Month: July 2026

One of the stranger parts of trying to change your financial life is realising that some people only know how to relate to the version of you they have always known.

For most of us, that version was formed early. It is the friend who always came out, spent without thinking too much, kept the conversation light and did not question the shape of life. There is nothing wrong with that person. In many ways, that person got us here.

But financial independence changes the questions you ask. You start thinking about contribution rate, assets, time, optionality and what “enough” might actually look like. You may skip something you would once have said yes to. You may spend a weekend reading an annual report rather than recovering from a night out. Slowly, the old version of you stops being the only version.

That can feel more emotionally complicated than the spreadsheets suggest.

The version people expect

We often talk about building wealth as if it is a private technical exercise. Earn more. Spend intentionally. Invest consistently. Give compounding time.

Those things matter. Yet every decision happens inside a life with other people in it. Friends, family, colleagues and partners all have an idea of who we are. They also have habits, jokes and routines that make the group feel familiar.

When one person starts changing, it can disturb that familiarity. Not because everyone else is trying to hold them back, and not because growth makes somebody better than their friends. It is simply uncomfortable when someone becomes less predictable.

A friend who once said yes to every plan may now say, “I am keeping this month quieter.” Someone who never spoke about investing may start talking about building a portfolio for more freedom. The shift can prompt a joke, an eye roll or a gentle attempt to pull them back into the old routine.

Sometimes that is harmless. Sometimes it is affection. Occasionally, though, it reveals that the relationship was more attached to an old identity than to the person you are becoming.

Why money makes the change visible

Money makes these shifts hard to hide because it affects everyday behaviour. A decision to increase your contribution rate may mean different weekends, different holidays or simply more willingness to say no. You might still enjoy your life, but your definition of a good time starts to change.

For me, the bigger aim is not to collect a number on a screen. It is to build more time, more options and more freedom in the decisions I make. I wrote more about the background to that goal in the story behind my £1m journey.

That shift is easy to misunderstand from the outside. Saving or investing can look like deprivation when somebody does not share the goal. Talking about assets can sound intense when the usual conversation has always been about the next purchase, the next night out or the next short-term distraction.

It is also worth being honest about the other side. There is a risk of becoming preachy, withdrawn or quietly judgmental. Choosing a different path does not give anyone the right to look down on people who want different things. Financial independence is a personal goal, not a moral ranking system.

This is not a case for replacing your friends

I do not think the answer is to cut people off the moment they question a decision. Good friends challenge each other. They may be concerned because they care. They may simply want the version of you they enjoy spending time with to remain present.

The healthier move is usually to widen your environment rather than reject your past.

Keep the people who matter. Keep the humour, history and perspective that long friendships can bring. At the same time, make room for people who see ambition, patience and long-term thinking as normal. Find people who do not need you to shrink your goals in order to feel comfortable around them.

That could be an investing community, a thoughtful online circle, a book group, a colleague who is building something, or simply one friend who asks better questions. The point is not to create an echo chamber. It is to make sure the old environment is not the only environment deciding what feels possible.

A better question than “am I outgrowing people?”

The phrase “outgrowing friends” can sound cold. A more useful question might be: Which parts of my old identity am I still protecting, even though they no longer serve the life I want?

For some people, it is the need to look carefree. For others, it is the fear of sounding serious, ambitious or different. It might be a habit of spending to belong. It might be refusing to talk about money because the conversation feels awkward.

None of this requires perfection. The goal is not to turn every social choice into a calculation. It is to notice when loyalty to “how things used to be” becomes more powerful than loyalty to the person you are trying to become.

Building a life that can hold the change

A portfolio can grow while the rest of life stays stuck. That is not the version of financial independence I want.

The practical side matters, which is why I built the £1m Path Calculator. It is a private, browser-based way to see how time and regular investing can shape a long-term target. But the emotional side matters just as much. You still have to be able to live with the person you become while pursuing it.

That means keeping your relationships human. Explain the goal without needing everybody to agree with it. Say yes to things you genuinely value. Say no without turning it into a lecture. Celebrate other people’s choices, even when they are not your choices.

