Three Monopoly Stocks To Buy Now

Welcome back everyone, we have a jam packed episode. 2026 has been off to a rocky start for many of us that are tech investors and invested in lots of great software companies. But as in every case, when there is a sell off, when stocks are going down, there's also opportunities. There's companies that trade down that shouldn't, and frankly, they're buying opportunities.

In this episode, I'll be making the case for three companies, three that you've already heard about, three that everybody's heard about, but three of the Max 7 that I believe are the best buys today, I'll be going over why mathematically, I believe that is the case. Now, of course, we also have a lot of other news to get to. For example, we have Chris Hohn who gave his portfolio update, the 13 F filing.

This gives us an inside look into what he was doing at least from 2025, and it shows us how he values his stock before this sell off. So we'll be looking at that. We have some breaking news that Warner Brothers is now talking with Paramount. Netflix allowed for a 7 day grace period for them to talk and potentially have a best and final offer. We'll be looking at the strategy of Netflix behind this. We also have news that Goldman Sachs released a list of AI losers companies that they

consider a sell. Amongst them was Duolingo. Duolingo is a stock that's been eviscerated. It's down dramatically. It's one of my holdings and I made a comparison that Goldman SX has done this very same thing with Netflix. They also rated Netflix. They sell very close to the absolute bottom in 2022. Now this is a post that I made on X and we had Jeremy Lafaye from Financial Education respond to this directly. So I'll be going over his response.

I'll be giving some thoughts on Duolingo and some of the arguments that Jeremy makes. And of course, we have the fail of the week, which in this case I am forced to address Jemoth Polyhypatia who in a recent All In episode suggested that the only reason that Warren Buffett has out performed over his lifetime was because of Fair disclosure laws suggesting that Warren Buffett had inside information.

That that inside information is why Berkshire did so well up until around 2000. We'll be looking over this claim that Schmoth is making in the fail of the week. So we have a ton to get to in this episode. And if you haven't tried out Qualtrum yet, now is the time. We just released the most advanced tool yet, which is our chart builder. The Qualtrum chart builder allows you to create highly customized and aesthetically

beautiful charts with ease. You can you can simply go in, add stocks, add metrics, change colors, change combinations and then you can stylize it and customize it exactly how you want. So far the initial feedback on this tool is amazing. Everybody that's used it frankly really loves it and you can try it out now risk free. Join Qualtrum today with a 7 day free trial at qualtrum.com.

Now as we start off today, I can't help but notice that the sell off is continuing, but only for part of the market. If you look at the S&P 500, it's actually flat this year, which of course is discouraging. If you're looking at your portfolio and noticing that it's down 10 to 15%. Many investors that are in tech companies, data companies, big tech software companies, their portfolios are going down while the rest of the market remains flat.

And that is because money's not leaving the market. It's just repositioning from some companies to others. We can see that happen in Lifetime. For example, here's a chart showing S&P Global against Walmart. Both of these are great companies. Walmart's everywhere, very reliable. S&P Global is a strong data company. It has the credit rating agency. Most people would argue that S&P Global has a bigger Moat, but when we look at the data here, it shows a different story.

This is Walmart versus S&P Global. Walmart is in blue, S&P Global is in red. And this shows the trailing PE ratio over the past couple of years. Notice that back in 2021, S&P Global demanded a higher PE ratio than Walmart. It was considered a much higher quality. It was growing faster, growing earnings faster, and it had a considerably wider Moat. Retails and Notorious are being incredibly competitive, but we look at the PE ratios over time.

