Fortinet Stock Before Q2 Earnings: Buy Now or Wait for Results?
For the second quarter of 2025, Fortinet expects revenues in the range of $1.59-$1.65 billion. It anticipates non-GAAP earnings per share in the band of 58-60 cents.
The Zacks Consensus Estimate for second-quarter revenues is pegged at $1.62 billion, suggesting year-over-year growth of 12.9%.
The consensus mark for earnings is pinned at 59 cents per share, which has remained unchanged over the past 30 days. The estimate indicates a year-over-year increase of 3.51%.
FTNT Earnings Surprise History
In the last reported quarter, the company delivered an earnings surprise of 9.43%. The company's earnings beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the trailing four quarters, the average surprise being 23.83%.
Fortinet, Inc. Price and EPS Surprise
Fortinet, Inc. price-eps-surprise | Fortinet, Inc. Quote
Earnings Whispers for DDOG
Our proven model does not predict an earnings beat for Fortinet this time around. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) increases the odds of an earnings beat. You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they are reported with our Earnings ESP Filter.
FTNT has an Earnings ESP of 0.00% and carries a Zacks Rank #2 at present. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Factors Shaping Upcoming Results of FTNT
Fortinet entered the second quarter of 2025 with exceptional momentum following a record-setting first quarter that successfully delivered 14% revenue growth to $1.54 billion and achieved a record operating margin of 34%. The company's strong first-quarter performance was driven by a record free cash flow of $783 million and robust growth in strategic focus areas, with Unified SASE billings increasing 18% and accounting for 25% of total business, while AI-driven secure operations billings surged 29% to represent 10% of the business.
During the second quarter, Fortinet launched the highly anticipated FortiGate 700G series, a next-generation firewall that delivered up to 7x higher firewall throughput and 4x better threat protection compared to competitors while consuming 7x less power per gigabit. This innovative product, powered by Fortinet's proprietary Network Processor 7 and Security Processor 5 ASIC technologies, incorporates advanced AI-powered threat detection through FortiAI-Protect and post-quantum cryptography readiness, positioning the company to capture increased market share in the campus security segment.
The company further strengthened its comprehensive product portfolio in June with the strategic unveiling of its advanced AI-powered workspace security suite, including FortiMail Workspace Security enhancements and powerful FortiDLP upgrades that extended protection beyond email to include browser and collaboration security. July brought additional validation when Fortinet was recognized as a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for SASE Platforms and ranked #1 in the Secure Branch Network Modernization use case.
Building on the first-quarter's exceptionally strong new customer acquisition of more than 6,300 new logos representing 14% growth, driven by strategic channel partner investments, and the company's maintained position as the number one deployed firewall vendor worldwide and market leader in SD-WAN and OT security, these highly strategic product launches and significant industry recognition positioned Fortinet for strong second-quarter 2025 financial results and demonstrate continued strong market leadership.
While the competitive landscape remains fierce from rivals like Palo Alto Networks PANW, Zscaler ZS and CrowdStrike CRWD, Fortinet's focus on reducing complexity, expanding sales capacity, and accelerating SASE adoption positions it for durable long-term growth, making it a smart buy choice for investors ahead of second-quarter 2025 results.
Top-Line Growth Estimates for Q2
Our model estimate for second-quarter 2025 Americas revenues is pegged at $664.8 million, indicating 11.7% growth from the figure reported in the year-ago quarter.
Our model estimate for Asia Pacific and Japan revenues is pinned at $324.6 million, indicating growth of 18.6% from the figure reported in the year-ago quarter.
Our model estimate for Europe, Middle East and Africa revenues is pegged at $629.5 million, suggesting a 11.4% decrease from the figure reported in the year-ago quarter.
Our model estimate for second-quarter 2025 total billings is pegged at $1.73 billion, indicating a 12.3% decrease from the figure reported in the year-ago quarter.
FTNT Price Performance & Stock Valuation
Shares of Fortinet have gained 4.9% in the year-to-date period, outperforming the Computer and Technology sector and the S&P 500 index's decline of 9.1% and 5.7%, respectively.
The company's outperformance can be attributed to its establishment as a leading provider of SASE solutions. SASE adoption is accelerating across enterprises, and to keep pace, Fortinet continuously enhances FortiOS, integrating advanced networking and security into a unified platform.