Most importantly, do not confuse temporary discomfort with a sign that you should stop changing.

Where I am landing

Building financial independence can make old routines feel less natural. That does not mean the people in those routines are bad, or that the past needs to be discarded. It means a bigger life may need a wider environment.

I am learning to hold both ideas at once: appreciation for where I came from, and responsibility for where I want to go next.

If you are building towards more freedom too, it may be worth asking: what loyalty to “how things used to be” are you starting to question?

This article reflects my personal experience and perspective. It is not financial advice.

This is a portfolio-decision update, not a recommendation to copy my allocation. I have previously written about why I find Rocket Lab interesting as an investment. This post explains why I have now made it my largest position.

I have sold a number of smaller positions and bought another 1,000 Rocket Lab shares. That takes my holding to 2,000 shares, worth roughly £100,000 at the time of writing and representing about 50% of my portfolio.

This is not a routine rebalance. It is the clearest expression of my current conviction, and it comes with a level of concentration risk that I need to acknowledge plainly.

Why I acted during the sell-off

Rocket Lab shares have fallen sharply. I cannot know precisely what is driving any individual day’s move. One material issue investors are assessing is the proposed Iridium transaction, the financing required to complete it and the potential dilution for existing Rocket Lab shareholders. Those are legitimate concerns, not noise to dismiss because I like the company.

The June 2026 merger agreement gives Iridium shareholders $27.00 in cash plus Rocket Lab stock. It also contemplates a 364-day senior secured bridge facility of up to $3.6 billion. A transaction of that size changes the financial conversation around Rocket Lab, and the market is right to scrutinise it.

My decision was not based on the view that these concerns do not matter. It was based on the view that the sell-off gave me a better entry point into a business whose long-term operating opportunity still looks unusually strong.

What I am underwriting

I see Rocket Lab as more than a launch company. Electron launch, spacecraft systems, components, national-security work and the development of Neutron create several ways for the company to compound if execution remains strong.

The Space Systems business is a major part of the thesis

The part of the business I think can be underestimated is Space Systems. Rocket Lab does not only build hardware for its own missions. Its filings describe a business that designs and manufactures many of the components and subsystems used in its launch vehicles and spacecraft, while also selling spacecraft components into the wider merchant market.

That matters because it creates revenue opportunities beyond Rocket Lab's own launch cadence. Solar cells, composite structures, separation systems, flight software, reaction wheels, spacecraft buses and other mission-critical components can be supplied to other satellite and space manufacturers. The long-term opportunity is not simply to launch more rockets. It is to participate in more of the value chain when other companies build spacecraft too.

I also like the acquisition strategy behind that ambition. Rocket Lab has been buying capabilities that can deepen vertical integration and solve difficult supply constraints. The completed Mynaric acquisition added laser optical communications technology and strengthened the company’s position in launch services, spacecraft manufacturing and satellite components. The proposed Motiv acquisition would bring solar-array drive assemblies, precision mechanisms and robotics in house, which the company describes as addressing a critical gap in its vertical-integration strategy.

That does not mean every acquisition will work. Integration, capital allocation and execution risk are real, particularly while Rocket Lab is also developing Neutron. But I see a deliberate pattern: buy strategic products and capabilities, reduce dependence on constrained suppliers, use them inside Rocket Lab's own missions and retain the ability to sell into the broader space market.

The proposed Iridium transaction takes that strategy another step. It would combine Rocket Lab's launch and spacecraft manufacturing capability with a global satellite communications network and spectrum assets. The financing and dilution questions are therefore not a side issue. They are the price and risk of trying to build a more fully integrated space company.

The most important point is that execution continues to produce evidence. In July, Rocket Lab announced full mission success for VICTUS HAZE, an end-to-end responsive-space mission for the U.S. Space Force. It also announced a full-duration hot-fire test of the Archimedes Vacuum engine, a meaningful development on the path toward Neutron.

Neither milestone removes the risk around Neutron, future funding or the Iridium deal. They do reinforce why I remain interested. The company is trying to become an integrated space business with launch, spacecraft and services capability, rather than a one-dimensional bet on a single rocket.

