Meta just put up a monster quarter… and the stock still got smacked. That’s the kind of market behavior that makes you question your sanity, or worse, your process.

Because apparently we’re in the era where “+24% revenue growth” can coexist with “sell first, ask questions later.” One minute you’re looking at a cash-printing machine. The next minute you’re watching the chart bleed because investors heard two scary words: AI spending.

Here’s what frustrates me most: people aren’t even arguing about Meta’s core business anymore. The ad engine is still humming. The user base is still ridiculous. The market is throwing a tantrum over the future cost curve… and acting like the present doesn’t exist.

So today’s One Big Idea is simple but uncomfortable: Meta isn’t broken. It’s being repriced. And if you can’t tell the difference, you’ll keep selling great businesses at the exact moment the fear discount shows up.

In this issue, I’m going to cut through the noise and show you what actually matters: the few numbers that prove the machine is still intact, the one thing the market is punishing, and the price levels that tell you when the panic is over.

Because your edge isn’t guessing where Meta goes next. Your edge is knowing when the crowd is overreacting… and having a plan that doesn’t collapse the moment the stock drops another 2%.

Berkshire Hathaway was a net seller again in Warren Buffett’s final quarter as CEO, continuing a cautious posture rather than adding aggressively to equities. The move reinforces the “wait for fat pitches” mindset, especially when valuations feel stretched and truly compelling opportunities are harder to find. It also highlights how Berkshire tends to prioritize capital preservation and optionality late in the cycle, keeping dry powder for when markets misprice risk.

The article argues one AI-linked stock stands out as a high-conviction buy based on its strategic positioning and ability to benefit from sustained AI spending. The thesis leans on AI budgets shifting from experimentation into real infrastructure and deployment, which tends to reward companies with durable moats and monetization paths. It also frames the opportunity as being selective in AI rather than chasing the loudest names, focusing on fundamentals and long-run demand.

MarketWatch notes that widely admired stocks often underperform because expectations get inflated and future returns are pulled forward. Apple is presented as an exception because its ecosystem lock-in, expanding services mix, and massive cash generation can keep the compounding machine running even when sentiment is already positive. The underlying point is that quality can overcome popularity sometimes, but valuation still matters if the market is pricing in perfection.

The best marketing ideas come from marketers who live it.

That’s what this newsletter delivers.

The Marketing Millennials is a look inside what’s working right now for other marketers. No theory. No fluff. Just real insights and ideas you can actually use—from marketers who’ve been there, done that, and are sharing the playbook.

Every newsletter is written by Daniel Murray, a marketer obsessed with what goes into great marketing. Expect fresh takes, hot topics, and the kind of stuff you’ll want to steal for your next campaign.

Because marketing shouldn’t feel like guesswork. And you shouldn’t have to dig for the good stuff.

Sign Up Free

Meta didn’t sell off because the ad business collapsed.

It sold off because the market heard “AI capex” and immediately translated it into one ugly fear: margin pressure that lasts longer than anyone wants to model.

And that fear isn’t random. In Meta’s Q3 results, headlines latched onto a tax-related hit that distorted earnings and a louder push toward bigger AI investment. The market doesn’t need a disaster to dump a stock. It just needs a reason to doubt the smooth story.

So the dominant narrative became simple:
Meta is still a great company, but it’s going to spend like crazy, and investors don’t want to pay premium multiples while the bill is rising.

You can see why that view is sticky. Big spending numbers get repeated, they get dramatized, and they trigger the same investor reflex every time: “I’ll come back when the spending slows.”

The loudest version of this narrative shows up in the same places it always does: headline summaries, media soundbites, and social chatter that treats capex like a confession of guilt.

And the market’s positioning reflects it too. Post-earnings, buyers turn cautious, sellers get confident, and the stock starts trading less like a business and more like a referendum on one line item.

Here’s the first crack though: Meta can spend aggressively only because the core engine is still throwing off real cash. If that engine was weakening, the selloff would make sense. But that’s not what the underlying business signals are saying.

