Every row is a current holding — this episode is a complete walk of the 14-position portfolio, so "What he said" carries each name's pre-committed buy target and the DCF assumptions behind it. "View" is Carlson's stance in this conversation. Research: QT Qualtrim · SA Seeking Alpha · STK Stock Analysis.
| Ticker | Name | Research | View | What he said | At |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UBER | Uber Technologies | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $60 (~23% below, the least aggressive discount on the board; a $25k / 1.7% position, +$1,900). At $60 on 16% EPS growth and a 22 forward PE the math gives a 20.9% five-year CAGR — "Uber looks like it would be one of the best opportunities at that buy target." He notes he's put more money into Uber than DoorDash: "I'm not less bullish on Uber," DoorDash is just bigger because it's performed better. Then the episode's long news segment: he rebuts the More Perfect Union and Business Insider documentaries alleging personalized pricing, arguing they collapse dynamic (situation-based) into personalized (person-based) pricing and never show Uber's published technical response — "This is a one-sided activist campaign against Uber with massive omission bias." | 26:17 |
| META | Meta Platforms | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $450 (a $150k / 10% position, −$34k). Holding number four and still his problem child, down on "the bad news, the lawsuits, all the people concerned about how Meta's product may change" — which he reads as a rerun: "it has a lot of resemblance to what we faced with Google and the whole ChatGPT scare… I believe Meta is actually a lot stronger than most investors are pricing in." He concedes it already looks cheap and answers his own objection: "the market can trade companies way down below what they really deserve" — Meta was $300 in 2023. On sub-10% EPS growth and a 20 PE, $450 still returns 17.2% a year. The fail-of-the-week segment is a direct defence of the name: at an 18 forward PE with "terrible sentiment already priced into the stock," this is not the moment to turn bearish. | 9:58 |
| GOOGL | Alphabet | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $250 (~$100 below the $347 price; his largest position, +$113k). A hold, not a buy, at today's price: "at 347, it's trading at a 26 forward PE ratio and a 1.2% free cash flow yield. I don't believe that Google's cheap today. I'm not buying it right now. I continue to hold it mostly because it's such a good company." The target is the worked example of his method — moderate growth to 12% EPS (because "they're building out mass amounts of data centers… which will transform into amortized expenses") and haircut the exit multiple to 22, and $250 still compounds at 14.1% to roughly $484 in five years. | 4:17 |
| MA | Mastercard | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $450 from $595 — below this year's low ("it'd have to have a healthy dip"). His second-largest position at 13% / nearly $200k, +$52k: "I really bumped up Mastercard a lot during the dip this year. It's been one of the brighter spots in the portfolio." He pre-empts the objection that the target is unreachable with the volatility point: even "one of the most stable companies in the world" has shown "jagged spikes and dips of 20 to 30%" over five years. Assumptions: EPS growth cut to 12.7% (vs 15–20% actual) but the multiple kept high at 29 — "a really stable cash flow positive capital-light company… expanding their moat and market share" — giving an 18.5% annual return at $450. | 6:07 |
| AMZN | Amazon | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $200 ("one of my favorite companies ever"; a $191k / 12.8% position, +$67k). Third of a near-evenly-weighted top three — Google 13.8%, Mastercard 13.3%, Amazon 12.8% — where "whatever one has a good week or a good month… will leapfrog to the top place position." He allows Amazon the fastest assumed growth of the megacaps at 16.1% EPS ("they have a tremendous amount of operating leverage… more of a growth stage than the other companies") on a 27 multiple: at $200 that's a 19.3% CAGR, "that money would around 2.4x over the next 5 years." | 8:54 |
| SPGI | S&P Global | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $350 (fifth-largest, $127k / ~8.5%, +$20k). He flags it as one of the least likely to trigger — "S&P Global has not traded down below 350 this entire year… the last time was back in late 2023" — and treats that as the correct outcome of a strict rule: "We want to be disciplined with this new money… we're not just looking for modest dips." Even on 10.7% EPS growth and a 25 multiple ("modest… for a company as good as S&P Global"), $350 delivers almost 16% a year, "a very strong market beating return on very conservative assumptions." | 11:58 |
