In short: #3. Founded 1837, IPO 1890. "They own brands like Tide, Pampers, Dawn, Crest, and Gillette… Its scale and distribution make it difficult to compete with." Lindy case: "People will always buy everyday household products." More than 4,000% since 1990. Formed when a candlemaker and a soapmaker — brothers-in-law — went into partnership in Cincinnati, which is why the company has always been in the business of turning fats into consumer products.
Procter & Gamble makes the things people buy without thinking — Tide, Pampers, Crest, Gillette, Dawn. Each purchase is small, frequent and habitual, which makes the revenue unusually predictable, and the scale of the operation means it can outspend any newcomer on both advertising and shelf space.
The company dates from 1837, when a candlemaker and a soapmaker married sisters and went into partnership in Cincinnati — both trades depended on animal fats, which is why the combination made sense and why the company has been in consumer chemistry ever since. More than 4,000% for shareholders since 1990.
In short: Iran cost bites. Q4 revenue (June quarter) +2% Y/Y to $21.2B ($180M miss) and core EPS $1.43 ($0.02 beat) but down from $1.48 a year ago. Organic sales were flat against a ~1.9% consensus, with volume, pricing and mix all neutral — a clear deceleration after last quarter's 3% rebound, and every segment except beauty fell short. Beauty stayed the bright spot at 4% organic (6% reported) while grooming and baby/feminine/family care each fell 1%; underneath the weak print, P&G grew Greater China market share for the first time in 15 quarters. The FY27 guide set the tone: core EPS $6.89–$7.11 (midpoint $7.00 vs ~$7.02 consensus) on organic sales growth of just 1%–3%, absorbing a ~$1B after-tax headwind from higher raw materials, energy and transportation tied to the Iran war — part of a $0.56-per-share drag worth 8% of core EPS growth, with guidance assuming Brent near $90 (escalation makes it worse). The bull case is that it's macro, not share loss; the tell is first-half FY27 organic growth, since management promises sequential acceleration while absorbing the cost peak up front. (Recap, not a stance call.)
P&G's underlying sales were completely flat — no growth from volume, price, or mix — a clear step backwards from last quarter, with every division except beauty falling short. But the guidance is where the damage sits. The Iran war has pushed up the cost of raw materials, energy and shipping, and P&G says that will cost it about $1 billion after tax next year — roughly an 8% bite out of profit growth — with the forecast assuming oil stays near $90 a barrel, so any escalation makes it worse. The bull argument is that this is a macro problem, not a competitive one: P&G just gained share in Greater China for the first time in fifteen quarters. The test is the first half of next fiscal year, since management has promised sales will accelerate while it absorbs the worst of the cost hit up front. A recap, not a call.
In short: The K-shaped counterweight to Visa and Mastercard: "while overall consumer spending is strong, signs of the K-shaped economy are everywhere. Take the results of Procter and Gamble." EPS $1.43 vs $1.48 last year — "so down 3%. Perhaps worse, organic revenue growth was 0%."
Procter & Gamble sells everyday household staples — Tide, Pampers, Gillette. Because everyone buys these things, its sales are a clean read on the ordinary consumer rather than the affluent one.
Profit per share fell 3%. The worse number is organic revenue growth of 0% — "organic" strips out acquisitions and currency effects, so it measures whether people actually bought more. Zero, in a year with inflation, means volumes are falling. Set against Visa's +10% payment volume, that is the K-shape: the top half spending freely while the mass-market consumer holds still. "Signs of the K-shaped economy are everywhere."
11:04Now, while overall consumer spending is strong, signs of the K-shaped economy are everywhere. Take the results of Proctor and Gamble. Proctor reported earnings per share of A$143 versus A$148 last year. So down 3%. Perhaps worse, organic revenue growth was 0%. Bloom Energy. Bloom Energy builds small to mediumsiz generators that can create electricity to fuel a data center.
In short: Named only as a rival in the risk section and as a "main peer" on the onepager — "intense competition from rivals like Estée Lauder, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever". No stance. Worth reading against the Lindy series five months later, where P&G's moat is argued to be the same one dismissed here as advertising-funded: "small, frequent, habitual purchases plus a scale of advertising and shelf space no entrant can match."
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.