Key Takeaways

• Bernstein elevated Western Digital to Outperform from Market Perform, raising its price target from $170 to $340.
• A sharp 21% decline followed concerns about Google’s TurboQuant compression technology — which Bernstein argues poses zero threat to hard drive demand.
• The firm projects Western Digital and Seagate will achieve combined revenue growth of 24% CAGR between fiscal 2025 and 2030.
• Western Digital announced an extended timeline for its ePMR technology, potentially indicating a delayed shift to HAMR drives.
• Seagate remains Bernstein’s preferred stock in the segment, with its price target elevated to $620.

Despite recent volatility, Western Digital maintains a year-to-date gain of approximately 57%, showcasing resilience even through the latest correction.

Western Digital Corporation, WDC

The stock plunge was triggered when Google Research introduced TurboQuant — an advanced compression method designed to optimize KV cache during AI inference operations. Market participants worried this innovation could reduce storage hardware demand.

Bernstein’s Mark Newman firmly rejected this narrative. “There is zero impact to HDD demand,” Newman stated in his research note. He emphasized that TurboQuant’s influence on NAND flash storage, utilized solely for offloading inactive caches, is minimal at best.

According to Bernstein, the market reaction was excessive and unwarranted. Western Digital had tumbled 21% from its recent peak before the analyst’s upgrade. Related companies including Seagate and Sandisk experienced similar pressure.

Upgraded Revenue Projections for Storage Industry

Bernstein has adopted a more constructive stance on the broader storage industry. The research firm now forecasts that Western Digital and Seagate will achieve a combined revenue compound annual growth rate of 24% spanning fiscal years 2025 through 2030.

This represents a substantial upgrade from earlier projections that anticipated 18.7% bits growth accompanied by 3.6% annual price erosion. The updated model incorporates 24% bits expansion with pricing holding steady.

Newman pointed to several structural growth drivers: expanding AI computational workloads, increasingly sophisticated content production, extended data retention requirements, and strengthening data sovereignty regulations that support both volume growth and pricing power.

Regarding product developments, Western Digital’s 2026 Innovation Day revealed plans to extend its ePMR technology roadmap. The company essentially prolonged the lifecycle of its existing drive architecture by one to two additional years beyond prior expectations.

Questions About HAMR Rollout Timeline

The upgrade contains an important qualification. Newman interprets Western Digital’s continued emphasis on ePMR as an implicit indication that the company’s migration to heat-assisted magnetic recording — commonly referred to as HAMR — might be progressing slower than initially anticipated.

Bernstein’s financial model anticipates Western Digital will begin scaling HAMR production in 2027, representing approximately 5% of nearline exabyte shipments during that year.

This contrasts sharply with Seagate’s trajectory, where Bernstein projects roughly 70% of nearline volume will utilize HAMR technology by 2027. Seagate continues as the firm’s preferred investment, with its price target increased to $620 from $500.

Western Digital shares climbed approximately 2.3% during Wednesday’s premarket session following the upgrade before accelerating gains throughout regular trading hours.

Gnosis’ push behind the Ethereum Economic Zone shows DAOs moving from tuning parameters to voting on whether whole chains become Ethereum L2s, tying governance to market structure.

The Ethereum Economic Zone did not appear out of thin air at EthCC 2026; it is the visible tip of a governance process inside Gnosis that has been wrestling with a single strategic question for months: should a long‑running sidechain effectively become a native Ethereum layer‑2. GnosisDAO governance records from February 2026 show community discussions around a six‑month R&D collaboration with zero‑knowledge engineer Jordi Baylina to explore “converting Gnosis Chain (GNO) into a natively integrated Ethereum (ETH) L2 with synchronous composability,” as summarized by analytics site Crypto Whale Data. According to a subsequent note on that same site, “EEZ appears to be the product of that exploration,” effectively weaponizing Gnosis’ internal L2 thesis into a shared framework for the broader ecosystem.