Why I sold smaller positions

I did not make this change because diversification is bad. Diversification is often sensible, especially when conviction is low or an investor cannot follow every holding closely enough.

For me, the question became whether several smaller positions offered a better prospective return than putting that capital into the company I understand best and feel most committed to following. My answer, at this point in time, was no.

That is a personal judgement, not a universal rule. A concentrated portfolio can be emotionally difficult and financially punishing when the thesis is wrong. I am not presenting this as a safe allocation. I am presenting it as my most honest expression of conviction.

The uncomfortable part of a 50% position

A 50% position changes the emotional reality of investing. A difficult week in Rocket Lab will have a meaningful effect on my portfolio. I will not be able to pretend that volatility is irrelevant, and I should not allow price movement alone to dictate the next decision.

The responsibility is to follow the facts, not defend the purchase. If operational execution weakens, Neutron slips materially, the economics or financing of the Iridium transaction deteriorate, or the overall investment case changes, I need to reassess without anchoring to the size of the position.

What would strengthen or weaken my conviction

• Strengthen: continued Electron reliability, further national-security execution, tangible Neutron progress and disciplined financing of the Iridium transaction.
• Weaken: material Neutron delays, operating setbacks, a financing outcome that damages the long-term economics for existing shareholders, or evidence that the acquired assets cannot be integrated as expected.

My view now

I have chosen to be concentrated because I believe Rocket Lab has one of the strongest long-term opportunities in the public space market. That does not make it a certainty. It makes it the position I am most willing to study, hold accountable and accept real volatility in.

The next job is not to celebrate the size of the position. It is to keep testing the reasons I bought it.

Sources: Rocket Lab 2025 Form 10-K; Rocket Lab Q1 2026 Form 10-Q; Rocket Lab’s 29 June 2026 Form 8-K on the proposed Iridium transaction; Rocket Lab’s VICTUS HAZE mission update; Rocket Lab’s Archimedes Vacuum engine test update.

This is personal investing commentary, not financial advice. I own Rocket Lab shares and may buy or sell without updating this post immediately.

View my Portfolio · Read my original Rocket Lab thesis · Browse all RKLB writing

This is an update to my original 2025 AbCellera investment thesis. I am keeping that piece as a record of the original case. This update is about what has changed and what I am watching now.

My ABCL thesis is becoming more specific. The question is no longer only whether AbCellera has an interesting AI-powered antibody-discovery platform. The more important question is whether the company can convert that platform into clinical evidence that changes how investors value the business.

That makes the next set of milestones meaningful. AbCellera expects topline Phase 2 data for ABCL635 in the third quarter of 2026, Phase 1 data for ABCL575 in the fourth quarter, and an IND or CTA submission for ABCL688 in 2027. None of those outcomes is guaranteed. But they give the investment case real events against which it can be tested.

The platform now has to earn clinical credibility

The original attraction of AbCellera was the possibility that its discovery platform, data and integrated capabilities could improve the route from biological target to antibody candidate. That remains the foundation of the story. Platform claims are easier to make than they are to prove, though.

Clinical progress is where the abstraction becomes more concrete. ABCL635 is in a Phase 1/2 study, with the company expecting topline Phase 2 data in the third quarter of 2026. AbCellera has said the Phase 1 portion supported moving into Phase 2 after doses were well tolerated, with no observed liver toxicity or serious adverse events in the interim assessment. That is not proof of commercial success, but it is a more useful signal than a slide deck about platform potential.

ABCL575 is expected to produce Phase 1 topline data in the fourth quarter of 2026. Management has also stated that it currently has no plans to develop that programme beyond Phase 1. I read that as a reminder that not every programme has to become a blockbuster for the platform to create value. It also means I should not give ABCL575 more weight in the thesis than the evidence justifies.

There is more than one shot on goal

What still appeals to me is that AbCellera is not purely a single-asset biotech story. The company has partner programmes and royalty interests alongside its own internal pipeline. ABCL688, an autoimmune candidate from its GPCR and ion-channel platform, is expected to move toward an IND or CTA submission in 2027.