FTNT's YTD Price Performance
Fortinet's valuation may be a concern for some investors. The stock is trading at a significant premium compared to the broader Zacks Security industry. As of the latest data, FTNT's Price/Book ratio hovers around 37.97, well above the industry's 17.52, reflecting investors' high growth expectations. The Value Score of F further reinforces a stretched valuation for Fortinet at this moment.
FTNT Trades at a Premium
Investment Considerations
Fortinet represents a compelling investment opportunity despite premium valuation, as the company's record-setting first-quarter performance with 34% operating margins and strategic product launches position it for exceptional second-quarter results. The groundbreaking FortiGate 700G series delivers 7x higher performance and AI-powered security innovations demonstrate sustainable competitive advantages that justify premium pricing. With 18% Unified SASE growth, market-leading positions in firewalls and SD-WAN, and Gartner Magic Quadrant Leadership recognition, Fortinet continues expanding its market share against competitors. Strong customer acquisition exceeding 6,300 new logos and robust free cash flow generation provide a foundation for continued outperformance, making the current valuation attractive before anticipated second-quarter strength.
Conclusion
Fortinet's exceptional first-quarter momentum, groundbreaking FortiGate 700G launch, and market-leading SASE growth create compelling catalysts for strong second-quarter performance. With record margins, robust customer acquisition, and continued innovation leadership, investors should strategically capitalize on current opportunities before anticipated earnings strength potentially drives significant stock appreciation heading into the August results.
Zacks Names #1 Semiconductor Stock
This under-the-radar company specializes in semiconductor products that titans like NVIDIA don't build. It's uniquely positioned to take advantage of the next growth stage of this market. And it's just beginning to enter the spotlight, which is exactly where you want to be.
With strong earnings growth and an expanding customer base, it's positioned to feed the rampant demand for Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Internet of Things. Global semiconductor manufacturing is projected to explode from $452 billion in 2021 to $971 billion by 2028.
See This Stock Now for Free >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days.
Fortinet, Inc. (FTNT): Free Stock Analysis Report
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW): Free Stock Analysis Report
Zscaler, Inc. (ZS): Free Stock Analysis Report
CrowdStrike (CRWD): Free Stock Analysis Report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
13 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The real reason behind the stunning U.S. job revisions and why Trump's firing of the BLS commissioner is utter nonsense
'For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June. American-born workers have accounted for ALL of the job gains since President Trump took office and wages continue to rise.' - White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, July 3rd, 2025 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.' - President Donald Trump, August 1st, 2025 What a difference a month makes. Strong leaders share the credit and accept the blame. Weak leaders take all the credit and lay the blame on others. Talk about a classic case of shooting the messenger. If you don't trust the payroll data, then just go to the companion survey, which showed a huge 260,000 jobs decline in July and down 402,000 since the end of the first quarter (in the aftermath of all the tariff-related uncertainty if you are seeking out a culprit). And with no revisions to blame, either. What a sham. We are on a slippery slope, folks. President Trump said BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer would be 'replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,' claiming in a social- media post the government's jobs numbers were manipulated. What utter nonsense, but nary a peep from Congress who worry about being primaried. Never mind that Ms. McEntarfer wasn't merely nominated to the post by then President Joe Biden, but she was confirmed by the Senate 86-8 in January 2024 – and Vice President JD Vance, then a senator, was among those voting for her! Did she all of a sudden become incompetent? Hard to fathom. I hardly would fire a BLS commissioner because of the headline or revisions to the data, which are normal – in fact, the sort of downward revisions we saw in the last two months, while very large, is hardly without precedent. We have seen revisions close to this no fewer than two dozen times back to 1980. Nobody else ever got fired over it. This was a large two-month downward revision, to be sure, but that is only because the numbers in May and June were grossly overstated and every other employment statistic showed that it was nonfarm payrolls was the odd man out. And the revisions only corrected that anomaly. The plain fact of the matter is that there is nothing insidious nor nefarious going on. No attempt to mislead and no sloppy usage of the data. No case for Erika McEntarfer, who has been a government statistician since 2002 which covers a span where Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump were in the Oval Office, to be fired. This is one part ruse and one part deflection. That's all it is. The fact that this last two-month revision (-258,000) was so big only attests to how the Establishment survey was so out of sync with the other data which is why the consensus on the first release has been consistently below what came out initially. So, I ask: what is so difficult to figure out here beyond the sampling problem which the BLS did not create? The issue is with the post-Covid plunge in the business 'response rate'. This is not about the BLS which is forced to deal with the data that companies send in with respect to the initial release. It seems completely lost in this discussion that the root of the problem is the historically low company response rate to the first round of the monthly survey – this is a survey that depends on business cooperation and the reality is that the response rate does not approach anything that can be considered reliable until that second revision comes in. Maybe the BLS should simply stop publishing the payroll data so quickly – think of the first release as something no more than an incomplete snapshot