TIVP091 (Video): Google, Reddit, Amazon – Are Our Biggest Winners Still a Buy? w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O'Malley

20:16Daniel Mahncke:They raised money from Berkshire Hathaway, from Warren Buffett, right? Berkshire made a pretty significant equity investment into Alphabet to implicitly fund all this new CapEx. So yeah, I mean, getting to the more positive news behind the earnings release, I would say that Google's cloud growth is just absolutely off the charts. Growth went from low 30 % year over year to more than 80 % in the last quarter. And so the most insane number is without a doubt, though, the backlog, which is now standing at half a trillion dollars, growing 375 % year over year, almost four times year over year. And according to Google, about 50 % of that backlog is expected to be recognized within the next 24 months.

21:09Daniel Mahncke:So that's a lot of pending unearned revenue. And so even with about 40 % of that backlog coming from Anthropic, that is obviously a concentration risk. But the point is, there is a lot of real demand supporting a huge amount of business for Google Cloud. And these are very much not just numbers on paper.

21:31Shawn O’Malley:When I looked at the backlogs of all these companies, Oracle 2, just a couple of months ago, and especially a year ago, I wasn't quite sure if we will actually ever see that money being spent and, you know, going to, for example, Google or Oracle. But now I think I'm pretty confident that will be the case. I just don't see an end. And especially if you just look at a 24 month timeframe, I'm pretty confident Google will get that money. And then it's just absolutely insane looking at the size of that backlog. I would say the only downside and probably also why the market sold off the stock on these earnings is that Google for the first time since IPO reported a quarter of negative cash flows, which is why Google needs to raise all that debt and that equity to still fund CapEx investments.

22:12Shawn O’Malley:Because for the first time in a long time, even the cash flows of Google are not enough to fund their new investment cycles, which is insane to say and think about. But, you know, if this happened a year ago, again, I think I would have been more cautious about that than today because the numbers clearly show that the demand is actually there and that these investments are paying off. And if I can bet on arguably the best company in the world and, you know, incredible tailwinds that we certainly see, I think I can continue to sleep well with, you know, Google being the largest position in our portfolio, even though it's not a value play at today's valuations.

22:46Shawn O’Malley:I have to say, though, and this is important, and this might also sound counterintuitive at first, I wouldn't buy Google shares at today's prices considering the other opportunities. And I know some would probably argue that if you wouldn't buy a stock today, you probably should sell it if it's already a position in your portfolio. I would personally disagree with that. I think when you have these high quality compounds in your portfolio, I would just let them run and sort of, you know, give them the benefit of a doubt for all the returns that they generated from you. And this kind of goes back to our discussion at the beginning of the episode, you know, great companies tend to surprise you to the upside.

23:20Shawn O’Malley:So I'm personally okay with holding a stock that is valued, let's say optimistically. if the stock declines in the short term, you know, that's fine with me, given that I intend to own it for the long term anyway, and we're sitting on 100 % returns. And if there's a positive surprise that makes the stock fairly valued again, which could argue maybe it's a bit over that today, say they have significantly faster growth or maybe less margin pressure than I thought and the market thought, you still invest it to benefit from all of that.

23:47Daniel Mahncke:If you're a fundamental investor like me, you need a research terminal that actually keeps up with you. That's why me and my colleague Daniel Monka use Fiscal AI for every episode of the Intrinsic Value podcast that we do. It's the complete stock research terminal built for people who care about the numbers. Fiscal AI pairs a modern interface with institutional grade data. It has over 20 years of financial statements, 40 quarters of history, and company-specific segments and KPIs that I love digging into. Want Google's cloud revenue? It's there. You want to see Duolingo's monthly active users?

24:19Daniel Mahncke:It's there. And I know because we did that in our episode on Duolingo. There's millions more data points too, all updated within minutes of earnings, not days later like legacy platforms. You can export data, run screeners, pull earnings call transcripts and morning starter reports, track super investor holdings, and compare companies head-to-head just like me and Daniel do, and even plug Fiscal AI into Claude to power your AI research with institutional quality data. Head to fiscal.ai slash T-I-V-P. That same link will save you 15 % on any paid plan. Again, that's fiscal.ai slash TIVP. Hey folks, quick, but exciting update here on Saturday, September 19th, Daniel, Kyle, and myself will be hosting the Intrinsic Value Conference, New York City.

25:08Daniel Mahncke:This will be a full day of value investing talks, stock pitches, and panels in Midtown Manhattan as part of a bigger weekend with our mastermind community from September 18th through the 20th. And we're They're hoping to make it something like ValueX and TED Talks combined. And so members of our mastermind community, both the Inner Circle and our Intrinsic Value Mastermind, will have spots reserved at the conference as part of their membership for free, plus private community dinners on Friday and Saturday night and breakfast on Sunday. And for everyone else, there's two ways you can join us if you're interested.

25:44Daniel Mahncke:A general admission ticket gets you full access to the conference itself. a stock pitch presentation from Kyle and an intrinsic value portfolio with Daniel and me, plus guest speakers that we'll be announcing in the coming weeks. Or if you want the full experience, our VIP ticket package that gets you all day conference access, plus a seat at our Saturday night exclusive dinner with William Green and the rest of our inner circle community. And it will definitely be one of the more special evenings we host all year. So if you've ever wanted to spend a weekend talking shop with serious investors in the financial capital of the world, this is it.

26:23Daniel Mahncke:Find tickets in the full agenda at theintrinsicvalueconference.com. That's theintrinsicvalueconference.com. And if you'd rather join us as a member and get the conference plus the full weekend included, apply to the Intrinsic Value Mastermind at theinvestorspodcast.com slash mastermind dash application. All the links are in the show notes below. Hope to see you in New York. Look, you got to let your winners run, right? That's one of the biggest lessons we've learned from studying great investors. And look at how long Buffett has let Coke and Geico run for. I think we were joking before the call, Daniel, you're saying if you had invested in Coke at the time that Buffett did, there are probably dozens of times that you might've felt compelled to sell because you get these moments where the stock looks expensive, the narrative changes.

27:13Daniel Mahncke:But at of the day, Coke has just, if you zoom out enough, just kept doing its thing, kept climbing higher and higher and higher. And it's a great business accordingly. But how about we jump to our other Mag7 name in the portfolio? So Amazon has been a holding since February of this year. We bought it in the 190 range per share, and it has corrected over the last few weeks. So it returns a little lower than they were when Amazon was trading at as high as$270 per share. So it might be premature to call this one of our biggest winners, but a 35 % return in five months is definitely not anything too shabby.

27:56Daniel Mahncke:And I still want to bring it up just so we have another chance to compare it against Google too, especially since you just mentioned that you probably wouldn't add to Google here. So do you feel differently about Amazon after it's run up a bit?