That does not eliminate risk. Partner activity, milestone revenue and royalty economics can be difficult to forecast. The value of multiple shots on goal is not that every one succeeds. It is that the company has several routes through which its discovery and development capabilities could create value over time.

The balance sheet buys time, not certainty

At 31 March 2026, AbCellera reported $504.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. That is a meaningful resource for a company investing in internal programmes and infrastructure. It gives management time to pursue the upcoming clinical milestones without making the next quarter the only thing that matters.

It should not be treated as a free pass. Cash, equivalents and marketable securities were $533.8 million at the end of 2025, and AbCellera remained loss-making in the first quarter. Revenue increased to $8.3 million from $4.2 million in the prior-year quarter, but I view that cautiously because the company’s revenue can be milestone-driven and uneven.

What would strengthen my conviction

• ABCL635 produces credible Phase 2 data and the data supports a clear development path.
• ABCL575 delivers a clean Phase 1 readout, even if the strategic value is primarily platform validation.
• ABCL688 progresses toward its planned 2027 filing.
• The company demonstrates that partner activity and internal programmes can coexist without the platform becoming an expensive science project.

Where I could be wrong

• Early clinical signals may not translate into meaningful efficacy or commercial value.
• Clinical timelines can slip, data can disappoint and development costs can rise.
• AbCellera has no marketed proprietary drugs, so the internal-pipeline case remains unproven.
• Partner fees and milestones can make revenue volatile and difficult to model.

My view now

I still see ABCL as a high-risk, high-uncertainty holding. The reason I remain interested is not a claim that the platform has already won. It is that the next twelve to eighteen months should produce clearer evidence about whether AbCellera can turn an interesting discovery engine into a clinically validated and commercially relevant business.

That is the test. If the clinical milestones strengthen the case, the platform narrative becomes more credible. If they do not, I need to be willing to reassess the thesis rather than defend the original idea.

Sources: AbCellera Q1 2026 Form 10-Q; my original 2025 ABCL investment thesis.

This is my personal investing commentary, not financial advice. I may own shares in AbCellera and can change my view as new information emerges.

View my Portfolio · Browse all ABCL writing

Milestones feel clean in hindsight. At the time, they are usually messy.

Around £50k net worth, I thought I understood more than I did. I was serious enough to be progressing, but still early enough to waste energy on the wrong things.

Here are three lessons I wish I had understood sooner.

1. Behaviour beats trivia

I spent too much attention on details that felt smart and not enough on the behaviours that actually moved the needle: savings consistency, lifestyle creep control, and not interrupting compounding.

A cleaner process would have beaten a slightly cleverer opinion stack. That is still true now in how I think about systems and the role of tools in Tools & Reviews.

2. Enough needs a definition early

Without a personal definition of enough, every raise becomes a new baseline and every upgrade becomes normal. Progress turns into a treadmill.

I write about that shift more fully in Why I Now Care More About Enough Than More and the status side of it in Why I Stopped Buying Things to Look Successful.

At £50k, defining enough would have made later decisions cleaner.

3. Freedom compounds before full FI

I used to treat financial independence like a distant destination. In reality, every layer of resilience changes your life before arrival: emergency buffers, lower anxiety, more choice at work, more patience in markets.

That is the heart of What Financial Independence Actually Feels Like (So Far).

What those lessons would have changed

I would have simplified sooner. Compared less. Automated more. Obsessed less over looking advanced. Focused more on the boring infrastructure of wealth.

I would also have been gentler with myself. Early progress is fragile and valuable. It does not need theatrical intensity to count.

If you are around that stage now, build systems you can keep. That includes how you invest, how you track, and how you protect attention.

---

More milestone thinking on X. Useful external reading lives on Wealth Resources.

Related reading

• What Financial Independence Actually Feels Like (So Far)
• Why I Now Care More About Enough Than More
• Why I’m Deliberately Slowing Down My Savings Rate
• Investment Portfolio

A review of Sharesight for investors who want performance tracking with a stronger focus on tax and reporting clarity.