| ASML | ASML Holding | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $1,200 (holding six, $124k with $91k of gains). The affection is unqualified and the discipline is separate from it: "ASML is one of my favorite stocks ever. I really love this company. It's so cool what they're doing. But I have to set a buy-in target at $1,200." At 12.5% EPS growth and a 30 multiple that entry compounds at 15.2% — "the stock would essentially double over the next 5 years." Elsewhere he mentions trimming ASML "towards $2,000 per share" to fund the DoorDash entry. | 13:51 |
| NFLX | Netflix | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $60 from ~$80 post-split (holding seven, +$34k of gains). One of the likelier triggers, on the stock's own history of violent repricing: "investors have generally been enthused about Netflix… but recently you can see that it's in a downtrend. If investors get really soured on Netflix with their next earnings report for whatever reason, we could see the stock drop rapidly. We've seen it before with Netflix." On a deliberately low 16% EPS assumption ("this is on the low end of where I think it's actually going to grow") and a 24 multiple, $60 produces a 19.9% CAGR — "one of the highest projected forward compounded growth rates of any stock in my portfolio." | 14:14 |
| MSFT | Microsoft | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $400 from $490 (holding eight, $104k / 7%, +$50k) — and the most mechanically plausible trigger on the board: "after the last earnings report, Microsoft shot up around 25%… before that, it was at $400 per share. So, if Microsoft simply gives up the gains of its last earnings report bump, then this will be the one that gets that $10,000." He keeps a high multiple in the model — 28, "given the moat and the structure of the company" — on 12.4% EPS growth, giving a 16.8% annual return at $400, "which I believe would soundly outperform the market." | 15:46 |
| COST | Costco Wholesale | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive — held, but called overvalued | Buy target $600 from $969 — a deliberate 38% below, versus 18–25% for everything else, and the one he rates "very unlikely" ("it does not typically drop nearly 40%"). One of his oldest positions ($83k, +$50k): "I basically started buying Costco day one when I started investing." The reason the target is set so far away is stated plainly: "Costco's overvalued. It is an overvalued company that I continue to hold. Anytime it pays me the huge special dividends, I put that capital into other positions." Even at $600, 9.3% EPS growth and a 31 multiple (against ~50 today) only returns 10.6% — "a decent return… but still not amazing." | 16:50 |
| TXRH | Texas Roadhouse | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $140 from $205 (a $60k position with $51.6k of gains). "Texas Roadhouse is my best performing position when we look at the buys and sells when I've trimmed and added." He calls the current price healthy rather than cheap: "it's trading with a lot of positive sentiment. People have finally gotten more bullish on beef and stabilization of cattle… Texas Roadhouse has just been performing top tier." So the target is not an expectation — "I don't believe Texas Roadhouse will get to 140 anytime soon. I'm not planning on that, but if it does… it'll earn the cash." At 11.5–12% EPS growth and a 23 multiple, $140 returns ~13.4%. | 18:38 |
| DUOL | Duolingo | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $90 from $146 — "nearly a 38% drop… a staggering drop for most companies, but Duolingo is not like most companies. And it was at $90 per share as recent as April of 2026." Still his worst position ($35k / 2.4%, −$11.2k) after growth decelerated and marketing virality faded. He restates his rejection of the AI bear case explicitly: "the biggest concern for Duolingo today is obviously centered around AI and AI assisted learning. Many people believe that ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini will take over AI learning… I don't share that bear thesis… they're going to continue growing in their users and engagement and learning because that's all they focus on." At 18.5% EPS growth and a 27 multiple, $90 gives 14.2% — with "much more upside if they get to scale." | 20:14 |