28:11Shawn O’Malley:Well, we should say that we record this when basically Amazon and also Reddit just reported earnings and Amazon's earnings reaction is pretty good. They will open probably 15 % up today. So I just want to say that I think Amazon's prices are a lot more attractive than Google. Now being up 15%, you know, a bit of that leeway is gone. But still, I would say that it's probably if you ask me a better opportunity right now to deploy capital, but it's also already 10 % of our intrinsic value portfolio. And I probably wouldn't make it a larger bet just considering that. But if you would hand me a dollar today and you would tell me, well, it has to go to either Google or Amazon, I would go for Amazon.

28:51Daniel Mahncke:The story for them both is definitely similar in some ways. Google is guiding for$200 billion in CapEx and Amazon is also guiding for roughly$200 billion in CapEx. two. Google has raised more than$50 billion of long-term debt this year, and Amazon has actually raised close to$90 billion. And so for context, when we're talking about$200 billion in CapEx spend, that is roughly the size of the economy of Greece, an entire European country. You got two companies in the US spending twice that amount, or between the two of them, twice that amount. And like Google, Amazon's Q2 free cash flow has also turned negative, which again, for companies doing hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and producing massive amounts of operating cash flow for many, many years, it was definitely not something I had on my radar that their free cash flow would go negative because they're making such massive capital expenditures.

29:59Shawn O’Malley:Well, at least Amazon shareholders are used to negative free cash flow. So, you know, Google shareholders can't say the same. And I actually think that if you just look at the earnings report of Amazon and you compare to Google and you could also compare to Meta, I don't really see the same threat by, you know, the market's judgment of whether that's a good earnings result or not. If I look at Amazon's earnings, I personally like them and I can understand why their stock is up 15%, but I also like Google. And I also, to some extent, like Meta. So I feel like the market is just judging them differently right now.

30:31Shawn O’Malley:I believe it's primarily that Google has a high valuation, so it's seen differently than Amazon. But Meta is just in a bad spot generally with the market. And just to get to Amazon's earnings, you also have to make similar adjustments to their earnings because Amazon benefited from a$17 billion markup on its stake in Anthropik, just like Google had the SpaceX equity. So when you see a trade at price to operating cash flow of 12 or 13, that seems lower than it actually is. After adjustments, Amazon would trade closer to 17 or 18 times. but I would still say that's materially lower than Google. And if you ask me, pretty attractive for a company of that quality.

31:06Shawn O’Malley:And obviously it's not just about the metrics. It's not enough to just look at a PE or price to operating cashflow. I just look at Amazon's business and I see so many opportunities. Amazon has literally built one of the largest chip businesses in the world in the last couple of years and barely anyone has even noticed. And according to Andy Jesse, the CEO of Amazon nowadays, that business has a$20 billion annual run rate. And if they were to sell chips externally, it could even be double than that or closer to 50 billion, which is just insane when you think about it. And when we think about decreasing CapEx and making compute more efficient, then few things are better and more important than building your own chips instead of paying NVIDIA hundreds of billions and the biggest margins that we currently see in the US.

31:52Shawn O’Malley:And if you combine that with AWS, which has also had phenomenal growth and one of the fastest that we've seen for a long, long time, and then all the marketplace data and all the other businesses that it operates, I just can't help myself. I think Amazon is one of the most vertically integrated players at still a reasonable valuation.

32:10Daniel Mahncke:it feels like amazon is one of the the few players in the market that is connected to the ai race but also not really likely to be hurt by it they sort of benefit from an asymmetry there if ai is as successful as hoped amazon will certainly benefit from it massively through amazon web services its chip business just internal use making the the company more efficient And then also maybe AI agents drive even more e-commerce sales. E-commerce is only like 20 % of all retail spending in the US. A lot of people still go to brick and mortar stores and AI could be a tailwind for driving more online shopping.

32:57Daniel Mahncke:And if AI can't generate the returns investors hope for, for Amazon, they just cut back on this capex and you still own the same high quality business as before. with cash flows being invested probably elsewhere or maybe returned to shareholders. And so I also remember an episode you did with Clay a while ago. And it was actually his last episode here on the podcast. And you two talked about MercadoLibre and Amazon, and especially the opportunity that comes from automation. And so e-commerce has gotten a reputation for being a tough business, which is probably fair, given that it's nothing but retail at its core.

33:37Daniel Mahncke:And the reason players like Amazon and Melly, though, are so successful is that they've been building high margin businesses around their e-commerce operations and the consumer subscriptions that are connected to it. So think Amazon Prime. And so some of the other layers that they've moved into are obviously cloud computing, payments, banking, advertising, video streaming, and then also, of course, my favorite, Whole Foods. but your argument is that automation could make the core business much more profitable. Is that how you think about it?

34:14Shawn O’Malley:Yeah, more profitable, more efficient. I think if you just look at the numbers today, the core business is already growing faster than it has in the past and also more profitable than it has in the past. And knowing Amazon and its scale economies shared model, I could imagine they pass the cost benefits onto consumers, but even then you will have a better and healthier business overall I think it just shows up in other parts of the business that, you know, then again, strengthen the flywheel, which is something that we talk about with every company that, in our opinion, has a flywheel. And the big opportunity in automation primarily comes from the fact that Amazon is the world's largest company by revenue.

34:51Shawn O’Malley:So every incremental point of retail margin lands on a revenue base of more than$700 billion. We just compared Google, which is at$475 billion, which is also insane. And still, Amazon is significantly bigger. And the labor in the warehouses is one of the biggest cost factor by far. And that's why Amazon has been integrating robots into its fulfillment operations for more than a decade now. But it leads to me, it seems like now we're at a point where new buildings are designed around automation and robots are becoming increasingly capable. And I think they will have an even bigger impact than in the past on the efficiency and the cost basis of Amazon.

35:29Shawn O’Malley:I don't expect for the record, you know, for this to have a material impact in the next two or three years. But over the next decade, I believe this can save tens of billions of dollars in costs, potentially even more than that. And all of this is a long-winded way of saying I like both Amazon and Google a lot. And it's mainly because both of them feel like they would benefit massively from AI. but if AI should be a disappointment in whatever way that would be, they still would be fine. They still would be two of the best businesses in the world.

35:58Daniel Mahncke:I guess you could say just strictly from looking at the stock, since Amazon has benefited less from the AI hype cycle, there's probably less for the stock to lose in terms of giving up gains. And we just spent the last 10 minutes explaining this, but you could also take a shortcut and just look at the performance of the last 12 months. Google is up 75%. Amazon is up 0.5 % at the time of recording. So it does feel like one has a lot more room to catch up.

