offers the potential for a fresh start and renewed focus on operational excellence, which is key to turning the ship around.
• My Conviction: Holding Boeing is based on the belief that the current operational and quality control issues, while severe, are ultimately solvable for a company of Boeing’s size, historical expertise, and critical importance to global infrastructure. The enormous order book provides a clear path to revenue and cash flow recovery if they can fix their manufacturing and quality issues – successfully executing the operational pivot required to meet demand and thrive. The data shows the depth of the current problems, but also the underlying demand and the high barrier to entry in their industry. My decision is a long-term view that they will navigate this crisis, regain regulatory confidence, ramp up production, and fulfill their backlog. The stock price currently reflects significant distress, which could offer substantial upside if they execute a turnaround, a successful pivot back to being a well-functioning aerospace giant.

Navigating the Chaos: The Broader Economic Environment and the Path to Thriving

It would be remiss not to tie this back to the “chaotic economic environment.” High inflation, rising interest rates (or the potential for them to stay higher for longer), and recession fears create a challenging backdrop. This environment increases volatility and can pressure stock prices across the board, even for companies with solid fundamentals.

However, for a long-term investor, market downturns driven by macroeconomic fear, rather than terminal company-specific collapse (which I don’t believe is the case for INTC, PFE, or BA, and for QS, the risk is inherent, not new macroeconomic-driven collapse), can present opportunities. Holding through this period requires conviction that the global economy will eventually stabilize and that these businesses are resilient enough to weather the storm and possess the capacity to pivot and thrive in the subsequent recovery. The data on their balance sheets, market positions, investment in future capabilities, and long-term demand helps support this view.

Just as the challenging economic environment of 2009-2010 provided the backdrop against which Amazon, Netflix, and AMD were building the foundations for their future dominance, today’s “self-induced economic coma” creates a stress test. Companies that can navigate this period, focus on innovation, improve operations, and execute strategic pivots are the ones most likely to emerge stronger and thrive when conditions improve. My decision to hold is based on my assessment that INTC, PFE, QS (if successful), and BA have the potential to be among them, learning from past experiences where I failed to appreciate such potential amidst the fear.

My Personal Path Through the Downturn

The decision to sell or hold falling stocks is deeply personal and should align with individual financial goals and risk tolerance. There are valid reasons why an investor might choose to sell any of these stocks based on their own analysis and circumstances.

For me, after wrestling with the discomfort of seeing my portfolio value decline, recalling the painful and costly lesson learned in 2009-2010, and conducting a data-driven review of Intel, Pfizer, QuantumScape, and Boeing specifically through the lens of their potential to pivot and thrive, I have chosen the path of patience and conviction. My analysis of their specific challenges, strategic plans, financial data, the long-term prospects of their respective industries, and their demonstrated (or potential) capacity for adaptation leads me to believe that the current stock prices are significantly discounting their future potential, should they successfully navigate their current difficulties.

Holding these positions is not a passive act; it’s an active decision based on a reasoned assessment that the reasons for my initial investment thesis are still intact, or that the companies are taking credible steps to address their challenges and position themselves for future growth. I understand the risks involved – execution failure, unforeseen macroeconomic shocks, or simply being wrong about their ability to pivot. But based on the data I’ve reviewed and my long-term investment horizon, and mindful of the opportunities missed by selling resilient companies too early in the past, I am choosing to weather this storm with these companies. I will continue to monitor their progress against key data points and adjust my thesis if the fundamentals deteriorate significantly or their potential for future thriving diminishes.

For now, my falling stocks are not sells; they are tests of my conviction, opportunities for patience, and hopefully, components of a portfolio positioned for long-term growth when the market eventually finds calmer seas, steered by companies that have successfully navigated the current turbulence by executing crucial pivots.

Disclaimer: This article is written from a personal perspective and reflects the author’s own opinions and investment decisions based on their analysis of publicly available data as of early-mid 2025. It includes reflections on past investment experiences for illustrative purposes. It is not financial advice, and individuals should conduct their own thorough research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions

Jay Sadio, MBA

Jay Sadio

See author's posts