Title:   Portfolio Update June 2026
Show:    Joseph Carlson — Qualtrim Studio (Portfolio Updates)
Guest:   Joseph Carlson (individual investor; runs the Joseph Carlson Show / Qualtrim)
Date:    2026-JUN-26
URL:     https://www.qualtrim.com/app/studio/watch/c56a7055-dffc-451c-a37b-392938b024ee
Length:  1:18:35
Note:    Self-hosted Qualtrim Studio video (HLS, login-gated) — NOT on YouTube, so no public youtu.be
         deep-links. Transcript from the page's English WebVTT subtitle track, converted to (mm:ss) cues
         (timestamps are real). Auto-caption text, lightly cleaned; numbers/names/wording intact.

(00:00) Welcome everyone. This is the June portfolio update. As I was prepping this episode, sometimes as I'm preparing an episode, I just know it's going to be good. I know that people really like it. Things just come together in a good way, and I know it's going to be a banger. Even before I actually, 
(00:16) I actually record it, and I believe this is the case in this one. I think you're really going to enjoy it, at least as I was looking through all of this, I find it completely interesting, thought provoking, somewhat fascinating, and it just goes over 
(00:31) what we're going to be talking about. Here is a lot of portfolio update thought processes on companies, as well as a little bit of macro to give my thoughts on overall on what's going on. So we're going to be doing some micro level stuff. We're going to be talking about companies and individual developments. 
(00:47) We're going to be talking about portfolio and transparency. I'll be giving you a look into my performance, what's been going on with the portfolio. And we'll be looking at macro, how I see things going forward, how I see this kind of AI quality compound or divergent market going forward. 
(01:03) And this is stuff that even though I've touched on it before, I think that we're going to go into a bit more in-depth nitty gritty in this episode. So again, I don't say this often. I know it's kind of talking up your own content, but I hope you actually listen in on this one, 
(01:18) because I think it's going to be one of the more interesting, thought provoking episodes. So having said that, let's go ahead and jump in. We're going to be looking at my portfolio, and I first want to go over my objectives with my portfolio and my performance. I'll give you a year to date look at the performance and overall performance. 
(01:34) So first of all I just want to reference this one slide. And we're not going to go through the whole presentation right here. But I want to reference this one slide because it's my progress to 5 million. This is my goal overall is to grow the portfolio to $5 million. Now I cannot rely I can't rely on deposits to grow it. 
(01:52) Is this not going to grow to 5 million just by deposits? I need to have attractive returns. I need the portfolio to grow in and of itself. I can seed some holdings, I can buy into some positions, make initial holdings. But I need those to grow and compound and reinvest and pay 
(02:08) dividends and buybacks and all of that to get to the 5 million. Otherwise, it's just going to take me forever. It'll just take too long. Compounding is what makes it so you can achieve these goals in a reasonable, reasonable amount of time. Compounding can do far more than my contributions. 
(02:23) Now, if we look at this again, I'll zoom into it again. It's at 1.37 million, which my last update just last month was like 1.4 million. So we're down 30 to 50,000. It was 29%. Now we're down to 27. 
(02:38) So we're literally going backwards. Wealth has been destroyed in the past month, right? Well, obviously again the goal is to get to 5 million. But when your portfolio is doing poorly like it has over the past month, that's where your, your I would say your what is the word to describe it. 
(02:57) What am I thinking of here? Your temperance, your temperament, where that's that's where that comes in, right. Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Charlie Munger they always stress your temperance as one of the most important parts of investing, which is when you see things going wrong, when you see stocks going down, when you see your portfolio struggling. 
(03:15) Temperance is all about how you react to different situations. So someone that doesn't have any level of temperance reacts emotionally charged very fast. They let their feelings override and their passions and desires. 
(03:32) That's where their choices go. They just do whatever their passions, whatever their feelings, whatever those desires are, they immediately act on it. They just do whatever those are in a reactionary matter. Someone that has temperament, which is what Peter Lynch describes as having control over your your, 
(03:49) your mind and your ability to remain calm during volatility. Warren Buffett says that temperament is the the most important aspect, not just in life, but also as an investor. All of them stress this is incredibly important is again, looking at these situations when stocks are going in the wrong direction 
(04:06) or when there's some fear or frustration or anger or whatever it may be, having those feelings come in and not being numb to those feelings. So you have those come in, but it's having control over those feelings. That's what having good temperament is as an investor is. 
(04:22) You have those emotions come in. You're not just numb to them, but you take a break. You have control over them. You react in a way that's intelligent and thoughtful and long term focused. That's what an investor with a great temperament for investing does. 
(04:37) And it can be learned. Those traits can be learned as well. So and I'll have more more stuff that goes over these type of thoughts in a different episode. And I'm going to be doing an investing masterclass soon where I'll talk more about temperament, temperament and temperance and how to develop those skills. 
(04:54) But the point here is, is that if we look at this and we see our wealth going down, right, if we see this moving in the opposite direction, how you react in these situations is incredibly important. It really is. And it's it's the key to long term successful investing. 
(05:10) One of my favorite investors is Peter Lynch, who ran the Magellan Fund for 13 years. He averaged I think it was 27% returns, insane level returns, insane market beating returns. But it had a high amount of volatility. And even though Peter Lynch himself did incredibly well, like 
(05:27) it was the best fund manager of all time, best track record of all time for 13 years, he actually made fidelity what it is today. Like fidelity. The reason they're so big is because of Peter Lynch. He is a household name, is the legendary asset manager at at fidelity. 
(05:44) Regardless, his fund was volatile. It went up and down, and every time it went down, investors would sell out of the fund and then it would recover because he would hold on to the stocks, they would recover. The fundamentals were good. They'd go up, then they would buy back in. 
(06:01) See, Peter Lynch himself had great temperament. He could control his emotions. He could look at the fundamentals. He focused on the stock performance. But the investors in the fund did not have good temperament, and they would sell out at the lows by, by, at the highs. 
(06:17) They would change strategies and do the exact opposite thing they should be doing. Therefore, he earned much better returns of his fund than the average investor in the fund earned. They earned lower returns because they were buying in and selling out at just the wrong time. And it's important, as you look at your own portfolios, 
(06:33) that you don't behave in that way, that you don't behave in a way where sudden shifts in what the market's favoring and where investors are going and price momentum, you don't behave in a way where that dictates your behavior. As an investor, you want to focus on buying great companies. 
(06:49) That's what we do as investors. We by great companies, we invest in them for as long as they stay great companies over time. So on that I first want to go over and I just want to look at what's going on. And the reason I preface this is because my portfolio, it hasn't been doing good this year. 
(07:06) Now, I gave a warning about this early this year. I said, this is probably not going to be my year. Like just looking at the market and the way momentum is going, everyone's shifting into this thing, which is all the semiconductors and AI stocks, and I decided that I'll have a foot in it, but I'm not going to fully follow it. 
(07:23) So I'm sacrificing what I think will be short term gains. I'm sacrificing those for what I think is a better long term positioning of my portfolio. And we're seeing those those short term performance differentiation right now. When I look at it, the passive income portfolios down to 957,000 
(07:39) $304,000 in gains, it's down around 8% year to date. And many of the companies have been doing poorly this year, like just 2026 is not a good year for these type of companies. Mastercard is down. Meat is trash this year, just going down like crazy. 
(07:56) Asme ran up. It's the big winner, the Shining Star this year. But it's also facing a little bit of uncertainty. Now it's pulled back a little bit. We have Google. Google is another one that was was actually doing well, doing really well. But it's pulled back a lot. So Google's actually pulled back. 
(08:12) S&P global has done terrible this year. Costco is one of the rear winners this year. If you look at Costco year to date it's actually a big Microsoft doing trash this year. It's just not good year to date performance. Terrible. Texas Roadhouse is actually I added 5000 recently to Texas Roadhouse 
(08:29) and it's just raced up over the past month. So this has been a bright spot. Texas Roadhouse is actually done. Well, Moody's not good. And then DoorDash and Uber a brand new positions a couple percentage points up. These are basically not meaningful contributors either way at this point. 