36:29Shawn O’Malley:Yeah, I think there might be a couple more percentages after today's earnings, but still. And another company that just reported earnings and it's quite volatile is Reddit. It's one of the few companies where we actually took some profits when we felt like the stock had risen too much. And I gotta say our timing there has been quite good. you initially pitched the stock at about$85 per share. And if it wasn't for me, I got to take that one. You probably would have made it a larger position than just 2 % of the portfolio at the time. Nowadays, it is a much larger position. Unfortunately, I was never a user.

37:02Shawn O’Malley:So I just needed a bit more time to be convinced by the investment case. Long story short, four months after we bought the stock, it was up already 140%. We decided to take some profits off the table at that price.

37:15Daniel Mahncke:I only hold it against you. a little bit there, Daniel, that we didn't make more money on that one. But no, I'm kidding. As you said, I think trimming the position was a good call because the stock came down quite a lot, which we used as an opportunity to actually then buy back more. So we currently are sitting on a realized gain of about 140 % and an unrealized gain of about 60 % on the shares that we bought back after we had trimmed the position. So it's been one heck of a rollercoaster ride, but so far so good. And I'm conflicted because we've been talking about letting our winners run. But when valuations get extreme, I also don't have any shame in taking some chips off the table.

37:57Daniel Mahncke:And I also factor in the quality of the company too, right? With Alphabet, even if the valuation is stretched, it's such a good business. So diversified. I'm pretty happy to let it run. Wouldn't have the same confidence in Reddit, even if it is still a good business. And so the thing is the market did not love their Q2 earnings. And while a lot of the numbers were phenomenal, the number of logged in visitors to their app and website only grew 7 % year over year, which is not a lot for a company that is growing revenue by 60%. So it's great that revenue is doing so well because they're more effectively monetizing their user base with ads and earning more per user, but that is not sustainable for forever.

38:43Daniel Mahncke:And for a company trading at 40 times earnings, come on, you got to do better than 7 % growth and logged in users because ultimately that is what underpins their earnings power going forward. How many people are using the platform on a consistent basis? And so I don't want to be too pessimistic right off the get-go here, but I was pretty disappointed to see that. And rather than speak candidly about the issue with investors, they opted to just hide it, right? Management didn't acknowledge this point and they are now deciding to stop reporting logged in user metrics going forward. So right as this metric that I think is very important might be turning against them, they're office getting things.

39:32Daniel Mahncke:Unfortunately, we've seen Netflix do something similar a few times. And so that's why I'm probably more open to taking gains with Reddit than I would have been even just a month ago. But we're supposed to be talking about why Reddit has worked out so well.

39:50Shawn O’Malley:I feel like we want to have all the lessons that we can learn from these positions. And I think actually this earnings that we just got, I mean, we should say earnings just came out and now we're recording this. I think it's an important lesson because it also shows you, well, you could have the rule that you just don't sell your winners, but stocks are different. Companies are different. You can do that for Google because Google is a much more mature business. It's way more diversified. Things will not change as quickly. For Reddit though, if your stock is up 150 % after just a couple of months, and you know the company and the stock are way more volatile, it just makes sense to not act the same way as if you would on Google.

40:26Shawn O’Malley:And again, I feel like this earnings report has shown that again. What's quite interesting is that if you now go on FinTrad or just online, a lot of people like the earnings of Reddit quite a lot and I barely see anything negative about it, which goes to your point that management is not talking about some of the very important facts because you immediately messaged me and I reached out to you and we said, well, what's going on with US users? Why are they so weak? And also what's happening to the locked-in users, which is one of the most important points. You want more people inside the Reddit ecosystem because we know that AI overviews and all of that have a quite significant impact on the user behavior.

41:02Shawn O’Malley:And I think it's important to point those things out. I would also say that I'm still quite bullish on the company. If you just look at the earnings numbers and the revenue growth, despite users not growing that fast, it shows you how under-monetized this platform actually is. And I think they have a whole lot of room to keep growing that on a user base that's still 300 million people, right? So I would say let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. And let's actually start with how you think about the quality of the business, even after this earnings report, what's still there? Why are we invested?

41:33Shawn O’Malley:Why did it work out so well?

41:35Daniel Mahncke:Well, we just talked about Google and Amazon being perhaps two of the best businesses to ever exist. So we don't need to repeat all that, but that's pretty hard for Reddit to follow up. Reddit, I would say on the other hand, was actually for a long time seen as being a Snapchat 2.0, just sort of a dirty word. And yeah, I say that after Snapchat received basically the worst rating from us of any company we've ever covered on this podcast. So we definitely understand the weight of that comparison. But the idea was that it looked like a social media platform with a lot of users, but no real way to monetize them.

42:15Daniel Mahncke:Reddit came out around the same time as Facebook. For a long, long time, Reddit didn't generate any money. Really not until just the last like seven or eight years did they start generating significant amounts of revenue. So it's interesting to contrast the two. And I think in part, this is because of what does make Reddit special, which is that users are pseudonymous. And so that means they have much less data on you than Facebook would. And so intuitively, that would make you think it's much harder to monetize via advertising because you don't know the users as well as on Facebook or Instagram.

42:52Daniel Mahncke:but that also doesn't really matter in some cases. If you're interested in researching the best drill to use and renovating your house and you go onto Reddit to research that, then that's really all Reddit needs to know because then they can serve you an ad for the best drills to use while you maybe peruse conversations about home renos in a DIY subreddit.

43:14Shawn O’Malley:It sounds pretty straightforward and there are a lot of companies that took a lot of time until they actually figured out their business model. But what you just said about, you know, them taking such a long time wasn't part what made me doubt the business at first because it was founded in 2005. It wasn't profitable until very recently. So there was a long time where they just couldn't make the business model work. I would say though, part of that is that the two founders sold the company very early on to a media conglomerate that didn't really care about Reddit at all. And the founders only came back in, in 2015.

43:45Shawn O’Malley:So you might say that the company is only really operating this model now for 10 years. And then it took a lot of time to sort of rebuild the infrastructure and deliver the best possible user experience for all the people on Reddit. And only then could they actually start thinking about how do we make advertising work? How do we monetize the entire platform? And I would say since then, it's growing like a weed.

44:08Daniel Mahncke:And it's highly profitable. In my picture, I estimated that Reddit might be able to hit a 30 % operating margin by the end of the decade. That was what I thought was a reasonably ambitious goal. Well, instead, they did that by the end of last year. So I way underestimated what they could achieve. And that's just another illustration of why financial models are only part of the investment process. You really have to be confident in the quality of the business more qualitatively. And that was where I felt I didn't exactly know where margins would go. and they certainly exceeded my expectations. But I did know that they probably had a lot of room to grow and great businesses surprise you to the upside.

