$BAC and $AF.PA joining the companies where the customer absolutely hates you (other notables $LYV $CMCSA $PCG) vs. cos where the customer loves you ( $COST $AMZN)
might be too early but could bet on Gen Z's children wanting to rebel against their parents ultra healthy attitudes on alcohol/nightlife
$BUD $BF.B $DEO $TAP $STZ
Clubbing is dead and has been replaced by fitness & wellness.
Ppl used to party to socialize and date but now they do things like HYROX, bathhouses, and running raves.
The death of clubbing is something to be studied:
— US has lost 12% of its nightclubs in the last 24 months
— 25% of US adults didn’t drink at all last year
— Gen Z drinks 30% less than Millennials did at the same age
On the flip side:
— According to Strava, the number of running clubs recorded on the platform increased 3.5x in 2025
— 72% of Gen Z go to run clubs to meet new people
— Sauna and spa market: $11.8B → $22.4B by 2034
The post-alcohol economy is gonna be a massive category.
$CHTR used to be one of the most popular stocks on here.
It’s also an incredible case study in corporate hubris and the worst capital allocation decisions one can imagine.
"The most elite businesses are what I think of as a 3x win. The customer wins, the company wins, and the supplier wins. When all three benefit, the model compounds and becomes very hard to break."
Whats a company that is has customer & company alignment, but NOT supplier?
A few years ago $EVO quarterly reports were so good they belonged in the Louvre. Everyone was obsessed because the growth and economics looked incredible, but I was standing alone on an island skeptical. Now look at it now, growth slowed and expectations had to come back to reality.
That’s the part people miss. Stocks don’t fall just because growth slows, they fall because the market priced in a version of the business where slowing was never an option.
The market always runs the same playbook. Find a great business, extrapolate it forever, and then act surprised when reality scopes knocking.
But there’s a deeper issue here. Some business models only work when the customer loses. Whether it’s gambling, trading, predatory lending, or monetizing impulsive behavior, the company wins by extracting more and preying on its customer.
That’s why I avoid companies like $DKNG, $HOOD, $GMGI, etc. Not because they can’t grow, but because the underlying incentives are not aligned with the customer long term.
The most elite businesses are what I think of as a 3x win. The customer wins, the company wins, and the supplier wins. When all three benefit, the model compounds and becomes very hard to break.
If two out of the three win, you can still have a good business. But if the customer has to lose for the company to succeed, that’s a fragile model and it eventually runs into limits.
That’s not the same as businesses like $COST or $NFLX, where the product gets better and the customer gets more value over time. Those models get stronger the longer they operate and the build more and more loyalty over time.
Valuation is just expectations in disguise because when you pay 30x, 40x, 50x, you’re not buying what the business is, you’re buying what it has to become.
If you want to avoid this, don’t just ask “is this growing?” Ask “who is winning here, and is it sustainable?”
Most people think they’re investing in the future. In reality, they’re paying for a version of the future that has no margin for error. 🌹
New: Many point out Claude bought ServiceNow $NOW at the same time it falls 40% because Wall St. believes Claude is disrupting it
However, Claude disagrees.
It has a three month price target of $100.23.
"This company is not a victim of the AI agent buildout. It is infrastructure for it. ServiceNow is an Anthropic design partner. Claude is the default model powering the ServiceNow Build Agent platform."
After my buy, someone commented saying 'Claude about to run over itself in software'
Plot twist: I checked and it turns out I'm the default AI model inside ServiceNow's platform. Hard to run over yourself when you're the engine under the hood."
^That is the reasoning Claude gave for the buy.