(08:46) Let's go ahead and take a look at the fund story. Funds also down around eight, 8.5%. It's shifting all the time like Netflix is running up today. So who knows what direction it's going to go. But again these these stocks have not performed Amazon's flat year to date. Netflix is way down year to date way down. 
(09:03) Netflix is way down. The fundamentals of Netflix are amazing. But the stock is way down. Google again is pulled back from its high. DoorDash has been terrible, right? Just awful. Microsoft even as strong as this one. Not good. Terrible performance year to date S&P global terrible performance here to date. 
(09:22) Now again when you look at this and you go oh man these stocks are down I'm down 8%. And then you compare it year to date to the S&P 500. It makes you just feel bad because the S&P 500 is racing away. 
(09:38) If you compare it to the QQ. QQ has always been a bit more aggressive, but it's up 16% now. My goal with my portfolio is to outperform the S&P 500. Over the past four and a half years since I've been tracking it, the portfolios have both done that. 
(09:53) They've both outperformed the S&P 500 and they have over time. But this year they're not outperforming the S&P 500 there. There's about a 15% differentiation in performance. When we look at this we can also see what's driving this differentiation in 
(10:09) in performance we have the Magnificent Seven which is down 5.46% year to date. It's really weird to see the Mac seven down, but the QQ up, because most people view the Mac seven as just a QQ 
(10:24) or the S&P 500 is is heavily weighted towards the QQ. But what's actually happening here is almost all of this is being driven. In fact, I would say not almost. I would say basically all of this is being driven just by the 
(10:39) AI stocks, just by semiconductor stocks in particular. In fact, this chart really illustrates this clearly. If we zoom into this, we have the S&P 500 energy and green the S&P 500 AI in pink. These are like semiconductors. 
(10:55) And then the S&P 500 without those. And I've shown this before. So I just want to go over real quickly. But it basically says that right here all these all of these companies, these are the AI ones, the semiconductor ones, they're driving all the out performances here. 
(11:10) And then energy and green there is driving outperformance. Everything else market wants nothing to do with nothing to do with these companies. Sell them, have them go down. When I look at this, 
(11:25) obviously there's a level of frustration if I'm being honest, because I want to outperform. I'm highly competitive, I hate underperforming, I liked it one of my portfolio, frankly, I liked it last year, in the year before, in the year before, ever since like 2022, my portfolio has been ripping above the market. 
(11:43) So it was it was fun when that was happening. I'll be honest. It just it's like, oh, I'm doing the right thing. Everything's going well. But this year when I see these semiconductor stocks like micron, it go up 110 necks in price every day, they're going up 15%. 
(11:59) It's frustrating because I'm not doing it as well. And that does bring in a level of frustration. Now again this quality it's really a virtue. Like it's a it's taught in the Bible, but it's a quality for investors as well, which is temperance. 
(12:15) Your temperament as an investor is very important. When I feel these feelings of frustration that I need to outperform, I need to look good to everyone. It's important that I don't get real short term, that I don't change strategies 
(12:30) suddenly and that I don't follow whatever momentum is. I think those are all the wrong decisions. And I believe if I was to sit down with Peter Lynch or Warren Buffett or Charlie Munger and I was able to ask him, is it 
(12:45) is it important that my portfolio outperforms the S&P 520 26 year to date? I don't think any of them would say, Joseph, I'm Warren Buffett. I think it's really important that you outperform the S&P 520 26. 
(13:01) I just don't think that they they would say that. I don't think Peter Lynch would say that. I don't think that Warren Buffett would say that. I certainly don't think that Charlie Munger would say that. I think they would say it's important that the investments that you're making, the companies that you're making, that as businesses, they're prospering 
(13:18) and they're flourishing and they're very they have bright futures ahead of them. And you bought them at good valuations that they're just overall good investments. I think that's more in line of what they're saying. And I don't think that that's at all taking them out of context. I don't think that's misrepresenting their viewpoints. 
(13:33) I've studied these investors for a long period of time. The best investors in the world continually, they don't only they would not only say to not focus on year to date, but I think they would actively warn against focusing on short term time periods. 
(13:49) I think it's a very accurate way to represent their views. So again, I understand the frustration of seeing numbers go down. I understand and I feel it. I'm a human eye. I'm not numb to these things. I feel the emotions of it. I also feel the the urgency to want to look like your 
(14:06) is just performing magnificent in every single month, every single week. It's doing better, but unfortunately that just never happens. One of my favorite investors to follow is Peter Lynch, and he always talks about how his portfolio routinely underperformed the market for a time period, 
(14:22) and then it would race back away ahead of the market, then it would underperform and it would race back away ahead of the market. And every time it would underperform, every single time. Investors in the Magellan Fund, which he ran, would sell out. So did sell out at the lows. 
(14:37) They would go into whatever was outperforming, and then they would shift whatever the thing that was outperforming would go down. His portfolio would go racing back up to all time highs, and then investors would buy back in at the top, and then his portfolio would underperform. 
(14:53) They would sell back out by whatever's outperforming at the time. And the investors that did that had very different performance than the Magellan Fund, of which Peter. Peter Lynch ran, for example, Peter Lynch had 27% annualized returns for 13 years. 
(15:09) That's like mind blowingly good performance, almost 30% compounded returns for 13 years. Insane levels of performance. He was a legendary fund manager. He made fidelity the household name that it is. He's partially why it's such a big brokerage is because of Peter Lynch. 
(15:27) His performance was so staggeringly good. But the interesting thing was Peter Lynch had had a good temperament, a good stomach for investing. He could hold through the lows. He understood that investing happens because good investing is buying into great companies and watching them grow. Over time, 
(15:44) the investors in the fund that were buying in did not have that same level of of temperament, and even though they were buying into a fund, they would behave badly. They would sell out at the lows and buy in at the highs. So when there's actually some analysis on this that shows that investors 
(16:02) in the fund had far lower performance than the fund itself, because they would always buy in and sell out at the wrong time. So these type of lessons aren't just things that you learn in individual investing and buying individual stocks. They're also important. 
(16:17) If you're buying a fund or buying an ETF is to not let the price fluctuation dictate when you buy and when you sell. It should be based on fundamental reasons. So again I look at this, I say, okay, we're down 8% year to date. 
(16:33) The stock market's going up. It's not fun to look at. But I think it's important that we we analyze this with good temperament, that we look at all the different stocks and evaluate how these businesses are actually doing. And we see if we're in trouble. We be honest. 
(16:48) If we've made mistakes with our investments or bad judgment, I think all of that is good. And that's what I want to do here. Now, as we go into this, I first want to reference again. I've I've been on a Peter Lynch kick. I've been reading his books again. I've been going through 
(17:03) listening to interviews and I just think he's fascinating. And I do this with a lot of investors. Right? I've gone through different interviews and podcasts with so many different investors, and I think it's really good. It kind of grounds you to really good investing. But this is a clip that I want to share from Peter Lynch, 
(17:19) because I think that this is important in a market like this. People understand there's 100% correlation. Let's I don't think people understand there's 100% correlation with what happens to a company's earnings over several years, and what happens to the stock 
(17:36) if the company, McDonald's, has done very well as a company. Right. The stock has done very well. People worry about too much money supply. What's happened to the price of oil? Who's the president who's been nominated for the Supreme Court? It's the ozone layer. It has nothing to do. McDonald's earnings go up. 
(17:52) The next ten years the stock will go, but they will. McDonald's earnings go up. The next ten years the stock will go up 100% correlation. He didn't say 99% correlation. He says 100% stocks grow with the earnings 100% correlation. 
(18:08) Now you might say that this is like reductive or oversimplified or Peter Lynch. Maybe this is wrong. Maybe he's wrong. But we can take a look at this. He also completely diminishes the importance of almost everything that every investor focuses on. 
(18:23) Daily investors don't focus on earnings growth daily, they just don't. They focus on wars, recessions, tariffs. Elections, policy, 
(18:38) all this type of stuff. They focus on all of those things, but they give very little time to just focusing on core earnings per share growth. And Peter Lynch says like that's the only thing that investors should be focused on. And again, he can back it up. He had good returns for a long period of time. 