44:56Shawn O’Malley:That's what we figured out this episode and basically over the entire last year.

45:01Daniel Mahncke:That's right. And Reddit comes though with a much wider range of possible outcomes. And ironically, Google is part of the reason for that. So Reddit does have some dependency risk on Google. You hear about it on every Reddit earnings call. The analysts love to ask about it. And it's because a lot of their traffic does come from Google search. So a bit more than half of daily Reddit users visit the website via Google search. So they start on Google search, they search something, the best brownies in town, and then they go and find a local subreddit or whatever it is that gives them recommendations.

45:41Daniel Mahncke:And they're not necessarily logged into the app, though. They don't necessarily have accounts. So that's why we were talking before about the importance of logged-in users, people who have accounts and are recurringly coming back, versus people who just Googled something. Google suggested a Reddit thread for them to check out, and then that's how they ended up on Reddit. So really the entire debate of how LLMs will change the legacy Google search model, how people will have their queries answered. That's all fundamentally very, very relevant to Reddit. And so maybe some listeners are surprised to hear that, but Reddit is truly one of the best places on the internet to get answers from real people.

46:23Daniel Mahncke:And Google is, of course, in the business of delivering the best answers to people who are searching for queries. So there's a natural relationship between them and it kind of ebbs and flows.

46:35Shawn O’Malley:It certainly took me time to actually believe just the impact that Reddit has on the internet, basically now also on LLMs. And I guess this is something that we should generally mention. Because of the topic focus and the search driven nature of subreddits, the daily active users and also the monthly active users are structurally lower, of course, than for apps like Instagram or TikTok, right? I think the numbers are about 9 % for Reddit, meaning 9 % of people who log in once a month actually log in daily. And that number is about 35 % for TikTok and it's about 50 % for Instagram. So significantly higher.

47:11Shawn O’Malley:And users who use the app obviously log in much more frequently too. So they are also worth, according to the company, roughly three times more than logged out users. So driving more people to download the app and use that as an entry is one of the big tasks for Reddit in the future. And again, like, why is the stock reacting so negatively to the news today? Well, because this is exactly what we're not seeing. And you can get a lot of money out of these users that only use Reddit, you know, once in a lifetime, but it can only go on for so long. So in the end, you need people actually using the app.

47:45Shawn O’Malley:And I personally can say, I never do that. Even now that I'm using Reddit more often, it's always through Google. And most of the time, if I just see an AI overview, I don't click on Reddit because I feel like if I have more questions, I will just answer Gemini to, you know, elaborate on what's going on. And so only by getting more people on the app, that's how you eliminate the Google dependency and also improve the RPU, the average revenue per user, which all of these companies want to do.

48:14Daniel Mahncke:And now you see why I was ranting about Reddit's logged in users at the start of this segment.

48:21Shawn O’Malley:Well, another thing that Reddit has just announced, or at least debated, in order to reduce the dependency is not to renew their data licensing deal with Google because Google currently pays Reddit$60 million a year to use their data for their LLM results. And I already found that shockingly low back when you pitched Reddit to me about a year ago. And I think they should get multiples of that, which for a company of their size would be a whole lot of money. So I'm actually glad that they play their cards right here. But I gotta say too, on this earnings call, you didn't get any update on when we can actually consider money coming in through those licensing deals or if that will even happen in the future.

49:03Daniel Mahncke:And now that companies like Alphabet in particular are starting to make money from AI and LLMs I would think that the price that they're willing to pay for good data would increase. So yeah you could probably argue that Reddit's corpus of human interaction from over the last 20 years. Actually, just last night, I was reading through a Reddit thread from 16 years ago that was still relevant and interesting to me today. So that's the cool thing about Reddit. And yeah, that deal was signed in 2024. And back then, nobody knew how AI overviews on Google would affect web traffic, right? It could have been that they convert at similar rates to a classic Google search.

49:50Daniel Mahncke:But now, two years in, Google has a billion Gemini users and click-through rates for original sources plunged by roughly 60 % because users can find exactly what they're looking for answered in the AI overview, as you kind of alluded to, Daniel. And instead of going to the underlying website for additional information, I just do a follow-up question to the AI and get a custom tailored answer. So Google is almost in a way siphoning traffic from websites and kind of maybe cannibalizing itself in some way and then funneling people into Gemini chats.

50:31Shawn O’Malley:Even for Google, this has been a debate for quite some time whether they are cannibalizing themselves because these AI overviews can perhaps not be monetized in the same way than classical search traffic. But now we know that the company is saying that's not the case. They can monetize it in the same way. So now the focus is sort of shifting to companies like Reddit and saying, well, Google is not affected, but maybe you are. And I don't know if AI and LLMs weren't already as far as they are in terms of adoption. I think this could have even turned into a more fundamental question. But I think we are past that point now where, you know, even though Reddit is responsible for about 5 to 10 % of the raw training data for LLMs, and as much as 40 % of real-time search citations in AI-driven answer engines.

51:18Shawn O’Malley:So without that data, you could probably say that LLMs would have a problem. And still, because of where we are today, I don't think even if Reddit says, I'm not licensing my data anymore, those LLMs would actually have a problem. I think we're just past that point. And the best thing you can hope for is that they get a significantly better deal than just getting$60 million. So again, you're the expert on Reddit. What do you say? Is it still a buy at today's prices, especially after it has come down about 20 % after earnings? Or should we actually consider selling part of our stake?

51:50Daniel Mahncke:I'm happy to sit on it for the moment. Reddit has grown so fast that actually the valuation looks a whole lot more reasonable than it did when we first took some profits in the position. and when I first looked at it. So I definitely wouldn't say that we need to sell. I still believe in Reddit's growth prospects and its value as a platform in a world that's increasingly dominated by AI content because I think a lot of people don't want to just have conversations back and forth with Gemini in an AI overview. They want to talk to real people. They want to hear insights from real people who have used products or shared similar life experiences.

52:31Daniel Mahncke:And then that is what Reddit is great for. And Steve Huffman, the CEO of Reddit, said something on the latest earnings call that I thought was interesting. But it said, it takes a lot of people some time to get Reddit. I think you're an example of this, Daniel. But once they get it, they get it. So you might have to go to Reddit a few times, log in, try different things. It might take you a while. Hopefully one day it clicks, you see what makes the platform so special. But anyways, I'm definitely not falling over myself to buy more shares after that last earnings call. And it's burned into my memory, actually.

53:07Daniel Mahncke:If anyone wants to see an equity research analyst absolutely lay into a management team, go listen to Reddit's Q2 2026 earnings call and jump to the 31 minute and 30 second mark.

53:20Shawn O’Malley:Actually, let's just play it here because I really like the question that he proposed to the management team. And I don't like the answer too much. So you can have your own picture and we just play it here.