That blue line, which is Walmart, continued to grow upwards while S&P Global plummeted downwards right in the tail end of 2025. In the beginning of 2026, we see this massive Divergent. We're now Walmart for the first time in years trades at a 54 trailing PE ratio and S&P Global trades at a 28. Even on a forward basis, if we're looking over the next 12 months, Walmart trades at over double the PE ratio of S&P Global, 21 for S&P Global, 43

for Walmart. Investors are liquidating companies like S&P Global and putting that capital in the companies like Walmart. And I see this the same thing with My Portfolio. My Portfolio is down around 10%, maybe more now. We see that over the past just a couple of months, we've lost nearly $100,000, maybe 70 to $80,000 in this portfolio. And while that can seem painful, I also look at the companies that I hold and they're still in

great condition. When we look in the tech category, Meta continues to trade down after reporting blockbuster earnings. Their earnings report was incredible. They'll grow 25% plus revenue in 2026. Meta trades near A20 Ford PE ratio, again half the price of a Walmart. We have ASML, this is one of the few companies it's held its own during the sell off. Investors haven't been scared of this one. We have Google that's also

trading down a little bit. This one was a bit higher valuation, but even Google's getting hit. We also have Microsoft, which is also been selling off. We have MasterCard, now in a downtrend, going down seemingly every day. We have S&P Global. This one again has had a massive sell off in just the past couple of weeks. We have Intuit. This one is trading at below its 10 year valuation on every

single valuation metric. You name it, price to free cash flow, price to operating cash flow, PE ratios, every single one. It's at the cheapest valuation it's been in a decade. And it's important to understand why this is happening. Why are investors so quick to sell these companies? Why are they selling US ME, Global and Moody's? Why are they selling big tech? Why are they selling every software company and racing to slow growing retailers? Well, the reason why is because

investors are scared. This is a panic. Investors are selling these companies because they're scared of AI and there's no lack of fodder to fuel these concerns, to fuel these fares. Investors are scared and they have reason to be. Every single day there's another hyper viral article that concerns investors that tells you about how all these software companies are going to 0, how every one of them is going to be disintermediated with AI. They're all going to be destroyed.

The world as you know it, all the tools that you use, they're not needed anymore. We're getting these every single day. We recently had one that said a big thing is happening, basically going over how everything's going to change. All these software companies are going to be disrupted and you better just hang on or sell out of them. That one went hyper viral, was

millions of views. It was shared across every single community, investing community, hedge fund manager, everyone saw it. And we have another one that was just recently shared. Yesterday, we had another article by a different author that fanned the flames once again of AI concerns of software. This one was by Nicholas and it's called vertical software. Are we cooked? This article has 2 million views, thousands of likes. It was spread across the entire

social media sphere. And it's difficult for me to believe that these articles, which are hyper viral, they're spread to millions of investors, many of them hedge fund managers, people with Bloomberg terminals, people that control immense amounts of money. They're reading these articles. And I believe it has an impact on stock prices. It is changing sentiment across the board.

When you look at the reality with many of these companies that are being obliterated in the stock market today, many of them, their fundamentals appear to be fine. Their margins are going higher. They're acquiring customers. They still have pricing power. Many of the fundamentals do not represent the concerns that are being founded today, and I believe that there hasn't been strong rebuttals, but I think

we're starting to get them. One that I've read is from Unemployed Capital Allocator. He wrote a rebuttal to Nicholas, and I believe it's worth mentioning a few things here. One of the major points he makes is addressing this claim that you're not going to need user interfaces. That's one of the biggest claims from the AI is going to destroy software bears. They're saying that software is dead because you don't need a user interface. You can just do everything through a text box.

You can do it all through a chat, you can go to your job and you'll just have a text prompt and you can ask it whatever you want and get all the information you need. Sounds very easy. Easier than messing with a a bunch of user interfaces, right? Well, that's not necessarily the case, he says here. No, a text box isn't going to replace learned UI. Where does learned UI really matter? Which is user interfaces, tools with tons of degrees of freedom, and where actions per minute

actually does matter? Professional workflows, modeling software, video editing tools? Ones where knowing the shortcut is a decent part of the job. A text box is not replacing

this. The idea is quite alluring to those that don't know the UI. Look, you can just tell it to do something and it does it until you need to do it multiple times, then you start to go. Man, I wish there was a quick way for me to send this prompt to do this exact thing I want it to do. Oh, and remember all the info I'm supposed to provide so that I can get back exactly what I want. Maybe I can map it to a button and a keyboard short. Oh wait, that's the user

interface. Text is amazing because it's universal. Text is also absolutely horrible because it has infinite degrees of freedom and introduces another level of abstraction. This is not what you want when you need to do a lot of specific things quickly. This is exactly right. Just think of the role that user interfaces and software actually play.