Quick take: This is my practical review of Sharesight, based on how I would actually use it as a UK investor rather than a feature checklist written for SEO alone.

What it is

Sharesight is a portfolio tracking service designed to help investors track performance, dividends, and tax-related reporting more accurately.

Why I care about it

Brokerage apps are rarely enough if you care about clean performance history and better reporting over multiple years.

Best for

Investors who want structured portfolio records and cleaner long-term reporting.

What works well

• Strong portfolio performance tracking
• Useful for dividends and tax-related reporting
• Better long-term record keeping than most brokerage apps
• Helpful if you hold across multiple accounts

Where it falls short

• Pricing can become a factor as portfolios grow
• Setup takes some effort
• Not every investor needs this level of tracking
• Still only as good as the data you feed it

How it fits into my stack

I do not judge tools in isolation. A broker, tracker, charting platform, or AI assistant only matters if it improves decision quality, reduces friction, or helps me stay consistent. That is also why I keep my Investment Portfolio public and separate from tool hype. The portfolio is the outcome. Tools are just infrastructure.

If you want more of the broader money and investing context around these choices, start with What Financial Independence Actually Feels Like (So Far) and the rest of my Tools & Reviews section.

Comparing options? Read Snowball Analytics vs Sharesight.

Related reviews

• Snowball Analytics Review: Portfolio Tracking Without Spreadsheet Pain
• Interactive Brokers Review: Why I Use IBKR as a UK Investor

Verdict

Sharesight is a strong option if you want serious portfolio records rather than a casual holdings overview.

---

Official site: www.sharesight.com. If you want the shorter day-to-day version of how I think about tools, markets, and building wealth, follow me on X.

This is my current investment thesis, not financial advice. I own BETA Technologies in my main portfolio and the position can change.

BETA Technologies is not a conventional aerospace investment. It is still early in commercialisation, still loss-making and still dependent on certification and execution. That is exactly why the opportunity is interesting to me. The company is trying to turn electric aviation from a promising concept into an operating system of aircraft, charging and manufacturing.

The part of the thesis I find most compelling is not simply vertical take-off aircraft. It is BETA’s ability to build relationships around the conventional take-off ALIA variant, where payload and practical operations may offer a clearer route into early commercial use. The charging ecosystem is equally important. Aircraft without dependable infrastructure are much harder to deploy at scale.

A more practical route into electric aviation

BETA is developing the ALIA in both conventional take-off and landing, or CTOL, and vertical take-off and landing, or VTOL, configurations. The conventional variant matters to me because it can address real logistics and regional-aviation use cases without asking operators to solve every part of the VTOL challenge on day one.

A useful payload and straightforward airport operations can make the first customer conversations more concrete. Rather than selling a distant vision of urban air mobility, BETA can work with operators that have existing routes, maintenance needs and infrastructure decisions to make now.

BETA’s own product site states a demonstrated range of 336 nautical miles, cargo capacity of 200 cubic feet and charge times of under one hour. These are company-reported figures, not guarantees of commercial economics. They do, however, show why the ALIA has a different feel from a purely conceptual eVTOL programme.

The charging ecosystem is part of the product

The aircraft is the visible part of the story. The more important question may be whether BETA can help customers operate a fleet. Its Charge Cube infrastructure, manufacturing capability and focus on deployment create the possibility of a more integrated proposition.

That matters because early electric aviation cannot rely on a fully built public network appearing by itself. Operators need aircraft, charging, maintenance, locations and a credible pathway through certification. If BETA can make those pieces work together, it may reduce the friction that slows adoption for everyone else.

The bull case is not simply that electric aircraft will exist. It is that BETA can make electric flight practical enough for real operators to introduce it before the wider market catches up.

Commercial and defence validation

Early relationships matter in a business like this. BETA’s website says it has an established customer base and more than 800 aircraft in backlog. I would not treat all of that as equivalent to firm, funded deliveries. The distinction between orders, options, deposits and delivered aircraft matters enormously.