of the labor market because it is no easy task 'to get it right' in the days that follow a month in a market as complex and large as a 130 million workforce, and all the churning that goes on beneath the surface. What we gain in speed of delivery of the data we lose in the veracity given the naturally lower sample size once the response rate rises in the next two months. The one thing to consider is that it is an entire employment report, replete with a wealth of information beneath the headline, even if incomplete at first. But there is typically a high error term in the first go-around and especially since the pandemic as a record low share of businesses 57% get in their responses now in time for the first payroll release. Pre-covid it was over 80% in terms of the response rate. By the time the third revision comes in, and the response rate goes to 94%, where it's always been in the past and it is only then that the BLS truly has enough information collected for anyone to get an accurate portrayal of what the labor market really looked like in the month of the first release. It's really something that only now are people paying attention to the fact that first estimates get revised as more accurate information is received. This has been a fact of life… forever. Nobody was talking about it a month ago, funny enough. And there will be future benchmark revisions in the future as even more information comes in. Everyone who follows the data closely knows that there is a high error term in the initial release of everything from payrolls to retail sales to GDP. It is all written up each month in the detailed notes to the data releases. The price paid to receive information quickly is the accuracy, as it pertains to the initial report. Nobody is amazed that we got July data on the first day of August? And this number will get revised too, for sure. These are preliminary estimates only with a large error term only because the sample size with the first stab at the employment report is so small. Why is everyone so shocked? It's not as if the BLS hides from the fact that the smaller the sample size, the larger the error term … this is taken right from the report (the range of possibilities is huge but is stated for the record): 'The confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 136,000 … The precision of estimates also is improved when the data are cumulated over time … in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months are based on incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is considered final.' Maybe the way the BLS reports the data should be changed, but it is at behest of the companies reporting in their payroll on time and accurately. Maybe those in the trading pits should be forced to wait two to three months for the better estimate instead of being spoon fed something quick with a low sample size. You just need to compare the business response rate of the first NFP estimate to the month containing the second revision – as aforementioned, from around 58% to 94% -- to see how the BLS is forced to make guesswork out of the 42% of the business universe that fail to report their headcount on time. The information trickles in the next two months. Maybe there should be a financial penalty applied to the firms who don't send in their information on time. I've been talking about this discrepancy for the past few years … and, in fact, the revisions have constantly been on the downside. The next question is why have the revisions been squarely to the downside, even before last Friday's report? Prior to what we saw unfold on Friday, there were downward revisions to every month of the year, and they totalled 188,000. That was before the downward two-month revision of 258,000 in May and June. Ergo, this has been a pattern all year long and transcends what happened in the July report. There is also the question as to why the data are constantly being revised lower. This is akin to asking why the prior payroll data were so artificially inflated. Once again, at the time of that initial release, the BLS is compelled to deal with whack load of guesswork. It must fill in the gaps from the fact that, once again, the initial response rate is historically so low. There is a huge information gap. The lower the sample size, the wider the confidence interval and the higher the error term – a basic premise of statistical analysis. The issue is that since Covid, the small business sector, in particular, has been slow to send in their updated staffing level numbers to the BLS in time for that first survey. And we know for a fact that the small business sector (fewer than 50 employees) has created no jobs at all over the past six months and have on net fired -42k workers over the May-July period. The BLS very likely was extrapolating small business job creation that simply did not exist over the spring and into the summer and that anomaly was corrected last Friday. End of story. Nobody from the White House discusses this, but what happened on Friday with the revisions is that nonfarm payrolls, which had been the odd man out, was brought into alignment with the vast array of other very soft labor market indicators of late. For example, the average private sector nonfarm payroll print of 51,000 from May to July now more closely approximates (actually a little higher) the ADP comparable of 37,000. Mr. President – it's not as if the BLS is any further away from telling the same story as ADP is. Do you want to know the name of the person who is president and CEO of ADP so you can dismiss here too (if you can)? Her name is Maria Black. Maybe she needs to be subpoenaed. Over this same May-July period, the Fed's Beige Book showed half the country posting flat to negative job growth. All the payroll numbers did on Friday was reflect that. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment data on employment in July lined up as the fourth worst reading since the end of the Great Financial Crisis in mid-2009. The Conference Board's consumer confidence survey showed only 30% of those polled stating that jobs were 'plentiful', the lowest since April 2021 – surely households would have a pretty good idea of what their job situation is, don't you think? But just in case you want to have the President and CEO of the Conference Board fired too, his name is Steve Odland, and I'm sure he is not too hard to find. There are plenty of culprits around these days spreading bad labour market news. David Rosenberg is founder of Rosenberg Research.