For example, if you want to check all of your stocks on your watch list and see how they're trading today, you want to open up an empty chat and have to type in, hey, can you get me all of the stocks in My Portfolio and what they're trading today, enter and then have it surface that information seems like a

bit of a hassle. Wouldn't it be a little easier to just open up an app and already have all of your watch list organized in the way that you want, presenting the information in the way that you've already organized it, remembering what you've done previously? Are we really going to replace every user interface that already has information standardized and organized and the way that we want to see it for an empty text chat that will have to prompt it every time we want to do something?

Many of the arguments that these software bearers are making make sense. On the surface they sound kind of cool till you really think about it. Once you realize what you actually want to accomplish and the fastest way to do that. Software is needed, user interfaces are needed, and open-ended text chats aren't

without their downsides. One of the arguments that's being made right now is also that software companies with all the business logic that they do, all the things that they systematically figure out, well that's basically worthless because AI can simply do that in a markdown file. There is zero chance that a complex web of markdown file is going to replace business logic entirely.

The reason is quite simple. You do not want to introduce a layer of unpredictability and degrees of freedom of your core business logic. This is the stuff of nightmares even for simple levels. When you introduce complexity and interdependency, it is a straight line to system failure in bankruptcy. This is of course 100% correct. Imagine for example that you don't have any set business logic and you're not using software. Instead you have AI bill all of your customers.

Well the AI hallucinates and gets 1 calculation wrong. All of a sudden you build your customers all the wrong amount and now you have to make up for it. Any type of mistake with core business logic would have critical failures. And we've seen what AI does. In many cases it changes its mind with the same prompt given two times. In many cases it can't read simple instructions. Nailing it down to do the same thing routinely is incredibly difficult.

After all, every time the AI does something, it re analyzes it and does it in a different way. That's why if you ask it to generate an image, then you ask it to generate the same image again, it will look different

every single time. Trying to replace core business logic of a company that's ran by years of tested software is not going to be replaced by AI. These arguments have become very pervasive, and they spread throughout X and Reddit and other investment circles, all throughout Discords. When you really look through a business and what it needs to run, these companies are not going to trust AI to run core business logic. They're not going to replace all user interfaces with text prompts.

Most of the core arguments behind the death of software are unfounded. They're not practical in real conditions. So as I look at this, I try to make sense of what's true and what's not true with the AI concern. And from what I can tell, many of these companies are being way oversold. The fares are frankly just incredible. At this point, investors don't want any software company for any reason, no matter how resistant they are to AI.

In some cases, these companies are going to be beneficiaries from AI. I'll just highlight a couple examples here. Again, we're looking at S&P Global, which has been crushed over just the past couple of months. We look at it and it's trading at a 21 Ford PE ratio. Why is the market so concerned about S&P Global's market Intel business?

Well, because they sell a lot of data, and apparently AI is going to make all that data freely available and easy to consume for everyone, which of course is not the case. A lot of their data's proprietary to begin with. AI doesn't have access to it. And the breadth of data that S&P Global has with private markets and commodities, physical assets, things that are hard to collect and organize, is going to give them immense pricing power.

That segment continues to grow even though the stock is getting crushed specifically because of that segment. But even if you were to assume that S&P Global's market Intel business went to 0, it was literally 100% disrupted. S&P Global would trade at a 27 Ford PE. It's still a company that would be reasonably priced. In fact, it would be cheaper than its long term average. That's much bearish sentiments being priced in today for

companies like this. We look at other companies that are trading down today, ones like Big Tech, the Mag 7. The Mag 7 has traded down dramatically over just the past couple of months with many of the same fares. In this case, it's not that they're going to be disrupted by AI to some extent, that's the concern, but it's also that they're spending a lot of money on CapEx. The market's finding a reason to sell out of all of these growth companies, whether it be software or the Max 7.