There are more tangible points to watch. In March 2026, BETA announced that Surf Air Mobility had placed a firm order for 25 ALIA aircraft, with options for up to 75 more. The company also points to defence engagements and partner relationships. These do not remove the execution risk, but they are evidence that serious operators are engaging with the platform.

The financial reality

This remains a venture-style aerospace investment, even as a public company. In Q1 2026, BETA reported revenue of $10.1 million, a net loss of $122.3 million and cash of $1.59 billion. That cash balance provides time, but the company still needs to deliver against certification, production and customer milestones before it can demonstrate a self-sustaining commercial model.

What could break the thesis

• Certification delay: timelines can slip, and aviation approvals are not a formality.
• Production execution: building a few aircraft and manufacturing reliably at scale are different challenges.
• Order quality: backlog, options and partnership announcements must turn into funded deliveries.
• Cash burn and dilution: commercialisation takes time and capital.
• Infrastructure adoption: charging only becomes a moat if customers actually deploy and use it.

My current view

I own BETA because it appears to be building a practical entry point into electric aviation, not just an aircraft for a future market. The CTOL variant, useful payload, customer relationships and charging infrastructure are the pieces I think could matter most.

I will be watching certification progress, firm deliveries, operator utilisation, charging deployments and the cash runway. This is a high-risk position. The upside depends on BETA proving that the aircraft, infrastructure and customer economics can work together in the real world.

For the wider context, see my current portfolio. The financial figures cited above come from BETA’s Q1 2026 Form 10-Q. Product specifications and partnership information are from BETA Technologies.

This is my current investment thesis, not financial advice. I own NVIDIA in my main portfolio and the position can change.

The reason I continue to own NVIDIA is not simply that AI is a large theme. It is that NVIDIA has repeatedly shown an ability to turn a technological lead into an operating machine: products that customers want, supply that has to be coordinated at extraordinary scale, and earnings power that follows when the company executes.

That is the heart of my bull case. The next few years will not be decided by whether AI matters. They will be decided by which businesses can keep delivering the computing, networking and systems customers need as the buildout becomes more demanding.

Execution at a scale that is hard to ignore

NVIDIA’s latest quarterly filing illustrates the scale of the current opportunity. For the quarter ended 26 April 2026, the company reported revenue of $81.6 billion, up 85.2% year on year. Net income was $58.3 billion, compared with $18.8 billion in the comparable prior-year quarter.

Numbers at that level can make a thesis look obvious after the event. They are not. The reason they matter to me is that they reflect execution across a difficult chain: silicon design, manufacturing capacity, memory, networking, systems integration, customer deployment and software support. It is one thing to make a fast chip. It is another to help customers build and operate AI infrastructure at enormous scale.

More than a GPU supplier

I do not see NVIDIA purely as a seller of individual GPUs. The company’s position is strengthened by the wider stack around accelerated computing: systems, high-speed networking and the CUDA software ecosystem that many developers and organisations already use.

That does not mean customers cannot change suppliers. They can, and they will keep trying to improve economics. But moving a serious AI workload is not always as simple as comparing the headline price of two chips. Software tools, developer familiarity, model performance, networking and the operational cost of changing a production environment all matter.

The bull case is not that NVIDIA wins every AI workload forever. It is that its scale and execution keep it central to the most important workloads long enough for the earnings power to compound.

The architecture cycle is part of the thesis

One of the reasons I find NVIDIA interesting is the cadence of the platform cycle. Customers are not just making a one-off purchase. They are trying to build capacity for models, inference, agents and applications that are changing quickly. If NVIDIA can keep making each generation valuable enough to justify upgrades, the opportunity is larger than a single hardware refresh.

The company’s supply commitments show how much planning this requires. As of 26 April 2026, NVIDIA disclosed $119 billion of supplier commitments, with most expected to be paid during fiscal 2027. That is not proof of future demand, and it increases the importance of execution. It does show the physical scale behind the AI buildout.