53:33Daniel Mahncke:Steve, I don't want to belabor this point, but your stock is down sharply because there is just a sense from investors that you have a, I don't want to be blunt, a user problem, especially in the U.S. That users are, you know, it's only a slight kickdown, but they're kicked down despite all of the investments you've made over the last year. and I certainly hear you on the weekly improvement, but people are looking at the daily and saying, you know, the logged out traffic is going to be under pressure because as search shifts to AI, you're not going to get referrals and that it's going to be harder to get people to go from logged out to logged in.

54:09Daniel Mahncke:And that's sort of symptomatic of what you're seeing. And so you're buying back a lot of stock. You don't seem concerned or you and Jen seem very confident. You and Jan Andrew all seem very confident. I guess what gives you so much confidence that you're going to grow to, you know, 100 million logged in users in the US and 1 billion globally versus the flight pick down this quarter? Because there's obviously a big disconnect, and it's obviously impacting your stock. And then just the second piece of that to follow up on Ron's question, do you see any world where you're not licensing data to Google and OpenAI next year?

54:47Daniel Mahncke:Okay. Thanks, Rich. Look, let me start with the end first. We are confident because our product work is working. Reddit is communities and conversation. Communities are universal. We think we have, in the U.S., content for everyone, and it's a matter of revealing that. We're making progress towards that end. Moving new user retention in the app significantly in a quarter is something that we're very proud of. And that sort of improvement in retention drives growth. And that is work that we're in control of. Yes, external search is volatile, particularly logged out web. But that's not where our business lives.

55:32Daniel Mahncke:And we will make sure that we get as much value from that traffic as we can. So that's where we've been driving conversions from web to app. And that's become more effective as well. So long term, we are as confident as ever that we're going to get to those milestones that we've set. But the work does take time. And we do have a lot of work to do in the product. But driving that direct growth is in our control. And we're seeing some progress.

56:00Shawn O’Malley:All right. Let's talk about some companies that we covered but we didn't buy in the end. And many actually benefited from the same tailwind, which, and won't come as a surprise to most here, is AI related. But before we get to them, I want to talk about a company that I pitched in, I think it was early August of last year. And of course, it's a payment company. So I knew it would be very difficult to make the case for adding it to the intrinsic value portfolio. Because for all the people who don't know, Sean doesn't like payment companies that much. But this one is even worse because it's a remittance company.

56:35Shawn O’Malley:and you feel like remittance especially is a race to the bottom and you might be right about that. We've talked about a couple of payments companies by now and I think your view is quite similar, but it differs in one key aspect because you believe we will ultimately pay no fees for moving money at all, primarily through crypto and stablecoins in particular, but also some other things. And I know I'm simplifying your view on that topic here, but I believe there will always be regulation and a middleman and stable coins will probably be used by those middlemen to simplify the process and bring down prices and won't eliminate them.

57:14Shawn O’Malley:I want to say always, I mean, for a very long time, obviously not actually always. And we just had a discussion before the recording today, where you said that even companies like Visa and MasterCard, you believe will be disrupted at some point, which I think that's one of the most contrarian takes that you can give us, but I'm all for it. Anyway, I want to talk about not Visa and MasterCard, I want to talk about Remitly. And I think I went into the stock at about$12 to$13, which it reached after my pitch. And I bought a quite sizable position for my personal portfolio. And since it's gone up about 80 to 90 percent and the pattern is pretty similar to edit which is why I want to discuss it today as one of our winning stocks even though it's not part of the intrinsic value portfolio.

58:02Shawn O’Malley:I think it makes sense to cover it just so we can sort of double down on those patterns that we see and the similarity is that the margin level that I expected remotely to hit in 2028 potentially even 2029 has already been achieved in the last two quarters where net income has inflected materially And the company showed it can operate highly profitably.

58:24Daniel Mahncke:Companies like Remitly and Reddit do show you that you really have to understand the earnings power of a business. And if you don't know exactly what we mean when we say earnings power, I would encourage you to go Google it, go read up on it, because it is such an important topic. and you know looking at remitly i remember at the end of last year the company guided down their ebitda margins you know ebitda is a proxy for operating earnings they guided it down from 16 to 12 and then the stock sold off pretty dramatically as you can imagine so if you look at it now that margin is at 22 and they pulled off that turnaround just in a single quarter so So I have no doubt that the management team probably always knew about the margin potential, hence the earnings power point that I made a moment ago.

59:16Daniel Mahncke:And it feels like they decided, though, hey, we got to show investors what this company is capable of as soon as we focus more on profitability and margins. And apparently that is all it takes. It's one of the quickest margin turnarounds I've ever seen, maybe besides Reddit.

59:37Shawn O’Malley:It was impressive for sure. And I can say that I expected an intra-quarter turnaround like that. And it's not like Remitly stopped investing. I mean, their major expense, as we also covered back then, is marketing. And Remitly has an incredible return on that marketing spend. I think it's about 6x after just a few years of an acquired customer. So you don't want them to stop spending on ads. And they primarily saved on wages and investments beyond marketing. But I don't really want to talk about the business today. If you're interested in that, feel free to listen back to the episode, which I also will link to in the show notes.

1:00:10Shawn O’Malley:I would like to focus on why we didn't buy it for the intrinsic value portfolio, because I think that might help understanding our strategy and approach a bit better because we cover so many companies. Some make it into the portfolio, some don't, but they still make it into our personal accounts. And I just want to give a bit of background on why that is. And I could see how it's confusing to not include a company in the intrinsic value portfolio, but to make it especially a sizable bad in your personal portfolio. And Sean's doubts about payment companies are obviously only a small part of the reason.

1:00:41Shawn O’Malley:We've never vetoed, I think, someone out of an idea that they pitched to this show, at least not yet. So if either of us has a strong conviction for adding a company, we generally do that.

1:00:53Daniel Mahncke:Well, to say it again, I mean, that's why we have that rule that every position has to be owned by at least one of us. And so if I don't want to own Remitly and Kyle doesn't either, then we can theoretically still add it to the intrinsic value portfolio as long as you have a meaningful stake in it, Daniel. And so it wouldn't be a full position if we don't have consensus among the three of us, but it could be a 1 % or 2 % tracking position.

1:01:21Shawn O’Malley:As we handled it with Reddit, after I unwisely didn't want to make it a full position immediately because, again, I lacked the vision that you saw. And by the way, if you're interested in the behind the scenes and how we make decisions for the portfolio, we do have the plan to live stream some of our portfolio talks in the future on our YouTube channel. So I will also link to that in the show notes. And then you might get a bit of a better glimpse of how those discussions go and who's more bullish on a certain company and who's less bullish and how we all factor that in.