When we look at the Max seven overall, here's how the valuations breakdown. First of all, if we look at them all together, all combined, and we average out the PE ratio, they're trading at an 80 trailing PE and a Ford PE ratio of 52. That seems a little expensive. A Ford PE of 52 is kind of pricey. But there's one big outlier in the mag seven. That is Tesla. Tesla's trading at above a 200 PE. If we remove Tesla from the calculation, the Ford PE ratio goes from 50 to 27.

So it's dramatically reduced just by removing that one company. The valuations look a lot more sensible then we look at removing other companies. For example, if we remove Apple, NVIDIA and Tesla and we just have the big four tech companies left, the PE ratios look even better. In fact, when we look at this over time, this is what it looks like. We have the PE ratios of these four companies, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta over time.

And this is also a little bit misleading because we have trailing PE ratios and for example Meta is actually more expensive on a trailing PE because of a one time tax hit. It would look even cheaper today and it's at the lowest point in a multi year timeline. We look at the big four growth by comparison, even though the PE ratio of these companies is declining dramatically. We have earnings per share growth that's also growing dramatically.

And again, this chart also isn't even as high as it would normally be because of the major tax hit that Meta recently had. We also had Microsoft with a tax hit. We can even look at these companies on an operating cash flow basis. They are racing up to all time high. The core business, if you measure it on an organic basis, meaning how much cash they're generating without the reinvested CapEx, it is growing substantially. Every single one of them.

Google's the only company that's trading at a reasonably high valuation as a big tech company. If we were to remove Google from the equation, meaning we only have Meta, Amazon and Microsoft, those three companies, the forward PE ratio is a 24 for those three of the MAG 7, 24 Ford PE. To put that in comparison, when we look at the S&P 500 right now, the S&P 500 is trading at an estimated 22 Ford PE.

So you're paying almost the same price for Amazon, Microsoft and Meta that you are for the entire S&P 500. Are these companies average companies that should trade within the average of the S&P 500? Should they be priced with the same level of growth expectations? And Mote? Well, I don't think so. I think these companies are substantially better than the S&P 500. The historical analysis proves that they're growing earnings much faster. These are the companies that are

pushing the indices higher. They're growing their cash flows much faster. These companies are generating record net income, record earnings and record cash flows. So I understand if you're afraid of software companies, if you're afraid of big tech and their CapEx investment. But just keep in mind that every time there's a rotation, there's

a sell off. There's a big narrative out there that tells you, you need to avoid these companies even when they're at 52 week lows, when they're at multi year low valuations, when they're fundamentals still look very sound in most cases. Those are buying opportunities and I believe for many of the companies today, they have once again become buying opportunities.

Now let's go ahead and move on to some news. Now. The first piece of news that we'll discuss today is Chris Holmes 13 F filing. Many of these super investor 13F filings are being reported. They're coming in every single day and we finally got Chris Holmes. Now when we look at the the changes that Chris Hohn did, let's go ahead and just look at the activity here and we can discuss them.

We have right here the the buys and sells what he did and this is as of Q4 of 2025 S the most recent that we know this data is as of December of 2025. During that time period, he added to Microsoft, he added to S&P Global, he trimmed Visa, he trimmed Canadian Pacific, and he trimmed Canadian National Railway. Now all of these are relatively small changes, but I think that there's a couple things that are

notable here. Chris Hoehn determined that it was worth adding to S&P Global and Microsoft as of Q42025. Now, if we look at the price of these companies that he was adding to again Q4 of 2025, we can look at them right here.