At EthCC in Cannes on March 29, Gnosis co‑founder Friederike Ernst and Baylina formalized that pivot by unveiling the Ethereum Economic Zone, a rollup framework co‑funded by the Ethereum Foundation and pitched as a way to “reassemble Ethereum” into “One Ethereum.” As Binance’s coverage of the announcement notes, the “core commitment” of EEZ is “synchronous composability,” allowing smart contracts on connected rollups to interact with each other and with Ethereum mainnet “within a single atomic transaction” and using ETH as the default gas token. In an EtherWorld write‑up, Ernst is quoted telling the audience that “Ethereum does not have a scaling problem, it has a fragmentation problem,” arguing that every new L2 has become “its own island, separate liquidity, separate deployments, separate bridges that take a cut every time you try to move between them.”

What makes the Gnosis story different from a routine technical upgrade is the way governance and infrastructure are now fused. As MEXC’s summary of the initiative points out, Gnosis has been active as a layer‑1 for seven years, and its decision to help build EEZ means “a governance‑driven blockchain is actively choosing to tie its future to Ethereum’s rollup‑centric roadmap rather than compete as a standalone L1.” The same report stresses that development is being led by contributors from Gnosis and Baylina’s proving‑stack project Zisk, with the Ethereum Foundation co‑funding the work and a Swiss‑based EEZ Association created to maintain neutrality and invite broader participation.

Market commentators within the ecosystem have seized on the shift. In a widely circulated post, the Bankless account described EEZ as “Ethereum’s fragmentation problem [getting] its most serious answer yet,” emphasizing that it is “led by Gnosis and ZisK, funded by the EF.” A longer explainer published on Binance’s content platform asks, “Can this new framework bring Ethereum back together?” and frames EEZ as an attempt to stop building “more walled gardens” and instead connect existing rollups into “something that actually behaves like a single DeFi economy.”

For GnosisDAO and other token‑holder communities watching closely, the implications are clear. Governance is no longer just about changing interest‑rate curves or fee switches; it is about making existential choices over whether entire chains migrate into tightly coupled rollup frameworks, which settlement asset they prioritize, and how closely they bind themselves to Ethereum’s monetary and security model. The Gnosis‑EEZ path suggests that future DAO votes may increasingly resemble corporate strategy decisions—approve an R&D mandate, explore a structural pivot, then ratify an architecture that can redefine the chain’s economic role—rather than the parameter fine‑tuning that defined DeFi’s first era.

A crypto April Fool’s bit from protocol firm Liquity, which claimed it was being bought by stablecoin giant Circle, has led to allegations of “market manipulation” after it pumped the price of its in-house token.

Liquity announced on April 1 that it was acquired by Circle in a deal that would allow Circle to offer users “a non-freezable stablecoin and directly distribute yield under the Clarity Act.”

The joke pokes fun at Circle’s ability to freeze tokens and the fact that the Clarity Act, in its current form, seeks to ban yield on stablecoins. 

Read more: ‘Bad actor’ Circle slammed for letting stolen $3M USDC sit unfrozen

Its freezing powers were ridiculed by the crypto investigator ZachXBT last week, who claimed Circle wrongly froze 16 wallets as part of a civil lawsuit. 

Despite the buyout announcement being a joke on Liquity’s part, it still boosted its $LQTY token by 5%.

The price, however, pulled back in just a few minutes, and is now down 6% from its April 1 peak. 

Crypto users on X weren’t too impressed with the joke, describing it as an “April Fool’s pump and dump.” 

Read more: WIF fundraiser says Vegas Sphere refunds will start on April Fools

Some said it was an ultra-thin line between a joke and “market manipulation,” while others described the day as an opportunity to “do crime and it’s totally legal!”

Others were more forgiving. DeFi researcher Ignas said that crypto users were losing their minds over a “mere” 5% pump.

They added, “Good taste joke, IMHO. And good project.”

Other users warned not to base your trading on headlines, as on a day like April Fools’, most of them are “facetious.” 

Read more: ‘Bad actor’ Circle slammed for letting stolen $3M USDC sit unfrozen

In response to the April Fools’ post, Liquity made it clear that it was just a joke, while also promoting its own stablecoin BOLD. 

Additionally, Circle clarified to Protos that the announcement was false, and said “Circle has not acquired Liquity.”

The theme of crypto April Fools’ is phony acquisitions

There were at least two more fake crypto acquisitions announcements today. Crypto wallet firm Frontrun Pro announced that it had been acquired by AI giant Anthropic as part of a $141 million deal. 