What could challenge the thesis

• Demand digestion: customers may pause after a period of exceptionally heavy infrastructure spending.
• Competition and custom silicon: hyperscalers, AMD and other suppliers have strong incentives to reduce dependency and improve their own economics.
• Export controls and China: policy can affect which products can be sold and where future growth comes from.
• Infrastructure constraints: data-centre capacity, power and customer financing all matter. Demand for chips alone is not enough if the wider buildout stalls.
• Expectations: a company producing exceptional results can still be a poor investment if the valuation assumes too much perfection.

My current view

I own NVDA because I think its scale, product execution and ability to turn an AI infrastructure cycle into earnings are still unusual. The growth is already visible. The investment question is whether the company can maintain its central role as customers become more sophisticated, competitors improve and the market starts to separate durable demand from short-term enthusiasm.

I will keep watching revenue quality, gross margins, customer spending behaviour, platform transitions and the willingness of customers to build around NVIDIA’s broader stack. The thesis is strong, but it is not a reason to ignore the price paid or the risk that this cycle eventually slows.

For the wider context, see my current portfolio. The financial figures cited above come from NVIDIA’s Q1 fiscal 2027 Form 10-Q.

This is my current investment thesis, not financial advice. I own Palantir in my main portfolio and the position can change.

My interest in Palantir is not simply that it is an AI company. There are plenty of companies that can claim that label. The question I find more interesting is whether Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform, or AIP, can become durable commercial infrastructure inside large organisations.

That is the part of the bull case I care about most. If AIP is helping customers move from experimentation into real workflows, it has a chance to become more than an AI feature or a short-lived spending cycle. It could become a platform that sits underneath important decisions, operations and automation.

The commercial adoption question

Palantir’s latest filed quarterly results give the thesis some substance. For the three months ended 31 March 2026, the company reported total revenue of $1.63 billion, compared with $884 million in the comparable period a year earlier. Commercial revenue was $774 million, up from $397 million.

Those numbers alone do not prove a long-term moat. Fast growth can attract a lot of attention, and it can make any valuation look more forgiving than it really is. But they do suggest that the commercial story is no longer just an aspirational slide in an investor presentation.

For me, the key question is what customers are actually buying. If they are mainly paying for short pilots and AI enthusiasm, the revenue can fade when budgets tighten. If they are using AIP to connect data, people and workflows in ways that are difficult to remove, the economics could be very different.

Why AIP could matter

Palantir describes AIP as a platform that connects large language models to an organisation’s data, permissions, workflows, agents and governance. That matters because most companies do not need another chatbot. They need a way to use AI in real operating environments without losing control of their data or creating unmanageable risk.

The potential appeal is that Palantir already has the components around the model layer. Foundry helps organisations map and work with data, the Ontology gives that data operational context, and Apollo supports deployment across complex environments. If those pieces work together in practice, AIP can be more useful than a standalone model interface.

The bull case is not that every company will buy more AI software. It is that a smaller number of important customers will build Palantir into workflows they do not want to unwind.

What I would watch from here

• Commercial growth quality: whether growth remains strong as deployments mature, rather than relying on a small number of highly visible wins.
• Customer depth: whether customers expand from pilots into repeatable, material programmes.
• Operating leverage: whether revenue growth continues to translate into disciplined profitability and cash generation.
• Remaining performance obligations: the company reported $4.5 billion at the end of Q1 2026, which is useful context, but not the same thing as recognised revenue.

The risks I do not want to ignore

The valuation risk is obvious. A business priced for exceptional execution leaves little room for disappointment. Commercial growth slowing, customers choosing cheaper or more open alternatives, or the market deciding that AI budgets were pulled forward would all challenge the thesis.

I also keep an eye on stock-based compensation. Palantir recorded $202 million in stock-based compensation in Q1 2026. That does not invalidate the business, but it matters when judging how much of the reported progress ultimately belongs to shareholders.

There is also a genuine execution question. Palantir operates in competitive markets and has to prove that its platform can scale commercially without becoming too dependent on a narrow group of customers or on an unusually favourable AI spending environment.

My current view

I own PLTR because I think AIP has a credible path to becoming operational software rather than a superficial AI add-on. The commercial growth is encouraging, but the enduring thesis depends on adoption becoming deeper and stickier over time.