(18:54) Like that's backed it up. He walked the walk. When I look at this, I wanted to to just look at it because a lot of times it doesn't feel like companies trade with their earnings growth. They're just trading all over the place. So let's go ahead and take a look. If Peter Lynch is accurate. 
(19:11) He referenced McDonald's. If earnings go up McDonald's stock grows. Here's a chart to show this. And I think that this proves the theory out. The the orange line is McDonald's stock price okay. This is from 1985. 
(19:26) So we're going way back. That was before I was born. I was born in 89. So we're back to 1985. And then we have the earnings per share diluted overlaid over the stock price. Okay. So the earnings per share diluted was like pennies back in 1985. 
(19:44) And then you have the stock price. Now notice these two things. They are 100% correlated. The the earnings per share grew. The stock price went up. Generally speaking there are 100% correlated. The only thing that I think Peter Lynch's video is missing out on 
(20:01) is like a tiny bit of, of of context with time horizons, for example, there are time periods where the stock price goes up a little faster or a little slower than the earnings per share growth, or that the earnings per share growth stays high in the stock price dips for a time, for whatever reason, 
(20:19) but the only reason that that happens is temporarily. If investors are pricing in that earnings per share is going to go down or up. So all of this is determined by earnings per share growth, every bit of it. If a stock price goes down an earnings per share going up, 
(20:36) investors are pricing that the earnings per share will eventually go down. That's what they're pricing in. If the earnings per share keep going up for another ten years, the stock price will go back up. Now when I look at this again, there's time periods where it's gone a little bit out, but at most I would say the longest I've ever seen, 
(20:54) even with McDonald's, where they become uncorrelated is like ten years. Most of the time it's less than five. The longest I've ever seen is ten years, and in most cases over a ten year time period, they always match back up. In fact, if we look at this in the past ten years, this is what it looks like. 
(21:11) This is the past ten years. This is from 2016 to Q1 2026. So what we have here again is is the stock price overlaid. That's the dotted line. And then we have sorry the dotted line is the earnings per share. The stock price is the orange line. 
(21:26) So you see that the stock price it's going up and down. So on a daily basis it's uncorrelated because stock it fluctuates when people are buying in and out there's market volatility. But you see the trend earnings per share went up. Stock price went up over time. There is a 100% correlation. 
(21:42) It falls with every single company and not just McDonald's. You can plug in any of them. You'll see the same exact trends. And again like in 2020, the stock price went down because everybody panicked sold, even though the earnings per share held pretty steady. So it can become detached for short periods of time. 
(21:59) That's where you can buy into great companies at cheap prices. That's where you gain alpha in the market. If Peter Lynch was actually 100% correct that like the stock price was just fixed with the earnings per share, then there would never be an opportunity to outperform. So these small detachments, from stock price to earnings per share, 
(22:18) that can be opportunities for us to buy in and outperform. Just like if you bought you bought into McDonald's here in April of 2020 or March of 20, late March or 2020, the stock price dipped significantly. The earnings per share 
(22:33) also went down a little bit, but then the stock price recovered right. So even here there's an example. Again the the orange squiggly line is the stock price. The dotted line is the earnings per share. So in Covid when it dipped it went way down. 
(22:49) You could have bought in there. And then it rapidly recovered. But notice how the stock price actually recovered faster than earnings per share because investors are pricing it in. So the only time that these become detached is when investors are pricing back in that it will go a certain direction and if they're usually there, right. 
(23:06) But sometimes investors are wrong. And that's where you can get a lot of alpha. But the point here is that over a long time horizon, there is quite literally a 100% correlation between earnings per share growth and stock price. 
(23:21) That's held true since Peter Lynch was working. It's held true since McDonald's in 1985 to the last decade, and it will hold true to the next decade. So the suggestion here, and the reason that I bring this up is because I believe investors today have a strong temptation 
(23:39) to focus on momentum factors where money flows are going and where hypes going, and where headlines and all that type of stuff is going. And I think that instead, investors should focus on the fundamentals and where stocks earnings per share will be over the next 5 to 10 years. 
(23:57) I think that that's far more important when I look at my portfolio again, I said it's down 8% year to date. Big bummer. Now I'm not an isolation here. I'm no, I know I'm not the only investor that I'm that's watching this or listening 
(24:12) to this. That's down around 8% or even more. Bill Ackman, Pershing Square Capital is down 20%. So by that I'm doing much better. Right. That might make me feel good. Doesn't matter. Valley Forge Capital is down much more there in the biggest underperformance period that they've been. 
(24:27) It's been 3 to 4 years of underperformance, you know, so there's lots of good investors that are down year to date and and doing worse. There's some doing better. But regardless I think it's important to again focus on the fundamentals and put this in context. When I look at my portfolio, 
(24:44) the thing that I've done is I've gone through each company and I've done really deep analysis on how much they grew last year in revenue, how much they grew last year or the trailing 12 months in revenue, how much they all grew in the trailing 12 months in earnings per share, 
(24:59) and how much they're expected to grow next year in the next 12 months and the next calendar year 2027, both in revenue and earnings per share. And what I can say is when I factor all those things in, when I factor in the historical growth and the future expected growth, when I also factor 
(25:17) in the moat, whether the moats are getting stronger or weaker. I can quite literally say that my portfolio is a very healthy portfolio. The growth engine behind it remains incredibly strong. 
(25:32) The aggregate strength of the companies and their earnings power remains incredibly strong. They grew earnings last year above market rates. They're expected to grow earnings per share next year at or above market rates. And they're growing revenue faster than the aggregate of the S&P 500. 
(25:49) All of those numbers look good. And then on an individual basis, when I go through each company, the majority of them, in fact, I'd say the huge majority, I believe the moat is meaningfully stronger today than it was a year ago. So the trends of the moat and the market structure is also getting stronger. 
(26:06) So what is causing this selloff? Why are if everything's going well, fundamentally speaking why are my stocks going down. Well again as we highlighted in these charts, sometimes McDonald's earnings are going up. But the stock price went down. 
(26:21) And then the earnings kept going up. And then the stock price followed back later. And I believe we're just in one of those time periods. Earnings per share going up for my portfolio. Stock prices are going down. This idea of what's going on right now this whole element is called multiple compression. 
(26:39) Multiples are changing, meaning that investors valued the portfolio at one level, the companies at one level, and they're giving it a lesser valuation today. That means that your portfolio can go down, even if everything fundamental the engine of growth, the companies are doing fine. 
(26:54) And in in multiple contraction. I think that that's important to highlight why it's going down. It's because of multiples, not because of problems with the growth engine, because when I'm trying to diagnose what's going on and given honest assessment 
(27:09) of whether or not this is a problem, if multiples are just declining, that's far less alarming and I believe far less indicative of a real problem than if the growth engines and the earnings power and the market structure and moat of my portfolio is getting weaker, 
(27:27) I would view it as much more critical, alarming. I need to make changes. If I viewed my portfolio's growth engine as becoming weaker, that would be a whole different. That would be a whole different situation. I would say it's time to high grade the portfolio. We need to get into different companies. 
(27:43) I've done that in the past sometimes, but when I do an honest assessment and diagnosis of my companies, I do not come to that conclusion. I believe that the portfolio is incredibly strong today in terms of a growth engine. When we look at multiples compressing, this is how the math works out. 
(28:00) If my portfolio is down year to date by 3% based on the earnings growth of my portfolio, that is an implied valuation. Multiple change of 16%. If it's down 5%, it's an implied valuation, multiple compression of -17%. 
(28:17) Now my portfolio is down between. It's like a little over 8%. That is an implied valuation, multiple change of 20%. So the way that I came to these numbers is I basically did an aggregate of how much my earnings have been growing. 
(28:32) And then based off of that, it shows if these stocks are going down this much weighted by the portfolio. Here is the multiple changing. So basically this year multiples have just compressed for my holdings. Investors are giving them a lower multiple rating. 
(28:47) And that's what's caused the underperformance of 8%. So if multiples continue to go down 22% to -23%, -26%, my portfolio will continue to decline despite their earnings and despite the healthiness of their growth engine. 