Crypto copy trading account PolyGun also announced that it had been acquired by Anthropic, this time in a transaction worth $69 million. 

Dogecoin also did its own corporate April Fools’ joke, announcing that it would restructure the firm into “DogeCoin Financial Solutions LLC™.”

Read more: Memescope traders have been left with a case of Monday blues

As part of this, it said it would drop its Shiba Inu logo for something navy blue, stop saying words like “wow,” “much,” and “very,” and rebrand its “Doge army” as “Stakeholders.”

Some users thought it would be funny to pretend that memecoin launcher Pump Fun is finally dropping an airdrop in the form of “Pump Fun rewards.”

The platform announced an airdrop would be coming “soon” 266 days ago. 

Others joked that Bored Ape Yacht Club had replaced the images of all of its NFTs with photos of actual monkeys and chimps. 

Read more: BAYC goes full ‘laser eyes’ and allegedly blinds ApeFest attendees

A bitcoiner called Didi Taihuttu claimed, while wearing his Bitcoin hat and strutting around a luxury villa, that he would be switching back to traditional banks after crypto had become too volatile. 

All these examples demonstrate that trading headlines on a day like today is risky business, and that firms with financial assets to their names should be careful about just what kind of April Fools’ they run.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Artificial intelligence giant OpenAI has closed $122 billion in committed capital at an $852 billion post-money valuation, a round that dwarfs anything raised in private markets and cements the company as the most valuable startup in history by a wide margin.

The funding was anchored by Amazon, Nvidia, and SoftBank, with continued participation from Microsoft. SoftBank co-led alongside a16z, D.E. Shaw Ventures, MGX, TPG, and accounts advised by T. Rowe Price.

The investor list reads like a who’s who of global capital — BlackRock, Blackstone, Fidelity, Sequoia, Temasek, Coatue, and ARK Invest all participated.

For the first time, OpenAI opened participation to individual investors through bank channels, raising over $3 billion from that tranche alone.

OpenAI said it is generating $2 billion in revenue per month, up from $1 billion per quarter at the end of 2024. ChatGPT has more than 900 million weekly active users and over 50 million subscribers. The company claims 6x the monthly web visits and mobile sessions of the next largest AI app, and 4x the total time spent of all other AI apps combined.

Enterprise now makes up more than 40% of revenue and is on track to reach parity with consumer by end of 2026. The company’s APIs process more than 15 billion tokens per minute. Codex, its coding agent, serves over 2 million weekly users, up 5x in three months.

OpenAI also expanded its revolving credit facility to approximately $4.7 billion, supported by JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and others. That facility remains undrawn as of March 31.

The company framed the raise around compute as a strategic moat. Its infrastructure strategy now spans cloud partnerships with Microsoft, Oracle, AWS, CoreWeave, and Google Cloud, silicon through Nvidia, AMD, AWS Trainium, Cerebras, and its own custom chip with Broadcom, and data centers through Oracle, SBE, and SoftBank.

Meanwhile, the company said it is building a “unified AI superapp” that would combine ChatGPT, Codex, browsing, and agentic capabilities into a single product.

The pitch is that as models get more capable, the bottleneck shifts from intelligence to usability, and a single surface lets the company translate model improvements directly into adoption.

The $852 billion valuation places OpenAI above all but a handful of public companies globally. For context, that is roughly the market cap of Berkshire Hathaway, and larger than Visa, JPMorgan Chase, or Samsung.

Key takeaways

• ZCash is one of the worst performers among the top 30 cryptocurrencies by market cap, down 3.5% in the last 24 hours.
• The coin could rally higher in the near term amid demand for privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. 

ZEC slips as broader market recovers

ZEC, the native coin of the Zcash ecosystem, is down by 3.5% in the last 24 hours, making it one of the worst performers among the top 30 cryptocurrencies by market cap.

It is trading at $241 per coin, down from the $257 recorded on Tuesday. The bearish performance comes amid a decline in Zcash’s derivatives data.

According to CoinGlass, ZEC’s futures’ Open Interest (OI) reads $438 million, down from the $473 million recorded on Tuesday, reflecting the decreased notional value of open contracts.
Typically, an OI decline during a dip in spot price reaffirms the bearish narrative as traders anticipate further recovery.