| DASH | DoorDash | QT · SA · STK · FA | Positive | Buy target $120 — the most aggressive discount on the board at ~47%, and explicitly a valuation judgement: "with the high-flying valuation of DoorDash today, I need it to come down so that I can get a more conservative approach here." One of his personal favourites and his fastest winner — bought only a couple of months ago, already +31% / +$6,700 to a $28k position, funded by trimming ASML near $2,000. On a 28% EPS growth assumption, $120 still only produces 15% a year. He also notes the irony of holding it next to Duolingo — one company bets people will better themselves, the other "delivers food to your doorstep so that you have to put minimal effort into life… so far, that convenience is winning out." | 21:57 |
| MCO | Moody's | QT · SA · STK · FA | Neutral — held, lowest projected return | Buy target $375 (11th largest, only 3.5% / $53k, +$12.6k). The one holding he damns with faint praise: "Moody's has been an okay position, but not amazing. I guess it's held up. It's made a little bit of gains, but it hasn't had some radical outperformance." Its modelled return is also the weakest on the board — just above 10% EPS growth on a 24 PE gives 12.1% at $375 — which he defends rather than upgrades: "It'd be on the lower end, but it would still be good. Nobody should really complain about earning 12% per year for 5 years. It seems low compared to these other stocks, but it's still great." | 19:35 |
"View" is Joseph Carlson's stance in this video, not a price rating. All 14 rows are current holdings he re-affirms; the buy target is the price at which he would deploy an incremental $10,000, not a price forecast. COST is flagged Positive-but-overvalued (held, target set 38% below) and MCO Neutral (held, but described as "okay but not amazing" with the lowest projected forward return of the book). Gene Munster / Deepwater Asset Management and the two documentary outlets are people and organisations, not securities, and are excluded from the table; Zeta Global is named only in a Qualtrim-content promo with no view attached. Research: QT Qualtrim · SA Seeking Alpha · STK Stock Analysis.
A jargon-free summary of the thesis behind each substantive name — what it is and why he holds that view. (Plain-language companion to the table above; renders on each ticker's consolidated page.)
Uber is his smallest position and, by his own numbers, the best bargain on the board if it dips. He wants it at $60 — only about 23% below where it trades, the gentlest discount he asks of any of his fourteen holdings, and a price the stock actually saw in late 2024. Run his conservative assumptions (earnings growing 16% a year, the stock eventually valued at 22 times earnings) and buying at $60 works out to about a 20.9% annual return over five years. He is careful to note that a small position is not a small conviction: he has actually put more money into Uber than into DoorDash; DoorDash is bigger only because it has gone up more.
The bulk of the episode's Uber content is a defence against two viral documentaries — one from the activist group More Perfect Union, one from Business Insider — that accuse Uber of "personalized pricing": using what it knows about you personally (income, spending habits) to charge you the most you'll tolerate. Both films run the same demonstration: seven or eleven people in one room order the identical ride at the identical moment and get different prices.
Carlson's answer turns on a distinction the films never make. Personalized pricing is about the person. Dynamic pricing is about the situation — the same reason concert tickets cost more when demand spikes. When a group of people all tap the button in the same few seconds, the nearest drivers get taken first; the later requests get matched to drivers further away, which really is a longer, more expensive trip. Uber's published (and audited) response says this explicitly, and states flatly that it does not price on protected characteristics, phone model, or battery level.
His actual charge is about method rather than conclusion. Both documentaries acknowledge Uber's rebuttal in a single clause — "Uber said we got it wrong" — and then never show it, leaving an audience that is "completely blind to the argument of the group they're even accusing." The investing lesson he draws is simple and portable: before you accept an activist exposé about a company you own, go read what the company actually said back.
Meta is his newest big position and his most painful one — about $150,000 invested and $34,000 underwater, dragged down by lawsuits and a steady drumbeat of bad press. He treats the shape of the story as familiar rather than novel: "it has a lot of resemblance to what we faced with Google and the whole ChatGPT scare," a fear that dominated headlines, crushed the price, and then simply failed to show up in the results.