(29:02) Now we're going to look through all of this a bit deeper. I want to get a bit more granular here to show you beyond just multiple multiple compression, exactly what's going on with my overall portfolio. When I looked at my portfolio, I did some deep level analysis to create a look through table. 
(29:19) These are like portfolio level metrics. It means that if you have like five companies and they're all weighted at different levels and they're all growing and they all have different levels of revenue growth and earnings growth. And one of them is 10% of your portfolio. One of them's 20% you. 
(29:34) The look through table aggregates all of that together. And then it weights it according to the portfolio weightings. That way you get it basically creates like a singular company out of your entire portfolio. So if you could combine all of your companies, 
(29:49) all of the shares that you own, all of the implied interest and all of the businesses that you own, and you're able to aggregate that to a single business, like it's just all can conglomerate it into one business. That would be the look through. That would be overall 
(30:04) a simplified metric and way of looking at all of your companies. And that's basically what I've done here. And I want to show you some of it. So on a portfolio level, metric 2026 revenue growth of holdings value was 16%. 
(30:19) Okay. So this is the past or the past year. So 2026 16%. That's strong revenue growth. My companies and this is aggregated and waited for the values of each holding 16% in 2027. 
(30:34) Next calendar year, the revenue growth is expected to be 14.6%. Very strong financial year 2026 aggregate owned earnings power is 14.7%. Financial year 2027 aggregate owned earnings power is 16.1%. 
(30:53) So my portfolio is growing near 15% in the past year and expected to grow 16%. Earnings power next year. Super strong. These are really healthy numbers. The average of the S&P 500 is around 9 to 10%. 
(31:09) Earnings per share growth per year. Now when you break this down, there's another cool metric that I really like. It's right here. Implied financial year 2026 earnings. Power owned that is $53,100 
(31:24) and then implied financial year 2027 earnings. Power owned. That is projected to be $61,600. Now what does earnings power owned. What does that mean? That means that if you were to look at the every share that I own, every single one of them, and you were to aggregate each of those shares 
(31:42) and how much earnings per share that they're owning my actual shares. Just just the ones I own. This is not the business level. This is just my shares that I own will earn $53,000 in the past year and 61,600 next year. 
(31:58) So quite literally, that's the earnings power of my portfolio. Another way of looking at that, or another way of viewing it, is someone can go to a job, you can be a nurse, you can be a schoolteacher, you can be an accountant or a dentist or a developer software developer, a marketing person, a salesperson. 
(32:18) And you have a salary. That's your earnings power is how much money you can make. The earnings power of my portfolio that 1.337 million, whatever it is, my earnings power based on the shares that I hold is $61,600 in 2027. 
(32:35) That's how much my portfolio will quite literally earn that year, which is really cool to think about, because it's as if my portfolio is working like a full time job, like I've built enough wealth in a portfolio that that wealth has the power to earn a full time, $61,000 a year salary. 
(32:54) Now, I think this is such a cool metric that we're going to add this into quatrieme in the portfolio analysis. So that's going to be something we add in the future. So you'll be able to see how much money your portfolio is literally earning in terms of its total earnings per share power every year. 
(33:09) And that will be a metric that we track. But the point here is when I look at this. Are there any alarms when we're actually looking at the portfolio, the aggregate weighted power of both the historical earnings and the forward earnings? I don't see any alarms. 
(33:25) It grew 16% revenue. It's expected to grow 15% next year. It grew 14.7% earnings per share last year. It's expected to grow 16% next year. It earned $53,000 in total earnings power. 
(33:40) That's my money working for me. Next year it's going up to $61,600. Where is the big fire? Where is the alarms? When I look at this, my thought is that this does not call for a dramatic change in portfolio allocation. 
(33:56) This doesn't call for a strategy change even though the stock prices are going down. And that's alarming when we take a minute, a minute to look at things. What I get here is not the thought that I need to go out and solve something and change something. 
(34:11) I think that this requires very minor changes, if any. When we look at the portfolio PE ratio again, the big problem with my portfolio today is that multiples are going down. So the only thing that you could really criticize was maybe some of these companies were overvalued a year ago. 
(34:27) And so they're going down a valuation okay. We can look at that. The portfolio financial year 2026 forward PE in aggregate was 25.5 x. So 25 times. That's what it was the trailing gear next year if prices do not move. 
(34:45) So basically if every stock my portfolio trades at the same price, the PE ratio will go from a 25.5 to a 21.9. That could happen. Maybe. Maybe my stocks don't go up for an entire year. But if that happens because my portfolio is growing and earnings per share, 
(35:05) the PE ratio will keep going down. When the PE ratio keeps going down, it makes the company's more attractively valued. When companies become more attractively valued, more investors are keen to looking at them and buying them. They're viewed as opportunities, which typically means 
(35:21) that they don't remain attractively valued forever. This is the reason that earnings growth is correlated 100% over time with stock price movements. If these companies continue to grow and they have strong earnings power 
(35:36) this year, last year, next year and long into the future, they will become more and more attractively valued. And then finally, it will attract investors to buy these stocks and more importantly, earnings power also overwhelms negative stories and negative sentiments about stocks. 
(35:52) If a company continually puts up strong earnings power over and over and over again, if there's a really bad story attached to the stock, it will stay down in price, detached from that earnings per share growth for a while, but eventually investors will look at it as an opportunity 
(36:08) eventually, if the stocks keep growing on earnings power, eventually the narrative will shift, the story will change, and it will attract more investors. There's been companies that have had bad, bad auras around them and stories around them and pessimism for a while. 
(36:23) And then eventually the magic comes back, investors going back in. That's all dependent on earnings per share growth. So again, the big thing that we want to look at here is fundamentally are the stocks growing last year. Are they expected to grow this year. Yes. They are both in revenue and earnings per share. 
(36:38) Per share power. My overall per my overall earnings power itself is growing. And I like seeing that all of this is very positive. So I think the important part of this process, this is where your temperament comes into play. 
(36:54) The thing that Buffett and Munger and all those great people talk about, what separates the good investors from the ones that don't have the great outcomes is how they react to certain events. Again, it's fine to fill emotions. We're humans. You can feel the emotion of anger, frustration, fear. 
(37:10) You can let those feelings in. But how you deal with them is your temperament. You have to pause. You have to look at it and say, okay, I'm concerned about my portfolio. I feel this fear and anxiety. I feel whatever the feeling may be, frustration that I'm underperforming. 
(37:25) Let's go ahead and just dive into it and really do some research and see if we can't figure some things out. Because if there were, if there was things to solve, I would be looking to solve them. But when I look at these numbers, this does not call for action. This doesn't lead me to believe 
(37:41) that the portfolio is in trouble. It doesn't leave me to believe that there's a fire going that I have to put out. If I saw any indication that there were problems, I would solve them. But I don't see that here. So I believe the biggest takeaway overall, just on a broad level, 
(37:57) is the growth engine remains very healthy and strong, and I don't think that this calls for much adjustment. Now we can go ahead and move on from just overall portfolio, look through and look at it on a holding by holding basis. I want to go through each of these. When we look at each company, 
(38:13) I want to look at them first by just their growth factors. So this is something that again, I ran through the numbers and I had this normalized out any type of like fluctuation. For example Google had a period where they had abnormally large earnings per share, and that was because they had a space 
(38:32) or they had a bunch of different assets that they owned go up in value, and that created higher earnings per share. I don't want that factored in here. So this is organic normalized earnings per share growth, factoring out any type of one time consequential or one time 
(38:47) tax income things, any type of equity gains, anything like that. This is everything else. So when we look at this, the revenue growth is the consensus next fiscal year growth and earnings growth is the normalized organic earnings power growth mostly adjusted earnings per share. 
(39:04) Google uses Ebit and operating growth because Google was a unique case where they had so many of those equity gains that it really threw off their earnings per share. So when we factor those out, this is going to be more on that Ebit and operating growth with Google, which is my largest position. 
(39:21) It's expected to grow its revenue growth around 18 to 19% next year. And an organic growth, organic growth next year of around 20 to 21%. That's if you factor out if you factor out on a comparative level, all the one time benefits they got in EPs last year. 