Technical outlook: Will Zcash price recover above $250 soon?

The ZEC/USD 4-hour chart is bullish but inefficient as Zcash’s price faced rejection above the $250 psychological level. 

It is currently trading below its 50-day EMA of $248c, suggesting that the bulls failed to take advantage of the recent rally. 

Despite that, the near-term bias is cautiously bullish as ZEC holds above the recent lows, while remaining capped beneath the long-standing descending resistance line.

If the bulls regain control and ZEC’s daily candle closes above $250, it would confirm the upside breakout and open the path toward the 200-day EMA at $274, followed by the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement level at $362. 

The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) line has turned higher above the signal line and moved back into positive territory on the 4-hour chart, suggesting strengthening upside pressure. 

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) at 61 reinforces the recovery of bullish momentum without signaling overbought conditions.

On the downside, if the rejection candle holds, ZEC could drop towards the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level at $231, followed by the rising trendline near the $200 psychological support level.

Bitcoin’s reputation has historically been built on extreme boom-and-bust cycles, with steep drawdowns of up to 90% following all-time highs.

This cycle, however, the decline has been closer to 50%, a shift that analysts said reflects the maturation of BTC as an asset class.

“Bitcoin’s drawdowns compressing to about 50% is a sign of a maturing market structure,” AdLunam co-founder and market analyst Jason Fernandes told CoinDesk.

“As liquidity deepens and institutional participation increases, volatility naturally compresses on both the upside and the downside,” he added, saying that “at that point, the narrative shifts from questioning its legitimacy to optimizing allocation.”

Fernandes’ comments are in response to Fidelity Digital Assets analyst Zack Wainwright’s X post Tuesday, in which he noted growth is becoming “less impulsive,” with a reduced probability of extreme downside events as bitcoin matures.

‘Less dramatic’

Wainwright pointed out that the current drawdown from the Oct. 6 all-time-high of just over $126,200 is much less significant than previous pullbacks.

“Each cycle has been less dramatic to the upside than the previous and downside risk has also been less dramatic,” he said.

Fernandes and Wainwright, of course, were referring to previous “bust” periods, most notably following the peaks of 2013 and 2017.

After reaching a high of approximately $1,163 in late 2013, bitcoin entered a prolonged “crypto winter” that saw its price plummet to around $152 by January 2015, representing a drawdown of roughly 87%. A similar pattern was seen after the 2017 bull run, when it reached $20,000 in December before plummeting roughly 84% to $3,122 over the following 12 months.

Not all analysts agree that deeper drawdowns are off the table.

Bloomberg Intelligence’s Mike McGlone told CoinDesk that he believes bitcoin could still see a “normal reversion” toward $10,000, arguing that “the crypto bubble is over” and that any downturn could coincide with broader declines across equities, commodities and other risk assets.

However, Fernandes, who has previously dissented with McGlone’s $10,000 forecast, said that scale itself is part of the story. As bitcoin grows into a larger asset class, the likelihood of 90% collapses diminishes simply because the capital required to drive such moves is too great. That effect is reinforced by institutional integration, from ETFs to pension exposure, which makes large-scale unwinds structurally harder.

Portfolio ‘efficiency’ enhancer

The shift is already showing up in portfolio construction.

“The portfolio data is really what shifts institutional behavior,” Fernandes said. “If a small 1% to 3% allocation can materially improve returns and Sharpe ratios without significantly increasing drawdowns, then bitcoin starts to function less like a standalone bet and more like an efficiency enhancer within a diversified portfolio.”

That framing changes the risk calculus. “The risk isn’t about owning bitcoin anymore,” Fernandes stated. “It’s the opportunity cost of having no exposure at all.”

Recent Fidelity research supports that transition. In a 10-year comparison across major asset classes, bitcoin delivered roughly 20,000% returns, significantly outperforming equities, gold, and bonds, while also leading on risk-adjusted measures despite its volatility.

“Bitcoin remains a relatively young asset, yet it has quickly matured into a major asset class and has been the top-performing asset in 11 out of the past 15 years,” the report noted.

At the same time, the tradeoff is becoming clearer.