1:01:51Daniel Mahncke:yeah make sure you hit subscribe so you get notified when we go live and yeah that policy we have it can it can definitely cut both ways you know you're getting pretty good at this social

1:02:00Shawn O’Malley:media game immediately pointing out that people should subscribe but yeah i mean as you said um it can go both ways i didn't push on adding with midly um and it was primarily for two reasons so the first one is time horizon this podcast is going out twice a week back then it used to be only once per week. And we are primarily focused on pitching new companies each time, not reviewing old ones or portfolio holdings, which to some extent is what we're doing today. And that also means that we can't really buy value plays that need daily or at least weekly reviewing and will be sold after a couple of weeks or months, simply because it's so much harder to keep people updated.

1:02:39Shawn O’Malley:There's so many companies that we constantly get in questions about, and they are not even in our portfolio. So it was just a bit too much to handle. And that's why we settled for primarily adding companies that we see as having sustainable modes that we can hold for many, many years. And I don't expect Remitly to be that sort of company, although I would say that I hope to own for as long as possible in my personal account. And a good example for where that might not end up being the case is that they just went through some major and unexpected business changes. and while I think they were the right thing to do and the right decision, those things just wouldn't happen at Google, Amazon, or Netflix, those sorts of companies.

1:03:18Daniel Mahncke:Yeah, it sounds like you might be referring to the CEO stepping down.

1:03:23Shawn O’Malley:You're still informed about the company. That's not too bad. And yeah, that was part of it. And it did go well. I think he primarily did it because he generally felt like the new CEO would do a better job considering the current size of the company. Because again, sort of going from a small cap to a mid cap by now. but it was also surprising. I got to say that. And they also introduced new products just briefly before that, that are aimed more at the micro and small businesses. And you could argue that it's generally a good thing, but I sort of like the sole focus on remittances. And I hope they will keep that as their primary focus because there's a whole lot of competition in the enterprise space, right?

1:04:01Shawn O’Malley:Micro businesses and solopreneurs are different, but it's the first step to go into this SMB space, small and medium businesses. And there are just a lot of companies competing for the same customers there. But anyway, the point is things change quickly and a thesis can break pretty fast. And that makes things a lot more difficult for us publicly in the format that we currently have. And just another good example for that situation that actually costs us money is Crocs. It's a company that I covered last year. And despite my aversion to fashion retail, which is to me what payments is to you, crocs seem very attractive at$70 per share.

1:04:38Shawn O’Malley:So we established a position betting on, you know, the massive cash flows, the buybacks, and also the low single digit multiple that it had back in the day. And this was more of a trade than a long-term investment. I think that's fair to say. And technically it worked out quite well. The stock has almost doubled by now. Unfortunately, we sold too early. And despite making a nice, I think it was a 40 to 50 % gain, we left some cash on the table. And that was primarily because we lacked time to keep track of these smaller positions. And at the same time, making those trades larger positions just adds more downside risk since they definitely come with a wider range of possible outcomes.

1:05:15Shawn O’Malley:And we talked often about how you shouldn't look at these valuation models and just take the fair value for granted. But what they show you is the range of outcomes. Sometimes we cover a company and the fair price in a bear case is$7. And in a bull case, it's$70. And that just shows you, you never really know.

1:05:32Daniel Mahncke:Yeah, positions like Crocs are also why we decided to do more episodes where we spend time revisiting businesses that are already in our portfolio or on our watch list as opposed to covering new businesses only. And so, I mean, we've looked at over 90 businesses now and we have a very long watch list to work with. But we can only turn that into a competitive advantage if we actually keep up to date on these companies. So that's our challenge. And that's obviously even more important for the portfolio positions. Last year, we spent a lot of time allocating all of the capital in the portfolio. So we had fewer positions, but now we own 15 or 16 companies and it just takes more time to keep track of them.

1:06:17Daniel Mahncke:And speaking about companies that were on the watch list where a revisit might've paid off well, how about we talk about a group of companies that were the best performers among the companies we covered, but didn't invest in for one reason or another. And just because we put a company in the too hard pile clearly does not mean that the stocks can't still perform very well. And at first they do all seem different, but one way or another, they're all connected by the fact that they're beneficiaries of this AI trade. So if we start with TSMC, Taiwan Semiconductor, that's a company you pitched in May of last year and it's been a double.

1:06:59Shawn O’Malley:Yeah, at first glance, it is a bummer, I gotta say that, that we didn't invest and it's actually just an oversight on our part because I did recommend adding a position in TSMC at the end of the episode and technically you agreed but apparently we just forgot about it which might be because your agreement also came with a four minute monologue of the risks which might be again why we didn't end up following up on it. And I got to say, though, you know, when we look back at the companies and the performance, we only talk about at most one year returns, you know, and those don't say anything about how this will play out in the long term.

1:07:35Shawn O’Malley:So your concerns were basically all about the terminal value, and they are as valid today as they were a year ago. And I thought about summarizing them all here. But how about we just give you a listen? So this is Sean from about a year ago.

1:07:50Daniel Mahncke:I'm not going to bury the lead up front. I'll say I think I can get around to doing that. But then just for the sake of just putting everything out there, I will maybe say some of my concerns. And obviously, we've talked a lot about the China stuff. And to some extent, people who know me might say it's somewhat intellectually inconsistent for me to endorse Taiwan and investment in Taiwan here because at various points said that I try to avoid Chinese companies and not necessarily because I think that they're going to you know there's imminently going to be a war between the U.S. and China but there just seems like there's a lower threshold there where you know you could have some kind of fallout in relations where I could imagine a scenario where the U.S.

1:08:37Daniel Mahncke:and China aren't maybe at war but there's some sort of sanctions being levied where even if these Chinese companies are undervalued, at least from an American's perspective, you could still be penalized and there could be some sort of sanctions that make it difficult, if not illegal for you to own, you know, maybe not not even all Chinese companies, but specific tech companies, for example, like if you're investing in Alibaba and Tencent. And so that for me is really the concern of China is not that there's anything bad about these companies or to even bet that there's gonna be a war between the US and China, but just to say that there could be a lower threshold where the US government, for me as an American, makes it painful for me to invest in these companies.

1:09:18Daniel Mahncke:And with Taiwan, I look at it differently because I don't think the US is going to sanction investing in Taiwan. And so truly, it would have to almost be the worst case scenario. So I see the risk reward as a little bit different and where I see the risk is actually being a little bit greater with Chinese companies where you have the risk of a war, but also you have the lower threshold of just some sort of like targeted sanctions that could impact you as specifically an American investor. What really kind of puzzles me with this investment or gives me pause is to think about the fact that for anyone who's read The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen, I think the semiconductor industry is literally the example that they use of the fastest changing industry.