Globe and Mail
22 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
No Pain, No 100,000% Gain
Since David Gardner's initial Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) recommendation on April 15, 2005, a passive S&P 500 index investor could have enjoyed a 726% return simply by reinvesting dividends. But that 2005 rec, now Stock Advisor 's all-time top performer, leaves the market in the dust with a return of 107,479% as of this writing. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More » That is not a typo. Nvidia is the first Stock Advisor pick to grow more than 1,000 times in value! While it's easy to highlight a winner, the real challenge was having the patience to hold Nvidia shares through every bout of uncertainty over the years. What lessons could we learn from the most successful outlier in our flagship service? Quite a few. Despite its impressive returns, holding onto Nvidia wasn't a walk in the park. Let's explore what it truly takes to achieve a 1,000x return. At a Glance The Good The Bad The Ugly The Foolish Bottom Line The Good A Stock That Has Doubled 10 Times The Rule of 72 is a simple way to estimate how long it takes for an investment to double. If a stock grows 9% a year, roughly the historical return of the stock market, it would take eight years (72 / 9) to double an investment. Now, imagine your favorite stocks are horses running a race around a track. Each time they complete a lap, they double in value. Knowing that the stock market as a whole might take nearly a decade to double, which horses would you bet on? In this race, the horses don't stop running, and you can choose to back those clearly leading the pack -- including Nvidia, which has now finished 10 laps of doubling since 2005, with 9 of those laps taking 2.5 years or less. Lap Multiple Achieved Month Started Months to Complete 1 2x April 2005 9 2 4x Jan. 2006 17 3 8x June 2007 109 4 16x July 2016 5 5 32x Dec. 2016 13 6 64x Jan. 2018 30 7 128x July 2020 13 8 256x Aug. 2021 22 9 512x June 2023 9 10 1,024x March 2024 16 Many investors might have hesitated to buy Nvidia, waiting for a pullback after seeing it double time and again. However, those who waited often found themselves still sidelined, missing out on its phenomenal growth. Anchoring to past prices is common, but in this endless race, wouldn't you prefer to back the horse consistently lapping the field? As David Gardner wisely notes, five harmful words for investors are, "I guess I missed it." The next doubling for Nvidia would require another $4 trillion in value, a feat that might not seem as far-fetched in the future. Excluding PetroChina 's brief brush with a trillion-dollar valuation in 2007, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) founded the trillion-dollar club in August 2018 before reaching the $2 trillion and $3 trillion thresholds in 2020 and 2023, respectively. Nvidia broke the $4 trillion barrier earlier in July, with Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) joining on Wednesday. There's no guarantee that Nvidia will ever get to $8 trillion or $16 trillion -- let alone get there first -- but it does have the inside lane. More Years of Doubling Than Down Years One fun stat I've stumbled upon while following Nvidia comes courtesy of a website listing calendar-year returns as well as pre-split pricing (which I'll mention again later). Including the partial year of its 1999 IPO, Nvidia has enjoyed 10 calendar years with gains of 100% or more, while the stock fell by any amount in only 7 years so far. 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024 2002, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2018, 2022 Nvidia isn't unique in this category -- Shopify (NASDAQ: SHOP) and The Trade Desk (NASDAQ: TTD) share the same distinction of having more years of 100% gains than of losses for now -- but it's noteworthy. The Winner Outweighing All the Losers Stock Advisor members have access to our complete scorecard, where each recommendation is tracked against the S&P 500 from the time it's selected until it's sold (or held through today). With two stock picks each month since 2002, we've seen hundreds of winners and losers along the way. Data Source: The Motley Fool. Returns as of July 29, 2025. Graphic: Rik Silverman. This graphic illustrates the returns of all 562 Stock Advisor recommendations relative to their S&P 500 benchmark. David's April 2005 Nvidia selection leads with more than 106,000 percentage points of outperformance above the market's 726% return in the same period. Not all underperformers lost value; some, like FedEx 's (NYSE: FDX) 403% gain since 2003, underwhelmed compared to the S&P's 959% over the same time frame. One standout like Nvidia can outweigh all the underperformers in Stock Advisor 's storied history. David's 2009 Nvidia