“There’s a tradeoff here that’s worth articulating,” Fernandes said. “As bitcoin matures and volatility compresses, you should also expect returns to normalize. The asymmetric upside of the early cycles came with extreme drawdowns, but as those drawdowns shrink, the asset increasingly behaves like a macro allocation rather than a venture-style bet.”

That brings it back to the drawdowns.

If bitcoin is no longer falling 80%, and portfolios can benefit from small allocations without materially increasing risk, then the asset is evolving into something more investible and usable, Fernandes said, concluding that for institutions, that may be the real inflection point.

A new generation of investors is drawing crypto deeper into mainstream portfolios, even as it grapples with the asset class’s well-known volatility. Gen Z’s appetite for risk and its digital-native approach to money are shaping both the demand for cryptocurrencies and the conversation around how to manage that risk within a diversified portfolio. Findings from survey data and market commentary point to a multi-faceted dynamic: strong interest in crypto, tempered by an awareness of risk and a heavy influence from social platforms and online narratives.

According to Betterment’s 2025 Retail Survey, 64% of Gen Z and 49% of millennials say they are willing to take on more investment risk. This willingness to push the envelope aligns with a broader tilt toward crypto among younger cohorts. Separately, YouGov’s 2025 US Investment Trends report highlights that nearly two-thirds of Gen Z plan to invest in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin this year, underscoring crypto’s rising status as a core consideration for younger investors. The combination of greater risk tolerance and a crypto-forward mindset suggests a structural shift in how Gen Z approaches wealth-building, beyond mere speculation.

That said, the Gen Z approach is not blind to risk. Crypto volatility remains a central concern for many, and the generation is keenly aware that price swings occur around the clock. Investopedia notes that while crypto is widely recognized as risky and volatile, many Gen Z investors continue to participate, viewing volatility as part of an entry price rather than a barrier to participation. In other words, recognition of risk does not appear to suppress the impulse to participate; it may even be embedded in the way they frame potential returns.

Key takeaways

• 64% of Gen Z and 49% of millennials are willing to take on more investment risk, according to Betterment’s 2025 Retail Survey.
• YouGov’s 2025 US Investment Trends report finds that nearly two-thirds of Gen Z intend to invest in cryptocurrencies this year.
• 84% of Gen Z acknowledge that cryptocurrencies are risky and volatile, yet they continue to invest, signaling a structural willingness to tolerate risk for potentially outsized gains.
• Financial FOMO drives behavior: about 70% of Gen Z report feeling financial FOMO while scrolling social media, and roughly half have made an investment influenced by that feeling, often in crypto or memecoins.
• For many young investors, crypto remains a digital-native asset class with appeal tied to high-growth narratives, but concerns about transparency and regulation persist as the market evolves.

Gen Z’s risk calculus in a digital era

Crypto’s appeal to Gen Z appears inseparable from the broader online ecosystem that shapes their financial world. Gen Z has grown up with the internet, digital wallets, and instant access to markets, which makes digital assets feel native rather than futuristic. The survey data illustrate a generation that is comfortable testing new assets, even as it calibrates its risk exposure to reflect a volatile, 24/7 market environment. The correlation between online influence and investment behavior becomes especially salient when considering how financial guidance is consumed. A notable share of younger investors turns to social platforms for insights, which elevates the importance of evaluating the quality and accountability of information accessed through these channels.

One dimension often cited in this context is how young investors source financial advice. Kiplinger’s coverage notes that about one in four Gen Z Americans obtain financial guidance from TikTok, a statistic that signals the growing role of “finfluencers” in shaping investment decisions. That dynamic, combined with the rapid dissemination of memes and viral narratives, helps explain why certain crypto stories gain outsized attention—even when the underlying fundamentals are murkier than traditional investment vehicles. In this environment, investors must balance curiosity with due diligence and a clear understanding of risk rewards.

Volatility, FOMO and the memecoin cycle

Volatility remains the price of admission for crypto, and Gen Z is not naïve about it. The generation’s understanding of risk reflects a paradox: while they recognize the inherent instability of digital assets, they are drawn by the prospect of outsized profits in a relatively new asset class. The tension between risk awareness and aspirational returns is compounded by social dynamics. Empower’s research on financial FOMO shows that 70% of Gen Z feel this pressure while scrolling social media, and a CFA Institute study cited in the broader discussion indicates that about 50% of Gen Z investors say they have made an investment driven by FOMO, often in crypto or memecoins. In other words, fear of missing out is translating into real capital allocation decisions, particularly toward assets that can deliver rapid visibility and engagement on social platforms.