1:10:08Daniel Mahncke:And this is something Buffett has always talked about of when an industry is so fast changing, you know, even the widest moats can disappear on relatively short timeframes. If you're investing in a company on a 50 year time horizon, then, you know, a fast changing industry that like this like semiconductors is literally the textbook example of perhaps the most dynamic industry in the world where, you know, competitive advantages can be the most short lived. That really gives me some almost more anxiety than the geopolitical situation with TSMC.

1:10:41Shawn O’Malley:The valuation back then was quite attractive. You had a business basically growing revenue north of 30%, margins that look like a software company, and it was trading at just 20 times earnings.

1:10:52Daniel Mahncke:From a business perspective, without all the macro risks, it is a great business. And maybe we should actually give a brief pitch on what makes TSMC special in the semiconductor space, the computer chip space. There's pretty much no chip or tech company that is not a customer of TSMC. Whenever Apple, NVIDIA, AMD, or Broadcom design their chips, they send those designs to TSMC, and then they're the ones to manufacture them. and really nobody else. There's no competitors that come close to their level of efficiency and output. And I think you called what they have a Lollapalooza moat back then where competitive advantages stack on top of each other.

1:11:37Daniel Mahncke:And the process technology lead that they have caused them to basically be the first to every new node. And that experience with the tech and the process also leads to much higher yields, which is an important thing in semiconductors. So basically a higher success rate when manufacturing chips, that's what that means. And because this implies that TSMC can actually deliver on the orders that come in, the entire tech industry favors ordering from them.

1:12:09Shawn O’Malley:And just like announced in our pitch last year, TSMC is working on diversifying operations internationally. So TSMC has committed, I think it's close to$300 billion for factories in the US, Japan and Germany with the vast majority of that money, I think about$260 billion, going to the US and towards factories that can actually generate or produce those new nodes. And part of the truth about the TSMC story, though, is that the entire industry went up that much. Even Intel, which, you know, is a company that was known over recent years for pretty bad operations, has seen one of the craziest stock rises over the last few years.

1:12:46Shawn O’Malley:I mean, the one-year performance of Intel stock is almost 300%. Although that changes weekly nowadays, and perhaps when you listen to this, it's no longer the case. But my point is, the fact that TSMC Double says more about the markets right now and the state of AI than about the long-term outlook for that company. And I'm definitely not bearish on it. I think TSMC was one of the highest quality companies that I personally looked at. And I very much regret not at least building a position in my personal portfolio. That said, the doubts you had, I would say, still are all valid. Not only on the political side, but you also brought up the semiconductor industry generally and how historically it has not been a great place to invest in.

1:13:27Shawn O’Malley:Although you could argue that TSMC sort of changed the game. I mean, the central claim in the innovators dilemma has been that incumbents fail because they listen to their best customers and they chase higher margins up market. And that basically leaves space for a new technology to enter the market at a lower end. And those nodes are worse than, you know, the metrics that matter to premium buyers, but they're cheaper and they're good enough for at least a part of this underserved segment. And then over time, and we all know the story, the entrant improves and then it moves up market. And this happened to Intel, for example, they optimized for these high margin CPUs and it's a vertically integrated model.

1:14:09Shawn O’Malley:and then Intel just dismissed the lower power and the low margin mobile chips. Famously, they also passed on the iPhone, for example, which in hindsight, you can say is probably one of the worst moves that you could have done. And they had other architecture and especially TSMC's foundry model disrupted. And for everybody who doesn't know what the foundry model is, I don't want to go into the details here. Again, we'll link to all the company's pitches that we discussed today in the show notes. But it doesn't look like TSMC is making the same mistake anytime soon. it still produces the lower end nodes.

1:14:41Shawn O’Malley:And as I mentioned in my pitch back then, those old, fully depreciated fabs are even more profitable relative to the revenue share than the bleeding edge. So there's no undefended low ground which a disruptor could use for an entry here.

1:14:55Daniel Mahncke:And as long as the fundamentals are driven by chips manufactured for the AI industry, I would say the risk of getting disrupted via the lower end does seem less likely. There's no good enough when it comes to customers like Apple or NVIDIA who are desperate for top-end performance and are going to pay almost anything for the frontier. And so Jensen Huang publicly said he'll pay whatever TSMC charges. And since we try to look at all those companies through the lens of finding some kind of patterns and learning from this experience, are there any lessons that you would pass along from us not investing in TSMC?

1:15:33Shawn O’Malley:I'm generally not the type of person who thinks, gosh, I wish I had invested in Bitcoin in 2014. It just wasn't on my radar and it also didn't fit my style. So I likely would have held it through the volatility anyway. I think this is a strength, you know, not mourning successes. You had no claim on making in the first place. With investments like TSMC, it's a bit different because we literally said, let's make it a position. So I would probably argue that we We made the mistake of looking at it a bit too binary, as in there are terminal risks. But if we make it a 2 % position, we would survive the worst case if it should actually come to that.

1:16:12Shawn O’Malley:And we would still capture enough upside if it ends up being, you know, a 3x in, let's say, two or three years. And beyond that, I mean, the worst case between China and Taiwan would not only hurt TSMC or Chinese equities, but basically all US big tech would take a massive hit as well as all other companies.

1:16:32Daniel Mahncke:I think that's fair. And how about we go to another company that covers AI through maybe a different angle. Dell is less shiny since it doesn't build the chips or the AI models, but they do provide the infrastructure for it all, the data centers. So it's not a pure play because half of their revenues comes from this legacy PC segment, or at least that was the case in the past year. But now it has shifted slightly and the infrastructure part of the business has actually grown to 60%, primarily driven by 70 % revenue growth in that segment year over year. So maybe you can give a brief overview of the Dell thesis and how it played out and just how wrong we were.

1:17:18Shawn O’Malley:Yeah, I mean, sure. So as you mentioned, there are two parts of this business. You have the legacy PC business, And then you have the infrastructure business. And the PC business is quite mature and also commoditized with low margins of about 6 % to 7%. And the reason I pitched the Dell stock was because they started to get into these AI data center contracts. And those contracts went from essentially zero in the first half of 2024 to about$15 billion guided for the year with another$14 billion of backlog behind it. And that guidance looked quite conservative even back then. So the investment case was you could buy a company for, I think back then it was 12 times earnings.

1:18:00Shawn O’Malley:It pays a high yield through dividends and buybacks. And it might receive tens of billions of dollars in data center contracts for the months to come. And that's essentially what has played out. So the reason we didn't buy was that these data center contracts, they come at low to mid single digit margins. So while volume is massive and will still drive profits through some operating leverage, the impact wouldn't be massive. And most importantly, I just didn't think it would be sustainable. And I believe, at least on that part, we are right about it. I mean, the gross margin continuously declined from 28 % in 2020 to just 19 % today.