rerecommendation, along with two long-standing Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) recommendations, further highlights this point. But it gets better: The gain on the initial rec since April 15, 2025 -- the compounding just after the 20th anniversary -- nearly makes up for the hundreds of losing stock picks over the years. Nvidia exemplifies the Foolish principle of holding winners and not selling too early. Yet its journey wasn't always smooth. A stock that seems today to be taking a long victory lap once appeared to be slowly circling the drain. The Bad The Stock That Plummeted 85% Imagine a stock falling 80%. It might invoke thoughts of high-growth investments facing challenges or an unfavorable interest rate climate, perhaps echoing bad memories of 2021 or 2022. If you remember the 2000s, you might recall that something big happened in the market before the end of the decade. The first Nvidia rec quintupled by 2007 only to lose all those gains in mere months. Data Source: Yahoo Finance. Returns as of July 29, 2025. Graphic: Rik Silverman. If it needs to be repeated, this is a chapter in the greatest stock story of the last 20 years. The 85% plummet was the steepest for Nvidia shares since 2005, but seeing it trade significantly below previous highs was common for shareholders over the last 20-odd years. On average, Nvidia spent its time on our scorecard 34% below its then-highs. If we count days on which the stock closed more than 20% below its historic high price, Nvidia was in its own bear market more than 59% of the time! Let that marinate for a moment. We all wish for a time machine so we could go back and buy Nvidia stock decades in the past. But if you had owned shares at that time, would you honestly have held through to today? After all, the discomfort wasn't limited to the sharp pangs of these low points. There was also a dull pain that lasted for years. The Lost Decade On October 17, 2007, Nvidia closed at an all-time high. The next day, shares declined, and the record high was not reset until May 15, 2016. There's a reason the Fool encourages investors to hold stocks for five years or more. Periods of volatility or apparent mispricing can persist much longer than most investors (and all traders) are willing to wait. Could you sit on your hands while a stock was 85% underwater after six months or 50% in the red after the better part of a decade, waiting like a good Foolish investor should? And after all of those years waiting to break even, would you cut ties as soon as shares rose in spring 2016 back to prices of more than eight years earlier? If that sounds like something you might have done, I have some bad news. Guess which Fool rec was the best-performing stock in the entire S&P 500 in 2016? That would be Nvidia, of course, the dog many investors sold along the way. It gained 227% that year, before David recommended it for a third time in January 2017. The Ugly Holding Leads to Portfolio Concentration Nothing is quite as unpleasant as several years of dismal returns, but what differentiates Foolish investing outcomes is often a willingness to sit in your own discomfort and build the long-term-investor mindset when the short run looks bleak. That involves challenging conventional wisdom. I suspect most investors wouldn't believe the following: A large cap worth $40 billion in 2016 could grow 100x in the next nine years. A mega cap worth $400 billion in 2022 could grow 10x in just three years. An investor who sold at the 2007 peak and who successfully avoided the 85% drop would have missed out on 17,660% gains if they stayed on the sidelines. An investor who locked in gains by selling half their position when Nvidia first doubled and stayed in with "house money" has now given up 54,689% of the gains they could have earned. The greatest mistake we make as investors is selling our winners too early. The opportunity cost of those mistakes compounds over time as well, but that doesn't mean you should never sell. While the pullback in Nvidia's stock price during the great financial crisis was much deeper from prior highs than any drop since, relatively smaller recent drawdowns had much larger dollar impacts for anyone who has held many years. The 37% pullback between January and April meant that the earliest Nvidia rec dropped from being a 910-bagger to a 574-bagger, temporarily losing 336 times an original investment. We know now that Nvidia went on to greater heights within months, but a concentrated position without any allocation guardrails would have become a major risk. You have more flexibility to set your own sleep number and trim overweight positions than the Stock Advisor team has on our scorecard. It's possible that we could someday keep Nvidia as a high-conviction buy recommendation while at the same time closing one or