(39:37) If you leave those in, then their earnings per share growth looks like it's only 2 to 3%. But again, organically, when we look at the Ebit to operating growth, this company is growing organically around 20 to 21% very strong for my top company 
(39:52) in terms of growth ahead, we have Amazon organic revenue growth next year is estimated around 13%. When we look at the earnings per share growth, it should be around 13 to 14% very strong. These are market beating growth Mastercard 12% 12.5% revenue growth. 
(40:10) Clean adjusted EPs proxy is 16% growth. I view that as highly accurate. Mastercard continues to put up high teens earnings per share growth. We have meta 19.5% revenue growth on an organic basis throughout 2026 is what is expected over the next 12 months. 
(40:28) So 19.5% and then 13% earnings per share growth, it's muted because of AI and CapEx spend. But still even with muted growth it's at 13% still very fast. SML had roughly 2,223%. 
(40:44) It's what that's what it concluded is it's going to be its revenue growth. And then 33%. This is incredible 33% earnings per share growth. Again this is the organic earnings growth estimates for next year. 
(40:59) Consensus analyst when we look at this it's because of strong semiconductor and AI CapEx recovery. Now I trimmed ASML. But that is because even though this one is growing strong, the the stock price has grown far faster. 
(41:16) And again I believe that Asme is going to grow strong. But I think that it also has a little bit of more cyclicality baked into it than other companies. So even though this is going through a wave, a super strong, super strong demand today, I don't think it's going to be growing 22% and 33% forever. 
(41:32) I think they'll happen for a couple more years. When we look at S&P global, this one is a slower grower. It grew at 7.2%. When you adjust out the acquisitions, things like that that artificially bump up the revenue. But there's such clean growth in terms of their earnings per share. 
(41:50) They have such a high margin profile that even when they grow 7 to 8%, they have such high returns on capital at the earnings per share is going to grow in 13%. Look at all these companies. It's just incredible. Netflix 11.7% revenue growth. 
(42:07) Earnings per share growth is going to be muted over the next year. Now I have a lot of opinions on that. But the biggest one is basically that Netflix is doing a ton of investing this next year. You can see them invest in their content like crazy. They usually front load also their content budget, 
(42:23) so they put a lot of it at the beginning of the year. I believe that this estimate of 7% is going to work its way closer to ten. I think it could even break double digits as the year progresses, I really do, but revenue is growing faster than earnings per share right now. 
(42:38) Netflix is in the gutter right now, but still decent growth here. Even on the low end. With Netflix being the lowest, it's still at 7%. All these companies are growing. We have Costco 8.2% revenue growth, 10% earnings per share growth. 
(42:55) Like clockwork, they churn out earnings per share growth every single year. The membership continues to to grow the amount of Costco's continue to open. By the way, I went to Costco. I don't even know what day it was, but last time I went, I just thought, I'm never selling this company like it's just a perpetual demand machine. 
(43:12) I can barely walk around in my Costco anymore. I had to park. I was with my boy. So we go to Costco and I'm pulling into the parking lot. I'm like, can we even fit in the parking lot? Costco has massive parking lots. It's like football fields, and we had to drive all the way around the tire center, 
(43:30) all the way around to almost the back of Costco, like to the very kiddy corner of it. It was like a five minute walk just to get to it to find our first parking spot. Incredible. They're going to build more of them, obviously, because they can't even fit the amount of members they have in a single one. 
(43:46) We have Microsoft. Revenue growth of nearly 17% is what's projected earnings per share growth of 15%, Texas Roadhouse 9.3% revenue growth. They're going to have a spike in earnings per share. Investors are pricing that in I believe I had a good call there. 
(44:03) I did a video going out and saying, hey, I think that Texas Roadhouse is a buy. The stock price fell down. And I think that the margin profile and recovery is going to happen is there's more cattle. And we see that being baked in some to Texas Roadhouse. We see very fast earnings per share growth of that company plus there. 
(44:21) Yeah it mentions unit growth here. There's a lot of Texas Roadhouse is opening every year. They open like 20 to 30 of them. They also own Jaggers. They also own a what is the other one. They own a more like a bar and grill type of place. 
(44:36) They are really, really good at expanding and operations and making sure every single box that they open, all of these places, every location just operates incredibly well. Now we have Duolingo here, even Duolingo, the bad Duolingo that's 
(44:53) is projected to grow its revenue at 14% next year. Yes it does. I know everybody's going to bring that up. It decelerated, but it's still growing. It's still growing quickly. 14% growth is strong and then 17% growth is strong as well. 
(45:09) It comes with a huge caveat. Duolingo is one of the most unpredictable ones on this list. I don't think like this. Tried to look at all the different estimates. These are based off of real estimates. Nobody really has a clue. 
(45:24) Like we know that revenue is growing. We know that they're trying to gain more users. We don't really know what their earnings per share is going to be. That's why the analyst estimates range is massive for Duolingo. Like based on one analyst, it's trading at like a £0.20 based on another. 
(45:39) It's trading at a 60. No analyst really knows. So we're just we're just using average estimates here. This one is very unknown. It's at 17%. The real question of Duolingo is do you think it has good potential to be a much bigger company in the future? I still think it does. So the story remains for me. 
(45:56) We have DoorDash here. DoorDash grew revenue by 20.5%, and earnings per share is expected to grow by 40% next year. Massive growth both the companies that I added, you may notice a theme. 
(46:11) They're growing revenue quickly and they're growing earnings per share even faster. Uber's growing revenue by 15% and expected to grow its earnings per share by 33%. So both of these companies, especially Uber's, really cheap on the surface already by its p e ratio. 
(46:26) And it's growing super fast. Then we have DoorDash at a higher PE ratio. But it's growing earnings per share super fast. So these are ones that I added to the portfolio because I believe they're great companies overall. They have fast revenue growth. They're growing earnings per share. And again these are all forward estimates. 
(46:42) So I'm not looking at historical data I'm not looking at the past. This is the future as we can estimate it. All the professionals looking at this, if you look through these companies all these growth rates again 18%, 19%, 22%, we have one that says seven, but 
(46:59) most of them, if we look at the average, they'll look through table. We can look at the look through table. It's 16% last year and 15% this year. And then that earnings per share aggregate is 16%. Very good growth by all of these companies individually. 
(47:14) None of them are striking. None of them are alarming when I look at these companies. So looking at the direction fundamentally with the numbers, even looking at projections of the future. This is a healthy growth engine. We know that. We know revenue is growing. 
(47:29) We know earnings per share growing. We know that the earnings power of all the shares that I own are going from 50,000 a year to 60,000 a year in 2027. That's all the most honest, objective, normalized projections for each company. Now, none of these are going to be like 100% correct, but they will be directionally very close. 
(47:47) Usually analysts are close in the next year. A big question is if if valuation is going down or multiples are going down, but the company is fundamentally what the numbers remain strong. Does that mean that the companies are actually, well, they're just getting weaker in terms of the moat. 
(48:04) Maybe the numbers are going up, but only temporary. And really underneath the hood these companies are being disrupted. That can happen right. Like BlackBerry's earnings continue to go up for a while until the iPhone took over and really cut into their earnings power. 
(48:19) So maybe that's happening happening with my companies. To look at that, we have to change gears. Instead of just looking at the raw numbers and projections, we have to do some subjective analysis on the moat and strength of the moat for each company. What I want to do is go through 
(48:34) each company, and I'll give you my opinion on how the moat has changed over time, whether or not the moat has actually gotten stronger, whether it's gotten weaker, whether it's a little bit mixed. Now, to do this is a thought provoking exercise. I thought, you know, 
(48:49) instead of just me going over the moat with my subjective opinion, I'll first just run it through AI and tell it to give me a very objective, rational thought on its estimate of all these companies and whether or not the moat is getting stronger or weaker. So here's the AI viewpoint, and I'll give you my thoughts 
(49:06) and my takes on the AI viewpoint. I thought this would be interesting to look at as just a computer, a computerized perspective on it. When we look at this, it says Google here stable to slightly strengthened and the convictions medium. 
