In short: "We don't own Aritzia right now. We've owned it in the past in a significant way" — bought in the April 2025 tariff crush after doing apparel work, visited the Vancouver head office. A "great franchise" that can follow Lululemon's path, and the original daughter-channel-check winner ("Aritzia won hands down… that was a layup"), but now on a low-single-digit FCF yield and he'd "prefer to own the landlords as opposed to the tenants."
Aritzia is the Vancouver-based womenswear retailer, and it's the name that made the daughter-channel-check famous in his shop — "Aritzia won hands down; that was a layup." He owned it in size in the past, most recently buying during the April 2025 tariff sell-off, and he's visited the head office. He still calls it a great franchise capable of following Lululemon's path.
He just doesn't own it today, and the reason is price rather than doubt: it now generates free cash flow worth only a low-single-digit percentage of its market value, versus the high-single-digits at Groupe Dynamite and the 20%+ available a year ago. Combined with his view that the balance of power has shifted from retailers to the landlords they rent from, that puts Aritzia on the watch list rather than in the portfolio.
32:48digits you could buy group dynamite at north of a 20% free cash flow yield 14 months ago it's not there anymore So, but I think in both cases they're led by kick butt founders that will that culturally have made those companies successful. And when I again when I talked to my daughter and her friends, they're spending money there, I'll tell you.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.