two of the active recs as a reminder of prudent portfolio management rather than as a statement of near-term outlooks or overvaluation. The Thesis Had to Evolve In the 1990s, our Chief Rule Breaker actually rooted against Nvidia, seeing it as a rival to his preferred video game graphics card company, 3Dfx. By 2005, Nvidia had acquired 3Dfx, and David's investment thesis focused on Nvidia's growth potential with Microsoft's Xbox and Motorola (NYSE: MSI) cellphones. Cloud computing and data centers, now Nvidia's largest business segment, were nonexistent. Cryptocurrency mining hadn't been invented yet, and artificial intelligence was absent from the original vision. Even CEO Jensen Huang's enduring leadership wasn't part of David's initial analysis. While some investment theses remain straightforward -- perhaps selling more shoes or opening more coffee shops -- the biggest winners have a quality we call optionality. You might foresee that an online bookseller like Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) could become "the everything store" or that Netflix could pivot from mailed DVDs to video streaming. It's crucial to look ahead, acknowledging that successful investments might differ greatly from their original business models. But reevaluating your understanding of your investments is easier said than done, and it might take some extra homework to stay comfortable holding onto developing winners. The Penny Stock That Wasn't Nvidia's 2005 cost basis on our scorecard is just $0.16, at least until it's adjusted further lower due to dividends or future stock splits. One of the biggest mistakes new investors often make is to see data like this and presume the only place to hunt for multibaggers is among penny stocks. The reason for that misdirection is stock splits. Nvidia has never traded in penny-stock territory since 2005 due to four splits: April 2006: 2-for-1 split September 2007: 3-for-2 split July 2021: 4-for-1 split June 2024: 10-for-1 split If you followed the April 2005 recommendation, an investment of less than $20 per share would now translate to 120 shares for every 1 held since then. Without these splits, that single share would today be worth above $21,000. Nvidia would have the same market cap but far fewer shares outstanding. While fractional shares weren't available back then, today's investors can buy partial shares of many companies through their broker for as little as $5. For the same dollar amount invested, I'd rather own a fraction of a strong business like Nvidia than thousands of shares of a failing one trading over the counter for pennies. The Foolish Bottom Line Nvidia has been a mainstay on Stock Advisor 's Foundational Stocks list since 2022 and is likely to remain a Fool favorite for years to come. If you don't own shares directly, know that almost $8 out of every $100 invested in an S&P index fund is tied to Nvidia, its largest weight today. And those who have followed our recommendation for years might own more than enough already, which shifts the question of whether to buy to when to pare down an oversize position in the years ahead. (That's how I'm thinking through the 70x gains on the first block of shares I bought in 2017.) As I wrote above, there's no guarantee Nvidia will continue to be the market darling it has been for so long. But if there's one idea I would take to the bank -- one premise I'm nearly certain about -- it's that Nvidia isn't done teaching Fools lessons about long-term thinking that will pay dividends across all the other investments we consider on our investing journeys. If you haven't held Nvidia since 2005, it's not too late to collect a small slice of one of the highest-quality businesses in the world. And if you have... take that victory lap. You've earned it. Further Reading A Motley Fool Co-Founder's Roller-Coaster Nvidia Story by David Gardner, 1/29/2024 * When Hunting for Outliers Makes All the Difference by Loren Horst, 8/25/2023 * The Best Problem to Have by Loren Horst, 3/10/2020 * The Agony of High Returns by Morgan Housel, 2/9/2016 David's Top Pick: Nvidia by David Gardner, 4/15/2005 *Accessible to Motley Fool Stock Advisor members. Should you invest $1,000 in Nvidia right now? Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Loren Horst has positions in Amazon, Nvidia, Shopify, and The Trade Desk. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Booking Holdings, FedEx, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, Shopify, and The Trade Desk. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
CTV News
28 minutes ago
- CTV News
Champagne, Anand to meet with Mexican president to strengthen trade ties
Watch As Canada-U.S. trade talks are up in the air, Canada's federal government remains diligent to strengthen the country's trade ties. CTV's Colton Praill reports.