(49:22) So it's interesting right off the bat it's like, hey, I think I think Google is getting a stronger moat maybe. But it actually says honest read. The business is performing very well. But AI search means I would not call the moat clearly strengthened. 
(49:38) Search is still strong. The interface risk is real. I just don't agree with the AI here at all. Being honest, I think it I don't get like the search is still strong, but the interface risk is real. Okay. So I think it's I think it's saying here there's still a chance that like 
(49:56) meta AI or chats will take over Google search. In my opinion. I think that battle has already been fought and won by Google. I don't think they're giving up market share. We've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. I don't even see any catalyst for why that would change. They believe maybe Claude will take over more Google searches 
(50:13) or that type of thing, but I think the my read for Google is that the has certainly gotten stronger over time. For example, when we look at Google, a couple things have changed. First of all, they have no chance of losing Chrome. That's a big thing. 
(50:28) Second of all, every segment of the business has grown, even during times where lots of segments were under question. They've grown a bigger portion of their revenue through cloud. And cloud is a very Mody portion of the business. So I view that as the moat strengthening, the Waymo business is actually 
(50:44) getting stronger and stronger. It's moved out of kind of the project phase to being a real business now, which I also think goes from more risky to now, a more wider moat business. I believe the moat for Google overall, objectively, my my analysis is the moat has gotten stronger. 
(51:01) And I would reference here that even though the AI is looking at this and saying, well, medium conviction, it's gotten slightly stronger or maybe stable, I think that's the incorrect take. I think it's clearly gotten stronger. I would reference even Chris Hoen bought into Google and he's like the moat guy. 
(51:18) He only buys into companies that he thinks have have really big moats, and I don't think he would do that if he thought the moat was remaining the same or getting directionally weaker. So I feel very strongly Google moats bigger today than it was a year ago. Let's go out and look at the other ones here and we'll go through them. 
(51:33) Amazon it says strengthen. So Amazon there's like no question conviction. Hi AWS reclamation advertising scale logistics density Prime and AI infrastructure all reinforce the ecosystem. So when I look at Amazon and I try to look at the real competitive threats, 
(51:50) we have Walmart grocery delivery. We have all the streaming services fighting with Prime. We have like Shopify fighting with retail. I guess we have DoorDash and Uber fighting for last mile delivery. They face competitors across the board. 
(52:06) We have Google fighting with AWS right face, lots of competitors. But I agree that Amazon's moat has become stronger over the past year, not weaker. AWS has. It would have been a big problem if it didn't. 
(52:21) Advertising continues to scale well. Their logistics is getting more denser. That strengthens the moat. Prime membership continues to grow, and Prime Video viewing, I think, has gotten better over the years. And the AI infrastructure all reinforces the ecosystem. I think so too. 
(52:36) I think the moat stronger. I agree with that one. Mastercard stable to slightly strengthened and conviction is high. The network moat remains excellent, but I do not see a major step change. More durable as ever than dramatically stronger. 
(52:51) So believes there's very little change. Stable to slightly strengthened and high. A lot of people right now have the narrative that Mastercard's moats becoming weaker. I don't see that personally. I hear the arguments. 
(53:06) There's a whole talk about stablecoin, which Mastercard is already like partnered with. I just don't think it's going to be a big thing. I don't think that stablecoin will impact the Mastercard significantly. And then there's a question of governments creating their own payment systems. 
(53:21) They're going to. But I still don't think that really impacts Mastercard's moat. I don't think that tons of people are going to go, I'm using Mastercard, but now I'm going to change over to the government's payment system. I just don't see that happening. In fact, Mastercard continues to gain millions of users, even in places where there are government payment systems. 
(53:38) So in my opinion, I think this is mostly an accurate read. I don't think Mastercard's has gotten much stronger, but I also don't think it's gotten much weaker. I think it's basically stayed the same. I most of all agree with this meta strengthened high, high conviction that has strengthened 
(53:56) AI is improving engagement, ad targeting, creative tools, monetization. This is one of the clearer, most strengthening cases. 100% agree. One of the reasons that I sold other companies and I went into meta is because when I was doing analysis, I was like, this company's moats getting way wider. 
(54:14) They're building up their whole supercomputing system. It's improving everything engagement, improving targeting, creative tools, monetization. It's powering their AI systems. I recently bought the meta glasses. I'll be doing a review on them. But the meta AI is great conversational. 
(54:31) It's exactly what Siri always should have been. Overall, Meta's moat is getting way wider, and at the same time, you can already see what they're doing feed into the numbers as they're making their products far more engaging to be on. You know, I think that this is spot on. 
(54:48) 100% agree, I really do. It's part of the reason I own meta. So obviously I'm coming from a biased perspective. I own the company, but I would tell you if I thought the moat was getting weaker, if I was questioning it, if I've done that before with many companies, I don't see that today with meta. 
(55:04) So even though meta stock is going down, the multiples are compressing. I'm very excited to own that one still today. ASML the moat strengthened and it's high conviction okay AI demand makes lithography bottleneck more valuable. 
(55:19) Export controls raise risk but do not weaken the technical mode. I would agree, I don't see any evidence that anyone's really been able to replicate what they're doing. And even so, there's multiple layers to Asmus mode. They have a moat through technological supremacy, which is their primary mode. 
(55:37) The complexity of what they've built is so unbelievably complex that no one else can even come close to building the same thing. That's one moat. But then they also have the moat of logistics, market saturation, customer relationships, brand loyalty, all the 
(55:53) when companies do business with other companies for such a long period of time, it's common for them to grow relationships. For people to move jobs, it's common to have those relationships impact who you decide to do business with. So they already have such a good relationship with all their customers. 
(56:08) You know, they'll go back and forth on pricing a little bit, but I believe that there's a multifaceted moat. There's also the install based. It's ever growing with ASM. AML has a fantastic moat already. I don't think that. I don't think anybody's question about a smell right now is the moat, 
(56:24) and I actually don't think it's the most relevant question right now of whether or not to own ASML, whether or not to buy into this company. The moat is crystal clear. If you can't see the moat today in assemble, there's no convincing you. 
(56:39) I'm not going to be able to convince you of it. There's just no point in even trying. With S&P global it says stable to slightly strengthen okay. So this one's interesting because the thought here was Claude. And all of these AI analysis is going to make it 
(56:55) so that you don't need Moody's and S&P global. You don't need their data because you can get it online on the internet. But it says that it's stable to slightly strengthen. And it says conviction medium. Here, data ratings indices and workflow integration remain strong. 
(57:12) AI creates some pressure on workflow products. So it is factoring in. And I think that's why it's medium. And I think that's why it's more stable. Instead of saying the moat has gotten stronger, even though the numbers have gotten better for S&P global, it's that question of Will Claude interrupt the workflow of how people use SMB global? 
(57:31) Will it become as an in-between right. How people use it? My thoughts on this is that S&P global has actually increased over the past year. It's gotten stronger because I think that people are looking for valid data when big companies are deploying lots of money, when banks are loaning out 
(57:47) money, they can't make these loans of multibillion dollar based on whatever cloths, you know, spat out. It's just not going to happen when you're allocating that much capital. You're going to pay us and be global to have the real thing, the real analysis from the real professionals. 
(58:03) There's so many things that make that happen. So again, I believe the of S&P global, I believe this is mostly accurate. I don't think it's been substantially strengthened. In fact, I think there's more questions about it. But I would say that it's mostly stable. And the stock price has gotten way down on questions 
(58:18) about the moat with Netflix. This is interesting. It says it's strengthened, strengthened, and it says it's conviction is high, adds pricing power engagement, global scale and content efficiency. Look better than a year ago. 
(58:34) Pretty straightforward I look. These are why I own these companies. Again, if it came out here and it said, hey, the moat was like done. So the company was getting crushed, I would look at it and seriously consider what's going on. 
(58:49) When I look at this, I agree with everything it's saying. People really like to fill in what's going on with the company based on the stock price. If the stock price goes down, you fill in that something must be going wrong. The moat must be getting weaker. But it's important to look fundamentally at the company. 
(59:05) With Netflix, they have more subscribers than ever. They have more global distribution, they have higher spending power on content, and they can spread it out the cost over more consumers, so they have a higher efficiency of their global scale, allows them. 