That disconnect is what kept me digging.

Here’s the cleaner way to frame what’s going on:

Meta isn’t being priced like a company that’s “failing.”
It’s being priced like a company that’s shifting regimes.

Investors aren’t debating whether Meta can sell ads. That’s old news. They’re debating whether the cost of building the next decade (AI infrastructure, compute, talent, chips) will cap its profit power for longer than expected.

But the thing most people miss is this: when a stock drops on “future spending,” you’re often watching multiple compression, not business deterioration.

That distinction matters because multiple compression can reverse fast, sometimes violently, once the market realizes the feared outcome isn’t materializing.

Even in a quarter where the headlines felt messy, the ad business didn’t scream “structural break.” It looked more like “normal volatility + investor panic about runway.”

Meta’s playbook is not complicated. It’s just emotionally uncomfortable:

This is the part where casual investors lose the plot. They think “spending” automatically means “bad.” But in the best businesses, spending is usually an attempt to buy future dominance.

The real question isn’t “Is Meta spending?”
Of course it is.

The real question is: Is the spending disciplined enough that earnings power is still intact while the AI upside builds?

That’s what the next 1–2 earnings cycles will clarify.

And price will move before the headlines admit it.

Let’s get practical, because most readers don’t live inside earnings transcripts. They live inside their brokerage account.

Here’s the clean, price-first framework:

Turn zones into a real plan
Pick your style. Don’t mix them.

If you’re a confirmation-first investor (low stress plan):

If you’re a patient builder (slow accumulation plan):

If you’re tactical (risk-defined plan):

Tie the chart back to the fundamentals
This is the key: Meta’s argument is not “growth is dead.”
Meta’s argument is “how long does the investment phase last?”

So price will stabilize when the market senses:

This is why Meta can go from “unloved” to “rerated” quickly. The business doesn’t need to suddenly become great. It just needs to become less scary.

📊 Next 30 days: Does Meta keep defending the ~$640–$650 area on dips, or does it break and stay below it?

📈 Next 90 days: Pay attention to the next earnings narrative. Not just the numbers, but the tone. If management frames spend as controlled and the Street stops escalating its fear language, that’s when sentiment turns.

🚨 Red flag: If Meta breaks below the next major support zone and can’t reclaim it, stop trying to “logic” your way through price. That’s the tape telling you the market isn’t done punishing uncertainty.

Here’s what I keep coming back to: markets don’t reward certainty. They reward being early with a plan.

Meta right now is the kind of stock that tests your temperament. Not because the business is collapsing, but because the story is noisy and the spending headline is easy to fear.

So I’m not treating this like a prediction. I’m treating it like a setup.

If Meta holds the floor and starts reclaiming levels, I want exposure because the rerate can be fast.
If it breaks down and can’t recover, I’m not going to “diamond hands” a chart that’s telling me the market is still angry.

That’s the point of this framework: fewer opinions, more signals.

Because when the market finally gets bored of the AI-spending drama, the stock doesn’t send you an invitation.
It just goes.

And you either already have a plan… or you chase it like everyone else.

This is the easiest way for a busy person wanting to learn AI in as little time as possible:

Sign up to start learning.

Most investors don’t lose money because they pick bad companies. They lose money because they let price action rewrite the story in their head. A clean quarter gets treated like a failure. A spending headline becomes a verdict. And suddenly you’re reacting to emotion disguised as information. The real skill isn’t having a hot take on Meta. It’s knowing when the crowd is paying a fear premium… and refusing to pay it with your patience.

My mental model is simple: I separate the business clock from the market clock. The business clock measures compounding, margins, execution, and whether management is building something real. The market clock measures positioning, sentiment, and how quickly people flip from love to disgust. When those clocks drift apart, that’s where the opportunity usually hides. I don’t need Meta to “feel safe” to be interested, I just need the thesis to stay intact and the price to stop bleeding in a way that signals the panic is done. That’s not prediction. That’s preparation.