This is therefore a thesis I want to revisit through customer expansion, commercial durability, margins and the valuation the market is asking me to pay. I am not assuming the outcome. I am watching for evidence that the platform is becoming harder to replace as it becomes more embedded.

For context on how this fits into the wider picture, see my current portfolio. The financial figures cited above come from Palantir’s Q1 2026 Form 10-Q.

I recently recorded a short YouTube video explaining the background to my journey so far, why I share what I share, and how investing became tied up with a bigger question about freedom.

If you want to watch the original video first, you can do that here: The background to my £1M journey.

It did not start with a master plan

From the outside, a strong portfolio can look clean and deliberate. The truth is usually messier than that.

I had a decent job, a decent life, and the kind of setup that should have felt reassuring. But there was a gap between being comfortable on paper and feeling fulfilled in reality. That gap ended up mattering more than I expected.

Before I became serious about building wealth through stocks, I had already had two experiences that stayed with me. I made some money in Bitcoin early, but not enough to change my life. I also bought Tesla years ago, watched it fall, got nervous, and sold far too early.

Neither decision was a disaster. Both still taught me the same thing: being early is not enough if you cannot hold your nerve.

The emotional cost of selling too soon

One of the hardest parts of investing is not finding interesting ideas. It is living with the emotional discomfort that comes after you buy them.

In the video I talk about putting around £5,000 into Tesla, seeing it drop, then eventually selling around £6,000. At the time that felt sensible. Looking back, it was a classic case of protecting myself from short-term pain at the cost of long-term upside.

That experience, combined with an earlier brush with crypto, left me with a feeling that I had seen opportunities without really backing myself. The money mattered, but the bigger issue was what those decisions said about conviction.

That is part of why themes like what financial independence actually feels like and defining what enough means have become so central to how I think now.

Rocket Lab changed the scale of the journey

The real turning point came later when I started doing deeper research and came across the Rocket Lab story. It was not just a case of hearing a tip and buying a ticker. It was the combination of hearing a compelling thesis, doing my own work, and feeling that I understood enough to take the risk seriously.

I come from an engineering background, so some parts of the company and its culture made intuitive sense to me. That did not make the investment risk-free. It did mean I felt able to judge it with more confidence than I had in the past.

In the video I explain that I built a large position in Rocket Lab and that decision ended up changing my financial trajectory in a very real way. It is still one of the clearest examples in my own life of what can happen when research, timing, conviction, and luck line up together.

If you want the fuller stock case rather than the personal background, I have a separate post on my Rocket Lab investment thesis.

This is bigger than stock picks

The video is not really about trying to prove I was right on one company. It is more about why I started documenting all of this in public.

For me, the portfolio is tied to a broader question: what does freedom actually look like when work no longer has to dominate your life?

That is why a lot of my content sits at the overlap between money, investing, work, identity, and fulfillment. I am interested in the numbers, but I am just as interested in what the numbers are for.

That is also why I increasingly prefer to talk openly about the emotional side of the process. Missing opportunities, selling too soon, feeling isolated, wondering whether you have enough, and trying to work out what you actually want your life to look like all matter just as much as the ticker symbols do.

Why I am sharing this publicly

I want to be very clear about what this is and what it is not.

I am not trying to present myself as a guru. I am not selling a dream. I am not pretending there is a formula that, if copied closely enough, guarantees the same outcome.

I am documenting a real process in real time. That includes the parts that went well, the parts I got wrong, and the parts I am still trying to understand.

That is also why transparency matters to me. Over time I think my website will work best if the evergreen stock theses stay in place while the changing reality of what I own, how I think, and what has shifted gets documented through dated portfolio reviews and more personal reflections.

The real point of the journey

Reaching a number is not the whole story. The harder question is what you do with the freedom that number might create.

I am still figuring that out. That is probably the most honest way to put it.

If this topic resonates, the video is worth watching because it shows the thinking behind the account in a more direct and personal way than a written post can. You can watch it here: The background to my £1M journey.

You can also follow more of the day-to-day thinking on X, where I share portfolio thoughts, reflections, and updates as the journey continues.