We have the prices all across this quarter from beginning to end for both S&P Global and Microsoft, meaning that he was buying Microsoft and buying S&P Global at prices around $480 to 540. S&P Global was right around that same price and he was adding to both of them. Where do they trade today? S&P Global's fallen around $80 since Chris Holm's last buy of the company, so it is

substantially cheaper. Microsoft today is trading at a price below $400.00 per share, so the stock is a full $100 cheaper than his last purchase of it. What this tells me is that Chris Holm believed these companies were undervalued last quarter at 80 or $100 more expensive than

they are today. And unless something has fundamentally changed, unless he's changed his mind after reading the things online and seeing some of the data, he probably thinks that they're substantially undervalued today. My guess is when we see the reports for Q1 of 2026, we're going to have seen a lot of super investors pie this dip. I think there's going to be a lot of them that buy it

aggressively. Now moving on, we get to news that Netflix has worked with Warner Bros to allow seven days

of Warner Bros to consider Paramount's offer. Sounds a little bit complicated, but let's go ahead and just read what's going on here. Netflix has said in a statement that it believes that software remains superior, but has granted Warner the seven day waiver of certain obligations of their merger agreement to engage with Paramount to fully and finally resolve this matter. So Netflix doesn't need to do this. They have in their agreement that Warner Bros can't shop alternative agreements.

Like they basically are tied into Netflix. But then it says here that Netflix wavered their agreement. They said, hey, you know what, go ahead and just listen to Paramount go get their final and best offer, even though it's in our contract to not allow that, we're going to make a special exemption. So you have 7 days to talk to Paramount and get their best offer. Now, it's interesting why Netflix is doing this.

When I've looked at this news, I've tried to analyze it, but from what I can tell, my best guess is that Netflix is basically just calling their bluff. They're telling Paramount to put up or shut up, to do something, to just give your best offer and then leave us alone. If Paramount puts up a low offer, if they don't put up something attractive after this seven days, then Netflix can finally argue that it's done, that it's over with.

They don't have to deal with activist investors and with Paramount constantly nipping at their heels, wanting to to be part of this deal. If they have one week to finally conclude this, maybe the drama can be put aside and Netflix always has the option to counter an offer. They have the first call on it. If Paramount puts up a billion dollars more or $5 billion more, Netflix can decide if that's still worth it. They can model it out and they

can see if it makes sense. Netflix is going to pay more than what they believe is worth it for their shareholders. They're very long term focused. So I see this as a strategic move from Netflix telling Warner Bros that they have time to act, exposing their weaknesses, putting it back on them. The ball's now in their court and finally seeing what they do. If they are going to provide a higher offer, we'll find out within one week and moving on, we have some more Duolingo

drama. It's a stock that always has a lot of opinions, but in this case, this is part of a viral post on XI posted about the cell rating that Goldman Sachs recently gave Duolingo. They said that Duolingo was an AI loser, rated it as a cell. And I noted in my ex post that Goldman Sachs has done this before. They've also done this in the past where they wait for a stock to drop a huge amount like 70 plus percent and once it's at a very low price they give it a sell rating.

They did the same thing with Netflix. Goldman Sachs gave a sell rating on Netflix June 10/20/22. And if we look at the math of the performance of Netflix versus the QQQ or the S&P 500, it is up 320% since then. So Netflix's performance since Goldman Sachs gave it that sell rating is now about triple the QQQ. Another fun fact worth mentioning is that Goldman Sachs sell rating on Netflix almost exactly time the bottom.

They gave the down rating and it occurred when the stock was only 5 to 10% away from the absolute bottom of the 2022 sell off. Now I put this on X and a lot of people had a lot of feedback and opinions on it and one of them was Jeremy Lafave from Financial Education. He responded to this tweet and reacted to it in one of his recent videos. I just want to play the video so we can go through it and kind of discuss his comments here together.

This one Joseph Carlson posted this said Goldman just said that Duolingo little Dingo is an AI loser and said it's a cell. Here's a performance from when they called Netflix a cell right now. I thought this was worth mentioning here. And the reason being is just because 1 stock has done well in the past and somebody said it was a sell, doesn't mean the next stock's going to do that, right? And so let's be honest, there's a big difference between somebody like a Duolingo and

somebody like a Netflix, right? A Duolingo is like a niche product that, you know, how many people are really going to stay signed up for Duolingo for the next 5-10, fifteen, 20 years? I don't think there's very many, you know, I, I, and I don't think that's AI, don't think that's a big statement.