He sets a buy target of $450 and immediately argues with the obvious objection — that Meta already looks cheap on earnings and cash flow, so why would it fall that far? His answer is that cheapness is no floor: "the market can trade companies way down below what they really deserve," and Meta traded at $300 as recently as 2023. Even with deliberately gloomy assumptions — earnings growing under 10% because of heavy data-centre spending, and the stock valued at only 20 times earnings — buying at $450 would still compound at 17.2% a year.
The end of the episode is effectively an extended defence of the same position. A well-known analyst, Gene Munster, went on CNBC to argue that today's lawsuits are just "the tip of the iceberg" and that Meta's pivot toward AI companions sets up far bigger legal trouble in five years. Carlson's rebuttal is that this is the same analyst who was certain ChatGPT would destroy Google when Google traded at $170 — and who bought Google only after it had doubled and the fear proved unfounded.
His bottom line is about what is already in the price rather than about whether the criticism has merit: Meta trades at 18 times forward earnings, "investors already know about the lawsuits… terrible sentiment already priced into the stock," alongside record daily users and fast revenue growth. He explicitly allows that Munster could be right this time — he just doesn't think that's how these usually resolve.
Costco is the most honest entry on the board, because the number gives away the view. Every other holding gets a buy target 18–25% below the market price. Costco's is 38% below — $600 against a $969 price — and he rates the odds of getting there as very low, since the stock's typical drawdowns are 5–20% and short-lived.
The reason isn't that he dislikes the company. It's one of his oldest holdings, bought "day one when I started investing," and it has been one of the best-returning stocks in the market. The reason is price: "Costco's overvalued. It is an overvalued company that I continue to hold." That's an unusually direct admission — holding something you think is expensive — and he pairs it with what he actually does about it: the large special dividends Costco pays get redeployed into other positions rather than back into the stock.
The arithmetic backs the reluctance. Costco trades at roughly 50 times earnings. Even assuming it settles at a still-generous 31 times, with earnings growing 9.3% a year, buying at $600 would produce only about 10.6% annually — the second-weakest projected return in the portfolio. So the far-away target is not pessimism about the business; it's the price at which a great but richly valued company would finally offer a return worth new money.
Duolingo is the language-learning app, and it is his worst position — down $11,200 on a $35,000 stake after growth slowed and its famously viral marketing lost some steam. The bigger overhang is the one everyone names: if ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini can teach you Spanish, why does a dedicated app survive?
He rejects that outright, and his reason is focus rather than technology: "I don't share that bear thesis… they're going to continue growing in their users and engagement and learning because that's all they focus on." The implicit argument is that a general-purpose chatbot and a product engineered around daily habit, streaks and structured progression are not the same product, even when both can technically answer a grammar question.
His buy target is $90, roughly 38% below the current $146 — a drop that would be extraordinary for most companies but is unremarkable here: the stock started the year at $185, traded at $90 as recently as April 2026, and has climbed back since. At $90, assuming 18.5% earnings growth and a 27 multiple, the return works out to 14.2% a year, and he thinks the growth assumption is conservative "if they get to scale."
Google is his largest position and, right now, a hold rather than a buy — a distinction he is unusually blunt about. At $347 the stock trades at 26 times next year's earnings and throws off only a 1.2% free-cash-flow yield: "I don't believe that Google's cheap today. I'm not buying it right now. I continue to hold it mostly because it's such a good company."
Google is also where he shows his whole method. He takes the growth rate Google is actually achieving and cuts it — to 12% — on the reasoning that the enormous data-centre build will eventually be charged against earnings as those assets are written down over time. Then he cuts the multiple investors might pay, from today's 26 down to 22, on the assumption that a slower grower earns a lower rating. Both haircuts are deliberate: he wants a target that works even if the story gets worse.
