Entire – Earlybirds Invest

Between earnings season — the six-week period every quarter where a majority of the most-influential businesses report their operating results — economic data releases, and updates from the Trump administration, keeping up on market-moving news events can be challenging for investors. In fact, it’s easy for something of importance to slip through the cracks.

One key data release that investors might have overlooked is the May 15 deadline for institutional investors with at least $100 million in assets under management to file Form 13F with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A 13F is required to be filed no later than 45 calendar days following the end to a quarter, and it provides investors with a concise snapshot of which stocks Wall Street’s top-tier asset managers have been buying and selling.

Though 13Fs have their flaws — e.g., they can offer a stale snapshot for very active hedge funds — they’re invaluable in helping investors piece together which stocks and trends have the undivided attention of successful fund managers.

A stock chart displayed on a computer monitor that's being reflected on the eyeglasses of a money manager.

Image source: Getty Images.

While investors tend to wait on the edge of their seat to see what billionaire Warren Buffett has been up to, he’s far from the only billionaire known to make waves in the stock market. Third Point’s Dan Loeb is another billionaire asset manager known for spotting good deals.

During the March-ended quarter, Third Point’s billionaire chief made two curious trades in the artificial intelligence (AI) arena. He sent his fund’s entire stake in Meta Platforms (META -0.98%) packing, and loaded up on shares of an undisputed AI leader whose addressable market can potentially grow 25-fold over a 10-year stretch.

Billionaire Dan Loeb’s Third Point logs out of Meta

Based on Third Point’s 13F, Loeb completely exited nine positions during the first quarter, none of which is more of an eyebrow-raiser than social media titan Meta Platforms. Loeb green-lit the sale of all 665,000 shares that were held at the end of 2024.

It’s quite possible that this sale represented nothing more than a profit-taking opportunity for Third Point’s billionaire chief. On average, Loeb’s fund holds its positions for a little over 13 months, and Third Point’s Meta stake had been initiated during the third quarter of 2023. With Meta stock more than doubling during this period, Loeb had plenty of reason to cash in his chips.

The question is: Was something more nefarious behind this selling activity than just benign profit-taking?

One concern is the potential for the U.S. economy to fall into a recession. Though the New York Federal Reserve’s recession probability tool only shows 28.7% chance of a recession occurring through June 2026, it has an uncanny track record of successfully forecasting economic downturns when this probability climbs above 32%, which it did in 2023 and 2024. The last time the New York Fed’s recession probability indicator provided a false positive was October 1966.

While most stocks tend to be adversely impacted by recessions, Meta is particularly vulnerable since almost 98% of its net sales derive from advertising. Businesses aren’t shy about paring their marketing budgets at the first signs of trouble.

It’s also possible Dan Loeb was skeptical of Meta’s future stock performance given CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s plans to spend aggressively on AI-data center infrastructure. Despite Zuckerberg’s phenomenal track record of developing new products and monetizing them only when the time is right, he’s been consistently upping his company’s projected capital expenditures (capex). Meta’s capex forecast for 2025 slots in between $64 billion and $72 billion, which is up $5.5 billion at the midpoint from the company’s prior guidance.

Considering how pricey the stock market is as a whole, Wall Street and investors have little tolerance for mistakes. Meta Platforms spending billions on AI infrastructure above its prior forecast leaves the door open for disappointment.

While I don’t fault Dan Loeb for locking in his profits, I ultimately believe he’ll regret exiting this position when looking back years from now.

A toy rocket set atop messy stacks of coins and paperwork displaying financial data and charts.

Image source: Getty Images.

Third Point’s billionaire investor scooped up shares of a hypergrowth stock

Excluding options, Third Point’s 13F from the March-ended quarter shows billionaire Dan Loeb opened 10 new positions, none of which offers more intrigue than the face of the AI revolution, Nvidia (NVDA -2.42%).

During the first quarter, Loeb scooped up 1.45 million shares of Nvidia, which marks the first time his fund has held shares of this AI leader since the second quarter of 2023.

To state the obvious, the global potential for artificial intelligence as a technology is otherworldly. The ability for software and systems empowered with AI to make split-second decisions without human oversight is a game-changer for most industries around the world. Based on estimates from UN Trade and Development, the global AI market is projected to skyrocket from a reported $189 billion in 2023 to $4.8 trillion come 2033. That’s a 25X increase in a decade, for those of you keeping score at home.

Nvidia becoming Wall Street’s largest publicly traded company is a reflection of just how dominant its Hopper and Blackwell graphics processing units (GPUs) have been in AI-accelerated data centers. With demand for AI-GPUs significantly outweighing their supply, Nvidia has been able to not only sell more GPUs on a year-over-year basis, but also charge a 100%-plus premium to its direct external rivals. Not surprisingly, Nvidia’s gross margin soared as the AI revolution took shape.

Third Point’s billionaire investor might also be excited about Nvidia’s innovation timeline. CEO Jensen Huang expects to bring a new advanced AI chip to market annually. If all goes according to plan, Blackwell Ultra (2025), Vera Rubin (2026), and Vera Rubin Ultra (2027) will follow in the footsteps of Hopper and Blackwell. The key point here is that Nvidia’s compute advantages appear untouchable.