Like, sure, there's a lot of people that might try out a product like that and like, oh, I think it would be fun to learn Italian. Oh, I think it would be fun to learn Spanish or, you know, whatever, right? I'm gonna learn French. OK, You know, and they sign up for a bit and they kind of mess around with it and they pay a little bit or maybe they don't pay and they just see ads or whatever, right. And then eventually they stop using it. Netflix is not that sort of

company. There's a huge difference here. Like Netflix, the type of company that when somebody signs up, like they're going to stay signed up five years out, 10 years out, 20 years from now, right? Unless somebody comes and replicates Netflix whole business model, which isn't super realistic. Duolingo's not that sort of company.

People might sign up for the product and try it out and then not use it anymore and they might start paying and then, you know, six months later they're going to stop paying, or a year later or two years later or something like that, right? Netflix, that's a hard one. Like once people sign up for Netflix to get them off that Netflix account, it was difficult. Like Netflix would have to go up

dramatically in price. And so Netflix, when they capture a customer, they probably have a customer for the next 20 years, next 10 years, right? Duolingo's not that same company. So I think that's very, very important to keep in mind here. But I think it's natural sometimes for investors to say, well, this analyst or this company, they said this was a a cell in the past and look at it did so well. So this kind of the company and and things like that.

But you know, I just see massive fundamental differences between a certain company like that and somebody like a Netflix, right? So that's his comments on Duolingo and I actually really like them because I I think it represents the other side. Every stock there's, there's two trains of thoughts. There's two different stories behind it, narratives behind it, and I think that Jeremy really does represent the bearish narrative on Duolingo really well.

The first argument that he says is that Netflix is not like Duolingo. And he refers to Netflix as a product that everybody wants. They want to be entertained. You know, when you sign up for Netflix, you never really cancel it. And Duolingo, by contrast, is a niche product. You may sign up for it, try to learn a language for a while, get bored of it and move on. So that's the way that it's described.

But when we zoom back to 2022, when Goldman Sachs gave that cell rating on Netflix, Netflix had just lost subscribers for six months in a row. Netflix was shrinking. So Netflix wasn't viewed as a product that people signed up for and kept forever. It was viewed as a product that was shrinking subscribers returning. Netflix is a subscription business. If they're not constantly gaining subscribers at a rate exceeding their churn, then they're going to lose

subscribers. Their business is going to shrink. That was the exact narrative that was happening during that time period. In fact, if you go back to 2022, the narrative at that time was that Netflix was basically dead. They weren't one-of-a-kind. They didn't have market dominance. They're a company competing with Paramount. They're competing with Disney Plus and HBO and YouTube. They're being crowded out by many of the free streamers, user

generated content. Instagram and Netflix was just this saturated streaming company that couldn't compete and was losing subscribers. Now it looks like a company that's undefeatable. It looks a lot different. It's more cash generative, but the exact same thought process existed back then with Netflix. The difference is Duolingos actually never lost subscribers. Duolingo's never had six months of shrinking. Duolingo's always grown. The subscriber numbers are growing quarter over quarter

incredibly fast. Another thing that Jeremy says here that I think is a common description of Duolingo is that it's niche. It's a niche product. Right now there are over 1.5 billion people learning English, 1 1/2 billion. That's not what I define as niche. When a huge chunk of the world is actively trying to learn a subject, and there's one company that offers a very good product at teaching that subject, keeping people motivated, making it fun to learn that subject,

that's not a niche product. That is something that's appealing to a massive amount of people. There's huge network effects with English. English is not something people learn just for vacation. It's not something that they learn because they don't have Airpods that can translate. English is the language of business, of aviation, of mathematics, of coding. It has massive network effects. For many people, learning a language is not something they're just doing for fun.

