Why are some people so steadfastly committed to dollar-cost averaging into the Nasdaq Index, and what exactly is their underlying belief?

The fundamental logic of the game is entirely different: The Nasdaq is designed to help you make money; certain other markets exist primarily for you to absorb losses. For example, right now the U.S. is vigorously developing a particular high-tech sector. To prevent being strangled by technological blockades, we must strongly support this sector—this concerns national security, and thus cannot be evaluated solely on economic grounds but must also account for geopolitical considerations. That’s perfectly reasonable, right? No one would object to that, correct? So how do we provide strong support? Strong support requires massive amounts of funding, doesn’t it? Without money, what support could possibly be delivered? Will banks supply the funds? But bank loans must be repaid. Will the state provide the money? State funds can only be used for subsidies and guidance—not direct investment. What about large private capital players? They’re not foolish: money must flow in *and* flow out smoothly. Without a clear exit path, who would invest? Therefore, the optimal solution is to open a green channel—allowing these companies to go public, raise substantial capital via IPOs, and enabling early investors to realize profitable exits. This mechanism then guides and supports the next wave of industries. Whether the company itself generates substantial profits post-listing to reward shareholders is, in fact, secondary.

How do top stock-picking experts select stocks?

Selecting the right industry is critically important. A stock riding an upward trend at a higher-level (macro or structural) level of prosperity will not suffer prolonged, sharp drawdowns unless its fundamentals undergo a fundamental reversal. This is because fundamentals drive capital flows: as long as fundamentals remain sound, investor attention stays intense—'if you don’t buy, others will.' This reflects the inevitability of consensus and trend. As long as you avoid buying at near-term highs, even if fundamentals later deteriorate, you’ll likely still get a chance to exit near your cost basis—or with only a minor loss. Thus, I particularly favor situations where higher-level prosperity is rising while the stock price is falling in the short term. This may stem from several causes: first, the fundamental prosperity narrative hasn’t yet fully or thoroughly unfolded; second, fundamentals have experienced only temporary disruptions that don’t alter the underlying supply-demand dynamics; third, the stock has become severely oversold after excessive prior gains—disrupting its shareholding structure—and subsequently corrected sharply due to liquidity constraints and other capital-market factors. Many people—including my earlier self—used to love buying purely undervalued stocks. In my early investing days, I also enjoyed trading stocks whose valuations were driven by marginal improvements in fundamentals.

Mativ Holdings: A Speculative Buy On Improving Fundamentals (NYSE:MATV)

May 11, 2026

Mativ Holdings reports improved gross margins and $20M underlying free cash flow covering dividends, despite high net debt risks. Analysts recommend a speculative buy contingent on successful deleveraging.

Seeking Alpha

2026-05-07

Mativ Holdings Q1 2026 Earnings Beat EPS Forecast, Stock Rises

2026-05-08

Mativ Holdings Swings Back To Quarterly Loss And Renews Earnings Volatility Debate

2026-05-10

Mativ Announces First Quarter 2026 Results

2026-05-11

Mativ Holdings: A Speculative Buy On Improving Fundamentals (NYSE:MATV)

2026-05-11

Mativ Holdings Reports Q1 2026 Earnings Results