With those inputs he solves backwards for the price that still delivers a good return, and it lands at $250 — roughly $100 below the market. Buy there and the same pessimistic assumptions still produce a 14.1% annual return, taking the stock to about $484 in five years. That's the whole discipline in one worked example: the target is not a prediction of where the stock goes, it's the entry price at which a deliberately gloomy forecast still pays you well.
Microsoft's target is the most plausible one on the board, and for a very mechanical reason. The stock jumped roughly 25% on its last earnings report, from about $400 to $490. His buy price is $400 — so "if Microsoft simply gives up the gains of its last earnings report bump, then this will be the one that gets that $10,000." No crisis required; just a normal round-trip of one good quarter's enthusiasm.
He models it with a modest 12.4% earnings growth rate but keeps a high multiple of 28, on the view that the business quality justifies a premium — "given the moat and the structure of the company." At $400 that produces a 16.8% annual return over five years, which he says "would soundly outperform the market."
ASML makes the machines that print the world's most advanced computer chips, and nobody else can build them. Carlson's affection is unreserved — "one of my favorite stocks ever. I really love this company. It's so cool what they're doing" — and it has been one of his biggest winners, $124,000 held with $91,000 of that being gains.
Which makes the sentence that follows the point of the whole episode: "But I have to set a buy-in target at $1,200." Loving a business does not exempt it from the entry-price rule. At $1,200, with earnings growing 12.5% and the stock eventually valued at 30 times earnings, the money roughly doubles over five years — a 15.2% annual return. Above that price, the same money is better spent elsewhere, and he has in fact been trimming ASML near $2,000 to fund other positions.
Netflix trades around $80 after its split and he wants it at $60. What makes that plausible isn't a fundamental worry — it's the stock's temperament. Investors have generally liked Netflix, "but recently you can see that it's in a downtrend," and this is a name with a long history of falling hard and fast on a single disappointing quarter: "we've seen it before with Netflix."
The projected payoff is the highest in the portfolio. He assumes 16% earnings growth, which he explicitly calls the low end of what he expects, and a 24 multiple appropriate for the margins, growth and market size. Buying at $60 on those inputs compounds at 19.9% a year — "a 20% CAGR would be incredible… one of the highest projected forward compounded growth rates of any stock in my portfolio."
DoorDash is his fastest winner and, precisely because of that, the hardest name on his own board to buy more of. Bought only a couple of months ago and already up 31% to a $28,000 position, it now carries what he calls a "high-flying valuation" — so his target is $120, a roughly 47% decline, by far the steepest discount he demands anywhere.
Even that target only clears his bar with an aggressive growth assumption: 28% annual earnings growth, which at $120 yields about 15% a year. In other words, this is a company he likes and holds, priced today at a level where the incremental $10,000 would be better used almost anywhere else in the book.
He also flags the entry as a process win worth noting: the purchase was funded by trimming ASML near $2,000, and the swapped capital has earned a higher return since — "one where I feel like I timed my entry point and buy into it really well."
Moody's rates the creditworthiness of bonds and the companies that issue them — one half of a duopoly with S&P Global, which Carlson also owns and rates more highly. It's his eleventh-largest position at only 3.5% of the book, and he describes it with a candour he doesn't extend to anything else he holds: "Moody's has been an okay position, but not amazing. I guess it's held up. It's made a little bit of gains, but it hasn't had some radical outperformance."
The forward math matches the lukewarm verdict. Even at his $375 buy target — with earnings growing just above 10% and a 24 multiple — the projected return is 12.1%, the lowest of all fourteen holdings. He doesn't dress that up. He defends it as still worth having: "Nobody should really complain about earning 12% per year for 5 years. It seems low compared to these other stocks, but it's still great."
Read against the rest of the board, where targets are chosen to deliver 15–21%, Moody's is the position where the price he'd pay buys the least — held, not championed.
Summary & timestamps derived from the public YouTube video (transcript in transcript.txt) for personal study. Not investment advice. © Joseph Carlson for source material.