It's not a flavor of the month. They have real motivations behind doing it. Duolingo has capitalized on that market. And of course, that's not the only language that they teach. They cover hundreds of different languages back and forth in different directions, better than any other application. In the edtech language learning category, they're by far the biggest. They have a bigger market share than Netflix does of media or YouTube does of content creation.

Duolingo is enormous in this category of learning languages in different subjects. Another subject that they've advanced into is chess. Chess has 600 million people that are active players of this game. 600 million is not niche. That's quite a big market to grow into. Even if Duolingo captures a tiny fraction of that market, they'll be substantially bigger. And of course, chess players are growing in numbers as well. The sport overall is growing.

Chess is one of those games where you don't really learn it for a short amount of time. People play it their entire lives. It's like a culture. It's considered a a learning exercise. There's so many people across the world that play that one common game. Then Duolingos, also in math and music, which of course are not niche as well. These are basic fundamentals that everybody on planet earth needs to learn. Every kid in school is learning these things. They're pivoting into categories

that are the opposite of niche. They go into categories that billions of people are actively trying to learn. The thought process that Duolingo users just to use the app for a couple months and then they quit. That can happen. And in fact, that's the story of many people when they share a bearish view on the company, they'll say, well, I tried it out. I tried to learn something for a month or two, and then I just broke my streak and never used it again. That's not what the numbers show.

When we look at the numbers, Duolingo is a stock that is down 80%. It is getting crushed. While all the numbers, all the charts look like this. This is what every single one of them looks like. The numbers are all going up and to the right at a fast pace. Millions upon millions of people using it every single day. Duolingo has over 50 million daily active users, people that are logging on and using it at least once a day.

When we look at Duolingo and the amount of people that are paying subscribers, that's what this chart is. It continues to just climb up and to the right. Since 2020, it's up 945% from 1.1 million to now 11.5 million. At the end of 2023, Duolingo had 5 million people that were on a year or longer streak. So 5 million people that I've used the service every single day for over a year now, that

number is 10 million. The amount of users that are dedicated users using the application every single day for over a year has literally doubled in just the past couple of years. And we see this trend continuing. And then finally, I'll just mention one last thing. Jeremy mentioned that Goldman Sachs, just because they said Netflix was a sell right at the bottom 5% from the absolute bottom in 2022, they got that

call completely wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong with Duolingo. And that's true. Maybe they're right with it. Maybe Duolingo will continue to go down and be a bad investment. That could be the case. But I'll I'll mention that my my point in bringing up Netflix is not to say that Netflix is similar or the same as Duolingo. I'm not arguing that those businesses are fundamentally the same. They're very different, like

anybody can point out. But what is the same is Goldman Sachs and many of these analyst firms have a long history of giving sell calls right at the bottom. They'll have buy calls when the stock is going up. They'll hold it as a buy for years and years and years. And then after stocks get crushed when they're down 70%, then the professional analysts will say now it's a sell. They'll give this sell call at the exact wrong time.

And they've done this continually within their sell list, the companies that they're calling software losers and that investors should get out of and sell today. They also have Salesforce, one of your own holdings, Jeremy. They call this one a sell. They're telling you to get out of it now. Now that Salesforce is completely crushed. Now it's being priced for complete doom. Goldman Sachs says it's a sell. They also just recently called Adobe a sell.

They said that that one's not worth holding. It's going to be disrupted by AI. And this is, again, not something that's uncommon. These companies and analysts wait until stocks drop dramatically and then they tell investors at the very bottom to get out exactly like they did with Netflix. Now moving on, we get to the fail of the week, which we have

to highlight Chamath Polyhypatia for a recent take that he expressed on his podcast, the All In podcast. Now, Chamath has had an obsession for some time with comparing himself to Warren Buffett, but we'll look at the most recent example here. Here is Chamath Polyhypatia talking about fair disclosure laws and how Warren Buffett presumably benefited from that, and that's how you explain his out performance. In 2000, we introduced the law called Reg FD. And what was the point of Reg

FD? It was basically that if you're ACFO, you cannot talk to an individual stock manager and tell him something that you then don't tell everybody else essentially inside information that used to be not illegal. I won't say that it was legal. I would just say that used to be not illegal. You call your buddy, he says, hey, how you doing? He goes, man, quarter was a blockbuster. You would go and buy the stock and starting in the 2000s, it became illegal.