(59:21) The Ads business is growing 100% year over year, and it's going to be a meaningful part of revenue soon, like 3 billion plus dollars in revenue. And I think that Netflix does face lots of competitors, but they always have. And I just think it's a matter of time until investors 
(59:38) get the magic back in this stock. I think it's going to happen soon. But the stock is come down on multiples. The business looks very healthy. I'd say that I think the moat is also stronger today than it was a year ago. We have Costco. The moat is strengthened. 
(59:53) The conviction is high. Membership value, renewal rate, digital growth and consumer trust appear stronger. Very simple. I think so too. Not much argument there. I don't even know what else to say. Costco again when I went there. It's insane how much people love Costco. 
(60:11) And it's not just my anecdotal experience. I can extrapolate this to all locations everywhere you go. Costco is just becoming more relevant, more popular, and they offer value, which is enduring. So it's not a hype popularity. This is an enduring level of popularity. 
(60:28) We have Microsoft. The moat is strengthened, the conviction is high. It says that Azure Office, GitHub security, enterprise contracts and AI distribution are becoming more embedded. This is the reason that Bill Ackman bought the stock. 
(60:43) Bill Ackman agrees with this. He would say the moats getting stronger. In fact he just recently said that the entire value of the Microsoft Office suite, what you get out of it is so much higher than what you pay. So there's a big value surplus in that offering. 
(60:58) And so people aren't going to cancel. Businesses are not going to cancel the Microsoft bundle because the value surplus is massive. So it's basically becoming more embedded. And they're now offering AI tools within the Microsoft bundle, which will make it even more embedded. 
(61:14) There's an argument that the moat is getting weaker. This is the argument that Chris Hoehn gave that Claude is disrupting Microsoft's communication with their customers as well, as it's putting pressure on Azure. I think those are fine arguments. 
(61:30) I disagree with Chris Hoan on this one. I think Microsoft's moats actually getting stronger. I would say that that there's ones that are more obvious. So for me, I would put this one more like medium I think the most getting stronger, but it's a bit more medium because there is more of a potential disruption. 
(61:48) I would put meta is more of a clearly improving moat than Microsoft because think about it, Microsoft's moats improving, basically because they're doing the same thing, but even a little bit more. That's like why the moats improving with with meta. 
(62:03) The moat is just dramatically different in stronger. Meta went from a pure social media company to now a social media company with supercomputing powers that nobody, no other social media company can replicate. That's a clear moat improvement. Having these supercomputing powers very, very, very big moat change for meta. 
(62:21) So I would say that I think meta is actually improving more its strength and more and have higher conviction of its improvement than Microsoft. The AI analysis here really likes Microsoft thinks it's a fantastic by based on the growth in the moat improvement. 
(62:38) This this stock is like the ideal one. I prefer the meta by a little bit more today. That's my honest opinion. That's where my money has been going. But who knows? Microsoft? I'm not. I'm not advising against or anything like that. I think it's great. 
(62:53) We have Texas Roadhouse here. Says slightly improved medium to high brand strength and traffic look good, but restaurants rarely, rarely have a fortress moat because input costs and labor still matter. I would agree with this. I don't think the restaurant moat I would actually a little disagree with this. 
(63:12) I think that Texas Roadhouse has gotten stable to maybe slightly weakened. The only reason that I'd say it's slightly weakened is because I think more competitors are getting their act together. For example, Texas Roadhouse used to be like an island 
(63:30) of its own, of a company that offered really good value for steak. There's no one else did it. There's Longhorn Steakhouse, there's other ones that exist. Right? They were pretty poorly managed. Even Chili's was poorly managed. But all those companies like Longhorn and Chili's, 
(63:47) they're just doing a much better job. They've really gotten their house and their businesses more efficient. They've made it so that the lunch deals and stuff are a lot more competitive. So I would say that Texas Roadhouse moat hasn't necessarily gotten worse, but it might have, by contrast, 
(64:05) gotten weaker compared to the competition, if that makes sense. Like, I don't think Texas Roadhouse is doing anything poorly or they're not executing well. I just think that competition has gotten a little bit better. To me. That's not enough of a change to believe that there's anything wrong with the business. I think that consumers will go to Chili's. 
(64:21) They'll also go to Texas Roadhouse. Texas Roadhouse usually operates near close to 100% efficiency in their kitchens and in their restaurants. They're just always busy, so I don't necessarily see it as a problem. We go down the list. We have Moody's next stable to slightly strengthen conviction. 
(64:38) High ratings, oligopoly remain intact. Analytics and data helps. Not a dramatic moat expansion, but still very durable. I agree when I listen to the earnings call of Moody's, they're very adamant about explaining the AI will not disrupt their business. 
(64:55) They don't see it in any of the numbers. And everybody, every customer of theirs that uses AI and is really excited about AI and is using all these plugins and tools from cloud. They use more Moody's, like they're growing in Moody's tools more than the ones that don't use AI. 
(65:11) That's what they've seen. To me, that's stable to slightly strengthen. I don't think that Moody's is getting weaker. The only the reason that I bought more into this company is I think the moat is getting stronger. I think that Moody's is a great company, strong stable moat. 
(65:26) The valuation is higher than SMB global. So I've favored S&P global a little bit more in terms of my buys into the company. Duolingo. This one's rough. It's saying that the Duolingo moat is getting weaker. The conviction is medium. 
(65:41) And it says the product metrics are strong. So it's acknowledging the numbers are going up and to the right. But it says that AI lowers the barrier to personalize language learning. I would not call this moat stronger, harsh, harsh AI analysis. 
(65:57) So the computer is roasting my holding in Duolingo like everyone else online. It's just getting in line and doing the same thing. Now, when I look at this, I actually agree with everything that it's said. It says the products are getting, the product metrics are getting stronger, which I've highlighted. 
(66:12) It says AI lowers the barrier to entry to make personalized language learning software. And that's true. We can already see a bunch of competitors to Duolingo pop up all these AI forward learning companies. We're going to teach you how to do this and math and English and learn languages. 
(66:28) So while that's true, and I do believe I do actually kind of agree, overall I think the moat is is weaker. I would put it as the moat is more under test today. 
(66:43) It's up to battle like sometimes companies have wide moats or weak moats. But it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter because there's not enough competition. For example, if I go down to a place where like this new city and they don't have a single pizza shop and I just open up, it doesn't 
(66:59) matter if my moat strong or weak, there's just no one else there. I'm going to be the only game in town, right? That's kind of cases. Business model. We highlighted that company. They open up a convenience store in a small town. Sometimes they're the only place selling pizza. So they have a lot of business. Doesn't matter if they're moats, really strong or weak, 
(67:15) they're the only ones there. In this case, Duolingo was like the only one there doing language learning for a long time. So the moat was untested. Now that we have AI tools, there's a new crop of AI learning tools that are popping up every day. 
(67:33) And so what what I believe the analysis here is we just don't know. It's a more unsure moat the convictions more more medium. And AI theoretically makes it easier to compete against Duolingo than before. So again, it's probably overall a weaker moat than it was five years ago. 
(67:51) What I'll say is that while the moat is being tested, I think that Duolingo will continue to be prosperous. I think that it will continue to grow. The reasons why is because a moat is not just. How easy is it to create an AI learning tool? The moat is also brand. 
(68:08) So you have Duolingo, the brand people know about it. The moat is cost, structure, cost of the product. It's free to use. So it's a freemium app. You can sign up and start using Duolingo for free and then upgrade if you want to use it. Longer term. The moat is the streaks. 
(68:25) Many people have long streaks on Duolingo. Millions and millions of people have been using it for over a year, and that number continues to grow. So you have a invested history with Duolingo. The moat is in the ladders. You have like rankings that you're competing with other people. 
(68:40) There's gamification. The moat is in the social aspect. You have friends on Duolingo that are using it that they say, hey, congratulations on your streak advancement. Congratulations on doing five lessons today, right? They encourage each other. 
(68:55) The moat is also in the fact that they have so much data that they can look at all the outcomes. What's going on with all the people learning. They can use those outcomes to make the product better, and that feeds the product cycle. If a new competitor just wants to compete with Duolingo, they'll create an app. 