1:18:41Shawn O’Malley:And we're not talking about the net margins. This is gross margins.

1:18:43Daniel Mahncke:I would say we misjudged the market, though. We thought the market wouldn't be too excited about that given the margin outlook. But apparently in the broader AI mania, that just doesn't matter all that much. And so, as you said, the sheer scale of the volume and operating expense leverage still cause earnings per share and profits to grow substantially. And that is enough for the market today to assign a much higher multiple to Dell than just a year ago. So the current forward PE is 22 times earnings. And the average of the last eight years is eight and a half times. So pretty wide gap in that historical multiple versus today.

1:19:26Daniel Mahncke:And so in one of the latest earnings calls, management actually said that the AI servers have mid single digit operating margins, which is close to the assumptions you actually use in your model last year, Daniel. So I suspect Dell will have a hard time once we're on the other side of the massive data center builds. And really what the market is doing is being very forward looking. So all it takes is the pace of new data center construction to slow down and the market multiple will probably revert back toward its historical levels, which for context, its current PE is 30 times. And so the median of the last 10 years, again is just 10 times.

1:20:08Daniel Mahncke:So I can't help but think that we'll see this multiple contract and revert towards historical levels sooner or later, and maybe perhaps sooner.

1:20:20Shawn O’Malley:It's not possible that it will go on for a while, but I certainly wouldn't like to bet on it either. And in this case, it really does seem to me that the industry overall is sort of damned to be in the low margin position, squeezed between companies like NVIDIA and then all the data center clients, which to some extent are also the hyperscalers. And you might remember that we talked about how in the short term, multiple compression or expansion is the most important driver of returns in our episode on Wednesday. And what we could see to the downside then, we can certainly also see to the upside in companies like Dell or actually the next company that we'll talk about, which is Comfort Systems.

1:20:59Shawn O’Malley:And it's kind of funny because both Dell and also Comfort Systems, probably even more Dell, they were pretty boring pitches. I still remember us sitting and discussing Dell and thinking, gosh, this is one of the least inspiring companies that we have yet looked at. And now those are the companies that just completely crushed it.

1:21:19Daniel Mahncke:I was really shocked when you told me just how well Comfort Systems has done in the last year, because I haven't really been tracking it that closely after we set it aside. But then I realized, of course, it has to do with AI. And so for context, Comfort Systems is a serial acquirer, kind of a Berkshire Hathaway style decentralized holding company, which takes the approach of buying small regional contracting businesses and then allows them to keep running things while they handle the back office and the capital allocation. And so it was really a mature looking business if you were simply looking at organic growth.

1:21:58Daniel Mahncke:However, even in early 2025, you could actually already see that there were some early signs of these AI data centers and semiconductor factories becoming a bigger and bigger share of the company's business because Comfort Systems is actually uniquely specialized in being able to provide HVAC services to complex centers like data centers. So I don't think I have any regrets, not because I don't like making money, but more because the factors shaping this business are so macro. And I, of course, have very little confidence in my ability to predict the future and especially not with something like AI.

1:22:38Daniel Mahncke:So clearly I did misjudge the stage of the cycle that we were in as I tried to be cautious. I wanted to really hedge against the possibility that we were nearing the end of the AI spending cycle, which it seems like we absolutely have not. And if that had occurred and when it does eventually occur, comfort systems will take a double hit from revenue growth declining and then the multiple declining too as a response to that. So I didn't think it was cheap at a 25 times multiple, but I can't lie. Looking at the price today, it does feel a little surreal. I did my fair value estimate at around$320 per share.

1:23:22Daniel Mahncke:And, you know, I proudly said with a margin of safety, I would be happy to buy shares at maybe$290 or below. And the stock is trading at$1 ,700 today, Daniel.

1:23:34Shawn O’Malley:Well, I got to admit, it's fun to look back at some of those old episodes. And for the record, our track record is generally quite good. I mean, most of the price targets from a year ago are more or less on point today, which also is due to the fact that we're only talking about a year difference. But looking at Comfort's system, it's just funny. I mean, to quote the investment decision from back then, between$320 and$340, you're probably just going to get an average return. And any price much higher than that risks earning a below average return. Well, 15 months later and a 5x later, it's safe to say that shareholders did quite well.

1:24:13Shawn O’Malley:And again, ultimately, investing is a game of probabilities. And to make use of one of the most quoted sentences in the investing world, in the short term, the market is a voting machine. And in the long run, it's a weighing machine. Perhaps stocks like TSMC grow into the valuation over time and they won't see a major downturn in the meantime. but I wouldn't want to bet on that today. And for a company like Dell, quite sure it will return to lower multiples and prices eventually.

1:24:44Daniel Mahncke:I would probably guess that comfort systems has gotten a little ahead of itself too, but I don't want to be wrong twice now. But just to repeat our motto from the beginning, great companies, surprise to the upside, and mediocre companies, surprise to the downside. And just because the price goes up does not necessarily make a mediocre company a great one long term because they will return to their mean eventually.

1:25:11Shawn O’Malley:Wise words. And maybe the perfect end to today's episode. There's some other good companies that we could have potentially talked about today, but I feel like these probably did a good job covering our general thoughts and also teaching us some lessons that is the main goal of an episode like today. And then all I have to do is to leave you guys with a quote and I closed the last episode, I believe, with Peter Lynch. And since this is sort of a two-part series, I decided to go with Lynch again. And he said, all you need for a lifetime of successful investing is a few big winners. And the pluses from those will overwhelm the minuses from the stocks that don't work out.

1:25:52Shawn O’Malley:So those big winners definitely take more time than a year. We're talking about these 50 and 100 beggars, but I'm sure we will find those eventually. And hopefully you all will be part of that. And for that, I'll see you all in the next episode.

1:26:32Daniel Mahncke:fiscal.ai slash T-I-V-P. That'll include 15 % off if you upgrade to a paid plan. That's fiscal.ai slash T-I-V-P. Thanks for listening.

1:26:44Shawn O’Malley:Thanks for listening to T-I-P. Visit the investorspodcast.com for show notes and educational resources. This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not provide financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. The content is impersonal and does not consider your objectives, financial situation, or needs. investing involves risk including possible loss of principle and past performance is not a guarantee of future results listeners should do their own research and consult a qualified professional before making any financial decisions nothing on this show is a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or other financial product hosts guests and the investors podcast network may hold positions in securities discussed and may change those positions at any time without notice references to any third-party products services or advertisers do not constitute endorsements and the Investors Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them.

1:27:32Shawn O’Malley:Copyright by the Investors Podcast Network. All rights reserved.