And there used to be these networks of information arbitrage that that took advantage of this. Now this is an example of Warren Buffett's returns pre and post Reg FD. Now what do you see? His returns were double the market returns when this kind of information sharing was legal. And the minute that he became illegal and you had to basically act on the same edge as everybody else, his returns went to the market return. He generated 0A. In fact, he probably on the

margins lost a little bit. So this is the single best investor in the world. This is what happens when you have information symmetry. Now the problem with Chamas theory here that Warren Buffett only outperformed because of asymmetry and information is that as soon as you put that under any type of scrutiny, it falls apart.

For example, we can just look at the best investments that Warren Buffett has ever made, where he really made his money, the overall best performing investments he's done throughout his career. By far the best investment Warren Buffett has ever made was Apple. That came after these disclosure laws that came presumably when Warren Buffett didn't have an edge, but he bought Apple at the cheapest price you possibly could back in 2016. Apple's outperformed everything since then.

It's outperformed all of big tech. It's compounded faster than the market by multiples. He turned $30 billion into $100 billion in less than 7 years. This was an incredible investment by Buffett, and this came with the added limitations that he had to invest in something that was massive, so his pool of investments was even smaller. The reason that Berkshire hasn't outperformed the market for the past 10 years is because

Berkshire is huge. So even when Warren Buffett is doing the same playbook, buying companies like Apple at extreme discounts with the same knowledge everybody else has about the company, but a better aptitude for investing, a better long term understanding, even though he did that, improved it once again with Apple, it just doesn't have the same impact.

Berkshire's already too big. He already owns so many energy companies and railroad companies and so many different companies that the new investments and the good ideas can't lift the weight of this massive company. The reason that he's not outperforming today is because Berkshire is too huge. It's a problem that Warren Buffett created by being too

good at investing. And that explains the difference in performance pre 2000. Then post 2000, almost every investment that moved the needle for Berkshire were ones that he held for literal decades. Coca-Cola, Moody's Corporation, American Express, Bank of America, large companies publicly visible to any investor that Warren Buffett bought at discounts and held for decades. There's no inside information. It wasn't because he knew something about the upcoming

quarter. It's because he bought companies at discounted prices and held them long term. Now this is what I don't understand. Chamoth, I don't get why you seem obsessed with discrediting Buffett. You're trying to do so here by suggesting that the only reason that he was a good investor above normal was because of information asymmetry, which again, is ridiculous on the surface. He held companies for decades. It's not from information

asymmetry. The other thing that you've done before is you've compared your returns, your firm to Buffett's. You compared them at a year one against year one, like you're going to outperform Buffett. But once the SPAC bubble collapsed in 2021, that comparison quickly vanished. No more. You didn't want to show investors how you compared against Buffett because he outperformed you, because he's a better investor.

And that's not an insult. He's a better investor than me or anyone else here, but he's a better investor than you as well. Your information that you shared with investors was that Virgin Galactic was a great investment. It's down 95%. You shared the Open Door was a great investment. It's down 70% all time You pumped Clover stock, another one down 90%. Then Achillea, another one that's down huge. Pro Kidney, another one that's down 80%.

Sofi is one of your only SPACS that's in the green and it's underperformed the market overall. The information that you've provided investors, that you've said that you have the inside tract that you understand is a great company, they have been crushed over the past five

years. Investors have been continually burned following your advice and instead of just admitting that Buffett is a better investor, an honest investor, one that had a very transparent and forthcoming career, one that allowed other retail investors to join alongside the success of Berkshire, to reap in the same rewards as Buffett, to have the exact same incentive. You try to incorrectly discredit

him, play his success. And that is the reason that today you are the fail of the week that's going to be for this episode. Hope you enjoyed seeing the next one.