(69:13) They'll get a couple of users on it, but they won't have that millions of data points every single hour of every day to be able to iterate upon, because you have to have millions and millions of customers using it every single day, and one's using it from different time periods and different cohorts and different ages. 
(69:29) They don't have that. Competitors don't have that data. So another moat is that that cycling of we can make the product better because of our existing user base. And that's a little bit like a, that's a what do you call it, a virtuous cycle. 
(69:44) Right. It's a flywheel. So there's there's just other aspects to the moat then. Duolingo is easy to code. How difficult Duolingo is to code is technically one part of the moat. I'll also add, while AI lowers the barrier 
(70:01) to make a personalized language learning tool, they don't just make a quizzing tool on language, they make course content in structure where you go in to like the English course or the Spanish course, and it actually says, how knowledgeable are you in this? 
(70:17) And we can do a quick test to gauge where you're at. But then based off of that, they actually put you in a course structure, a curriculum, and they don't let you even go past certain points unless you've passed off the point before. Basically, you have to test out of where you are to continue going 
(70:32) to ensure that you're actually learning the things that you need to learn. So it's different. There's a whole structured curriculum. It takes a long time to make the curriculum. AI can speed that up. But again, there's a lot of actual work and history behind creating this. So while people like to criticize Duolingo, it's easy to do. 
(70:48) The stock is down. I understand it hasn't been the best holding, so I totally understand the criticisms. There is a lot more to the product. There's lots of curriculum. There's a whole social aspect to it. There's streaks to it, there's product development cycles and lots of a B testing. 
(71:03) There's verticals that they're growing into, and it's a free product that when people are basing free verse free, they're just going to pick the best one, which is almost always the one that the most people are working on the biggest product cycle, the most features, which is usually Duolingo because they have the lead. 
(71:19) So I see this as just more than AI. Easy to create Duolingo. I do agree that on the surface, there's more competitive pressure right now. There's more tools to translate languages and so on and so forth. So I understand and I agree with this rating as well. 
(71:34) Now we move on to the two new ones. Here we have DoorDash and Uber. It says that DoorDash has a slightly strengthened moat medium conviction market. Marketplace density improved, but margin durability and category expansion still needs proof. 
(71:49) That is a concern of investors right now. Like DoorDash is expanding everywhere. They're doing acquisitions and investors are looking at that thinking, oh, there's the margin profile. If I was actually to look at the long term concerns for DoorDash and Uber, for both of them, it's what does the margins look like ten years out? 
(72:05) That's really what investors are concerned about. So I understand that. I actually think that DoorDash is has improved over the past year. I think it's improved a lot because they're just doing way more trips. And as they grow in scale, the moat inherently improves. They've gained more market share within the United States and restaurant delivery. 
(72:21) So I would say that it's actually improved. I think that I have very high conviction that it's improved with Uber. It says that it's strengthened medium to high conviction, network scale membership delivery and mobility overlap and platform liquidity improved. 
(72:36) Ave Ave remains the key long term test. Okay, I agree with both of those. I think that the volume of rides that Uber is doing is too much, and I don't think that AV companies are really going to displace it anytime soon. 
(72:51) So those two companies as well, I think the moat is getting bigger as their scale continues to grow, as the amount of trips and deliveries that they're doing every, every single quarter continues to grow as they improve their apps, as they gain more subscribers. As that grows, I think the moat gets bigger and bigger. 
(73:07) Like any network company, Facebook's moat gained. It gained as it got bigger and bigger. I think that's happening with food delivery. The network is really important there. Now this is the AI analysis. Obviously AI can be very biased. 
(73:22) It can it can honestly just like make up things. So you can't you can't trust AI 100% on anything. You have to question it. But even when I go through and I do independent analysis on every stock that I own, I really believe the Mozart generally becoming stronger. 
(73:39) That's my own take on it. Also, we can look at some other analysis on this third party analysis, this time, not AI, but this time from Morningstar. If we look at what Morningstar is rated, each of these companies moats over the past two years, and then we give a direction of whether 
(73:54) they're getting weaker or stronger with Google. Over the past two years, the wide moat has maintained stable to slightly improved Amazon. The white moat has maintained stable. And again, these are Morningstar Moat Analysis with Mastercard 
(74:10) wide moat maintained stable meta. The wide moat maintained stable to slightly improved SML wide moat maintained stable to slightly improved S&P global. The wide moat maintained stable Netflix, the wide moat maintained stable 
(74:28) to modestly improved Costco wide moat maintained stable to improved Microsoft wide moat maintained, which is stable. Every single one of these are the moat either being maintained and stable or maintained and slightly improving. 
(74:45) This is from Morningstar Analysis. We have the rest of the holdings right here. Texas Roadhouse does not have a rating on Morningstar. They don't cover it. It's just too small of a company. It's also not in the S&P 500. But again, my own independent analysis. If I was an analyst at Morningstar, I'd be looking at the company. 
(75:02) I'd probably say that the has gotten a little bit stronger, slightly, I'd say it's at least stable, maybe a little bit stronger because they have more locations. We have Moody's, the wide moat maintained in a stable Duolingo not covered by Morningstar as well. 
(75:17) Too small, not in the S&P 500. We've already talked about that one. My own opinion on it. We have DoorDash. They say that it has a narrow moat, which is maintained. Its improved within the narrow mode. So they say it's a narrow moat because this is an early industry. 
(75:32) They don't have the full they don't have full saturation. A market like S&P Global or Moody's do like Microsoft does. Narrow moat, but it's improving. Its trending in a positive direction. And Uber narrow moat maintained mixed but slightly improved. 
(75:48) But AV risk offsets it. Actually Morningstar believes that DoorDash is like overall slightly less risky just because of the AV risk. They factor that into Uber, but both of them, they give a narrow moat. Both of them, they believe are improving over time. 
(76:03) Now, again, we look at the AI analysis, we look at Morningstar, we look at my independent analysis. And what I'm trying to get at here is just to think about your holdings, actually think about the companies and what they're doing. Again, we're owning great businesses. 
(76:18) We're not invested in just the market. We own great businesses. And in times where the market is trading around and investors are pursuing other endeavors, and there's something exciting going on here, it's good to look at what's going on with your companies. When I try to take a step back and I look through the revenue growth, 
(76:36) the organic previous 12 months revenue growth, the projected next 12 months, the projected 2027 revenue growth, the projected next 12 months earnings per share growth in 2027, earnings per share growth. When I when I look at that overall, my portfolio is growing consistently. 
(76:51) My portfolio is buying power moving from 50 to 60,000. When I look through every company and assess the of the company, if it's becoming structurally stronger or weaker, I see a list of companies that are getting stronger. This isn't the same for every company. 
(77:06) Some of them the is actually becoming more impaired. And these are companies that I don't own. You know, if this is happening, if a lot of the moats in my companies were getting weaker, I would be changing positions. I would be selling out of them and building up new positions. But I just don't see that here. 
(77:22) So even though this year is not my year so far, the performance has been underwhelming. I remain steady in my strategy and like I've outlined before, and over the longer term, I believe the tides will shift. I don't ever really see instances where momentum goes on forever. 
(77:40) These stocks are being bid up a lot the semiconductor ones. Companies like SML are trading at very high valuations compared to where they were just a year ago. Every day these companies that were cyclical are getting bid up huge amounts, and I don't believe that's going to last forever. I think it will turn. So I'm going to hold patient. 
(77:56) I'm going to assess the quality of my portfolio, the quality of my companies, the growth. And I'll continue to build up these type of companies the Moody's, the S&P global, the Microsoft's, the metas, the DoorDash and Ubers, these great companies growing their earnings, expanding their market, 
(78:12) gaining more buying power in earnings per share growth. I think over time that Peter Lynch will be proven right once again. Over time, the market and the price will follow the earnings. So that's my thoughts. Overall. That's the update this time. 
(78:27) I hope you enjoyed it. This is really fun to look at. I think it's more thought provoking and interesting and I hope you enjoyed it. I'll see you next time.