The memecoin phenomenon sits at the intersection of virality, community hype, and speculative appetite. These tokens are designed to capture attention and momentum, delivering quick, event-driven price action that can attract new participants while amplifying the narrative around crypto’s potential. While this dynamic can drive activity and liquidity, it also raises questions about sustainability, risk management, and the long-term viability of such assets in a diversified portfolio. The cycle—rapid gains followed by swift corrections—has repeatedly underscored the risks associated with chasing headlines rather than fundamentals. As a result, even as crypto admissions rise among younger cohorts, memecoins can reinforce a broader skepticism about the safety and reliability of digital assets as a standalone investment thesis.

Beyond the hype, the behavioral profile of Gen Z investors highlights a broader diversification conversation. Some observers point to crypto as a potential portfolio diversifier, particularly as parts of the traditional market landscape exhibit different risk and return drivers. Yet the same conversations underscore real caveats: during periods of systemic stress, crypto has shown correlations with high-growth equities and even, at times, with traditional safe-haven narratives like gold. That raises practical questions for portfolio construction: if crypto participates in downside markets or moves in tandem with riskier equities, its diversification benefits may be more nuanced than initially assumed. For any investor, understanding when crypto serves as a genuine diversifier versus when it behaves as a high-beta, risk-on asset is essential to avoid overexposure or misaligned expectations.

Another critical theme is the lack of universal transparency and a clear regulatory framework across crypto markets. As a technology- and asset-class experiment in real-time, digital assets have not always benefited from the disclosures and governance that accompany traditional securities. MDPI’s analysis of cognitive biases, including the Dunning-Kruger effect, suggests that younger investors may overestimate their understanding of crypto and underestimate the risks, underscoring the need for robust education and clear regulatory guardrails. In the absence of consistent reporting standards and enforcement, the allure of quick profits can eclipse prudent risk assessment, increasing the likelihood of regrettable losses for inexperienced participants.

Regulation, transparency and the road ahead

While Gen Z’s crypto engagement signals a maturation of digital assets within the retail space, observers agree that regulatory clarity and improved transparency are critical for sustaining long-term participation. The tension between a rapidly evolving technology stack and the slower, more deliberate pace of policy development creates a dynamic where innovation can outpace guardrails, at least in the near term. As policymakers and industry participants negotiate better disclosure, custody standards, and product-level protections, the trajectory of Gen Z’s crypto involvement will hinge on how effectively those guardrails translate into real-world investor protections without stifling innovation.

Some researchers and market observers frame this moment as a test of crypto’s legitimacy as an investable asset class for a new generation. If regulators deliver calibrated, investor-centric rules and platforms improve transparency, crypto could expand from being a niche interest to a more mainstream, risk-aware component of diversified portfolios. Conversely, persistent gaps in transparency or regulatory uncertainty could amplify the very volatility and hype-driven dynamics that have driven memecoin cycles, potentially eroding trust among young buyers who expect clarity and accountability from market participants.

Related coverage in the broader crypto media ecosystem has noted regulators’ concerns about finfluencers and the need for responsible information dissemination, particularly as Gen Z ownership grows. For readers tracking the evolution of this space, pay attention to shifts in regulatory posture, custody and exchange standards, and how platforms adapt to the dual pressures of innovation and investor protection. As the market evolves, the balance between opportunity and risk will likely redefine crypto’s role in Gen Z portfolios.

Investors should watch how education, transparency, and policy alignment impact Generation Z’s crypto participation. The coming months may reveal whether this generation’s early-adopter behavior becomes a durable, risk-aware investment habit or whether volatility and information gaps pull the brakes on broader adoption.

Alex Tsepaev, chief strategy officer at B2PRIME Group, offers this perspective: crypto’s journey into mainstream investing is less about a single narrative of boom-and-bust and more about how a new generation learns to navigate risk, trust, and accountability in a rapidly changing financial landscape.

This opinion piece reflects the author’s view and is not an endorsement of any specific asset. Readers should conduct their own research and consider regulatory developments, platform protections, and risk management practices before making investment decisions.