The other factor that’s kept Nvidia humming along is its premier CUDA software platform. This is what developers use to maximize the compute potential of their Nvidia GPUs, as well as to build and train large language models. CUDA is quietly doing a phenomenal job of keeping Nvidia’s clients loyal to its ecosystem of products and services.

But what, arguably, makes this buy intriguing is its timing. For more than three decades, every game-changing innovation has worked its way through an early stage bubble-bursting event. Though artificial intelligence shows plenty of promise, most businesses haven’t come anywhere close to optimizing their AI solutions as of yet. With signs pointing to AI being the next in a long line of bubbles, Nvidia stock could eventually crumble.

Loeb’s buy is also interesting in the sense that it comes as competition in the AI space is exploding. While most investors are paying close attention to direct external competition, the biggest threat to Nvidia likely comes from within. Many of its largest customers by net sales are internally developing AI-GPUs for their data centers. These chips, while inferior on a compute basis to Nvidia’s hardware, are notably cheaper and more readily accessible. They can minimize AI-GPU scarcity, reduce Nvidia’s pricing power and margins, and narrow its future opportunities in AI-accelerated data centers.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if this turned out to be nothing more than a quick trade for Third Point’s chief.

An open iOS means more non-fitness smartwatches

A rendering depicting Core Devices' new PebbleOS smartwatches: the Core 2 Duo and the Time 2.

The new Pebble watches will be limited when connected to iOS (Image credit: Core Devices)

I’m excited to try the new Pebble watches, but former Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky had to “set expectations” on his blog about how Apple’s policies hamstring them. Pebble watches on iOS can’t offer to message, mark tasks as done, ignore notifications you’ve seen on your phone, support background execution, or create their own mini-app store for third-party watch faces and functions.

In his case, he says upfront that the definitive way to use a Pebble watch is to pair it with an Android phone. However, 40% of his interested customers use an iPhone; Apple’s ecosystem is too large to simply ignore it.

Even most of the old Wear OS brands — Samsung Galaxy, Mobvoi TicWatch, and Fossil — were “compatible” with iPhones for years. But they had such limited functionality thanks to Apple’s uncompetitive practices that they’ve mostly given up and turned to Google’s semi-walled Wear OS garden to survive, or (in Fossil’s case) given up on smartwatches.

They could only “work” on iOS because they had health and fitness tools independent of their blocked smarts. And every other non-Apple watch for iPhones has been funneled down this path.

Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Galaxy Watch Ultra

(Image credit: Michael L Hicks / Android Central)

I believe that Apple’s policies have (unintentionally) helped make smartwatches much stronger for health and fitness across the industry. After Pebble shut down, brands knew they couldn’t make creative lifestyle watches without close phone integration for apps and messaging. So they focused on a use case that Apple couldn’t restrict and turned a weakness into a strength with low-powered watches that lasted weeks.

If this ruling takes effect, it would change the entire industry. Yes, fitness watches would be unleashed to encroach on rival territory. And smaller, health-focused brands like Masimo and Withings suddenly gain access to greater smarts. But we could also see watches that emphasize something other than fitness now that they can.

The obvious example would be a Meta watch with the Meta AI assistant and EMG band for contextual commands and gesture recognition, unrestricted by Apple’s policies. But I’d hope to see more indie brands like Repebble shoot their shot and try smart gimmicks that I’ve never even conceived of without the same pressure to add reliable health data or fitness coaching.

A distant and unlikely interoperable future

The Apple Watch Ultra 2, Garmin Fenix 8, COROS PACE Pro, and Google Pixel Watch 3 sitting on a bookshelf together, all showing a post-run summary for a 20-mile race that day.

(Image credit: Michael Hicks / Android Central)

I don’t know how much fitness smartwatches will change if Apple obeys this ruling. Yes, background refreshes, closer syncing with your DND settings, interactive replies, and quicker file transfers would benefit any fitness smartwatch. But not every smartwatch is optimized to use messaging.

They’ll need mics for voice-to-text or AMOLED displays with faster touch sampling. This probably wouldn’t be possible on watches like the Garmin Instinct 3, optimized for long battery life with a slower processor. Maybe Garmin would restrict messaging to its lifestyle watches and prioritize battery life on its Forerunners and Instincts.

Crucially, Garmin (and other brands) would be able to decide to stick to their strengths instead of Apple deciding for them. If they prioritized faster performance, this would benefit both iOS and Android users; a better chip and more widespread assistant would make RCS messaging better, too.

Of course, the original point still stands. This isn’t like changing from Lightning to USB-C or allowing sideloading; it would fundamentally change the entire operating system, and Apple could spend years disputing the ruling. Then, fitness watches would have to license more robust hardware and test the software. Who knows how long that could take?

But if it does happen, it would certainly make things more exciting and competitive for smartwatch fans, whichever smartphone they own!

Billionaire Dan Loeb’s Third Point logs out of Meta

Third Point’s billionaire investor scooped up shares of a hypergrowth stock

HodlX Guest Post Submit Your Post

Garmin is the “smartest” fitness brand, and it can only do so much

An open iOS means more non-fitness smartwatches

A distant and unlikely interoperable future