In short: "Campbell I would think is going to be a big problem": aluminum can costs in a commodities bull market, plus GLP-1s cutting calorie demand ("Campbell hates it"). It is the classic money-is-tight buy, so it only works if the paycheck-to-paycheck consumer gets hit hard, which he doesn't expect. It cut its dividend days before the recording.
Campbell's makes canned soup and packaged foods, the classic thing people buy when money is tight. Weniger says you would only want to own it if the struggling "paycheck-to-paycheck" consumer got hit really hard. He expects the economy to surprise pleasantly instead.
Two company problems make it "a big problem": the aluminum for its cans keeps getting more expensive in a commodities bull market, and GLP-1 weight-loss drugs mean people simply eat less. He thinks that drug trend is still in its early days. The company cut its dividend days before the interview (the host's news; Weniger hadn't heard), which fits his view.
28:36They're a little bit of an offset, because I think that there is a greater ability to purchase PepsiCo products, which I think are actually expensive. It's a different concept than Campbell. I think those are a little bit of an offset. But Campbell, I would think, is going to be a big problem.
In short: Paired with General Mills as a possible next packaged-food dividend cut — "that would be incredible," but staples/CPG is the area he is avoiding.
Campbell's (soups, Goldfish, snacks) sits in the same packaged-food group. D'Agnes names it with General Mills as a possible next dividend cut. His broader stance is to stay away from consumer staples for now.
25:32— You know, is General Mills and Campbell, are they next? These, you know, that would be incredible. They, many of them are aristocrats. They've been growing their dividends forever and you would never think, you know, it could come to that. So yeah, so I think yield chasing probably most common. You know, another thing we all struggle with and some of our biggest mistakes over time just generally as investors is selling something too soon.
In short: Bombed-out, out-of-favor consumer staple and a decent dividend payer bought to generate cash — he writes covered calls and cash-secured puts on it in a tax-deferred account (short expirations, low volatility), "rinse and repeat" as the cash pile grows. Deliberately NOT in the AIA Portfolio (outside its asymmetric-upside mandate).
Campbell's (soup, snacks, sauces) is a boring, out-of-favor staple whose stock has been beaten down but which still pays a solid dividend. Polomny isn't buying it for big upside — he's using it as a cash machine. He buys the shares and then sells options against them: "covered calls" (collecting a fee for agreeing to sell his shares at a higher price) and "cash-secured puts" (collecting a fee, backed by set-aside cash, for agreeing to buy more shares at a lower price). Because staples barely move, that premium is relatively safe income; he keeps expirations short and repeats the cycle, compounding the cash inside a tax-deferred account. He deliberately keeps this out of the AIA Portfolio, whose job is asymmetric upside, not income.
In short: The classic value-trap lesson — at a ~30-year low with "horrific" numbers, a terrible snack business, heavy debt, and lost shelf-space power as healthier brands crowd in. Wouldn't buy it.
Campbell's (soup and snacks) sits near a 30-year low, and it's Harris's textbook "value trap" — a stock that looks cheap but is cheap for a reason. The numbers have been "horrific," the snack business is terrible, and it carries a lot of debt from past acquisitions.
The deeper problem: big packaged-food brands used to command supermarket shelf space, but that power has eroded as healthier upstart brands crowd in. He'd never buy it, and lumps Conagra and Kraft Heinz in the same "very bad businesses" bucket.
32:20I think we can get your value versus value trap lesson here. Oh, I wouldn't buy Campbell. I mean, I think like look at the numbers, right? They've just been there the numbers over the last uh little while have been horrific, right? And their snack business has been terrible. Um, you know, and I think people are not um, you know, yeah, you can have their chicken noodle soup when you've got a bad cold, but that's outside of that with the salt
In short: Cited with Kraft Heinz/General Mills as a washed-out staple where the structural-decline narrative is fully priced and a rebalance/inflation bounce should help.
Campbell's rounds out the washed-out staples group — same view: the structural-decline narrative is priced in, and a momentum unwind plus consumer weakening favors it.
51:13Okay, you think like even, you don't think it's like, so take Kraft Heinz, take General Mills, take Campbell's, is like another structural change that just like everybody's on Ozempic and nobody eats these kind of packaged foods anymore? I hear you, and what happens in all bear markets is they come up with these — Wall Street comes up with these reasons to hate uranium stocks at the lows, right? Oh, Fukushima. Every single time there's value or an opportunity, the consensus of all the research
In short: "A classic value trap — the opposite of a halo." A brand business "getting designed out by weekly injection" (GLP-1); a 7% yield, 10× earnings and a heavy debt load "would lure me in, but I'm not going to do it this time." Staples/healthcare no longer bid even in a safety trade.
Campbell Soup is the classic packaged-food staple, and on paper it's tempting — a 7% dividend yield, 10× earnings, the kind of cheap "safety" stock that would normally lure Larson in. He's passing this time because he sees it as "a value trap" (cheap for a bad reason, with the price likely to keep falling). His two arguments: it's "getting designed out by weekly injection" — GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are changing how people eat, shrinking demand for processed food — and its products are "easily replicated and moved across supply chains," so it keeps losing market share. He calls it "the opposite of a halo": nobody cares which tomato soup they buy, so there's no scarcity or pricing power to protect it. More broadly, staples and healthcare no longer act as safe havens even in a scare.
36:28— Yeah, the RJR and Nabiscos, the barbarians at the gate for sure. But listen, I think it's cheap for a reason. It's a brand business getting designed out by weekly injection. The GLP-1 market, I think the world has changed a little bit. But also, it's a I think it's that classic value trap setup.
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.