Welcome back everyone. This is Part 2 of the Super Investor portfolio update. If you've missed it, I would recommend going back one day on this channel and looking at part one of the Super investors portfolio update. It's where we look at a lot of great investors, ones that have beat the market for a long period of time, investors that manage hundreds if not billions of dollars in assets under management and we get to see an inside look of what their
portfolios look like. And I think this is one of the best ways to learn about investing because when you study anything, whether it's sports or any type of event, you want to learn from the best. And in most cases, these type of people are the best of what they do, especially the ones that have beaten the market for a long period of time. So in this video we have Part 2, a brand new slate of super investors to go through and this is a very strong slate.
We have Warren Buffett, the big man himself. We're going to be seeing what he's been doing with his portfolio. But then we also have a lot of other great investors. One of them is named Dev Cantasaria from Valley Forge Capital. And Dev has quickly become one of, if not my favorite investor to follow right now. I think he's phenomenally intelligent. I think that his decisions are so well grounded in reality. His results have been market beating for a long period of time.
And so I am very excited to see his update on what he's doing with his very concentrated portfolio. Then we also have Bill Ackman. I really like looking at what Bill Ackman's doing. He's always making some big significant bets all the time. So we're going to be checking out his portfolio. We have Carl Icahn. This is someone that has come under a lot of scrutiny, a lot of criticism and the Hindenburg report has done a lot of damage to his company. So we'll be looking at that as
well. We have Chase Coleman. Chase Coleman in my mind is very similar to Kathy Wood, someone that invests in a lot of hyper growth companies, ones that aren't really profitable right now, but they might be someday. His portfolio has a tremendous amount of volatility, but we'll be looking at the positioning that he's doing right now. Then we have Nelson Peltz, who's an activist investor that bought a large stake in Disney. He's the one that was highly critical of the Disney leadership.
He wrote a letter to them outlining all of this stuff they're doing wrong. He told them to reinstate the dividend to get cash flow back and all of this great stuff for Disney. Well, we get to see what he's been doing with his portfolio and his Disney position. Then we have David Einhorn of Green Light Capital. He's one that's a lot more cynical, a lot more conservative. He's sometimes even bearish on the market, so be looking at his positioning.
We have Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust. This is a massive portfolio, $42 billion and they do not joke around with this money. Bill Gates has a very well constructed portfolio. So I'm excited to look at an update on that. We have Daniel Loeb of Third Point. He's a really smart investor, an actives investor that has a lot of different companies. He's usually trading around a lot and he manages around $6
billion. And then finally we have Christopher Bloomstrand, who I think has a comprehensive understanding of Berkshire Hathaway. He has a very good understanding of insurance companies and I think overall he's a great analysts when it comes to indepth company analysis. So we'll be looking at what Christopher Bloomstrand is doing as well. So we have a very strong slate of investors to look at. Obviously a lot to dive into in this episode. So grab yourself a drink, get settled.
Let's go ahead and get started now. We'll kick things off by starting with Warren Buffett, the big man himself, who I consider to be the king of investing the best investor to ever live by a pretty significant margin. Now, a lot of people focus on investors that have compounded for a shorter duration of time, but at a higher speed than Warren Buffett.
And although that's very impressive, I think the real skill set of Warren Buffett that's highly underrated is not only his incredible gains over a long period of time, but the fact that he did so meticulously, without taking any type of significant risk that could ever destroy his fund, his company, and hurt his shareholders in the long term. He never overextended his bets. He never went too far with risk, and that's so underrated. It's so difficult for investors
to do that. The history of investors that once had good returns but then they overextended risk. That's a long list. We have Tiger Global going down 70% in one year, destroying enormous amounts of value, 10 years plus of value destroyed in a single year. We have the same thing with Kathy Wood and Ark Innovation dropping 75% / a two year period. That is value destruction that Warren Buffett never had to go
through. So not only does he have good returns, but he had good returns sustainably without taking enormous amounts of risk for 40 plus years. And that record is it's unbeaten, it's the best record in the market today. So Warren Buffett I believe sits there with the throne. I think he's the best value investor and overall just the best investor to ever live. And I think it's going to be very difficult for someone to beat that record. Now let's go ahead and take a
look at his portfolio today. One thing about Buffett is although he doesn't overextend risk, he's also not afraid of concentration. And he said repeatedly that if you know what you're doing, then concentration is not a risky endeavor. Concentration is really only risky if you're not sure of what you're doing. The risk comes in with ignorance. So Buffett has an astounding 51% of his public portfolio in Apple. Now, I do have to give a little
bit of a context here. This is Buffett's public portfolio, the tradable portfolio on the market. Berkshire owns an enormous amount, like 90 plus businesses that they wholly own, meaning they're not publicly traded. That's not part of this 51%. So if you put Apple in context of the entire Berkshire conglomerate, the entire empire that he started, it's a smaller portion. It make up much less than 50%. Then if you put it with the cash
balance, it's even smaller. So I would not go to the extent of believing that Buffett would put 51% of his total assets into Apple. That's not what he's done right now, but this is still a very significant bet in one company. Now let's go ahead and take a look at the activity and see what he's been up to in the past quarter. We can filter by the percent changes here and we can see that
not that much change. If you added up these total percentages of what they actually traded in the quarter, what is this like 2%, maybe upwards of 2 1/2%, not a lot of trading for a three month period. And one of the trades was them basically taking the gains from a merger arbitrage play. Microsoft was buying Activision Blizzard. Buffett has a long history of doing arbitrage and what he did was buy a bit of Activision because he thought the deal would go through.
It looks like the deal went through, Activision stock is going up and he sold at what I assumed to be a decent profit. So that was a good trade by Buffett. Then we have Chevron Corp, He sold a little bit of that .42% of the portfolio. Mckenzen Corp, they sold 100% of that, That's .25% of the portfolio. Then they bought a little bit of Dr. Horton and Occidental Petroleum added to the energy companies Buffett loves having
his big energy empire. Buffett notably did not sell a single share of Apple, even after the rising price of Apple. Apple's up something like 45% year to date, and he didn't take any gains in the company. A lot of people believe that Apple right now is overvalued because it's not growing. Apple's a slow growing company. Last quarter it didn't really grow its earnings per share all that much and it didn't grow
revenue all that much. So a lot of people are saying it's foolish to own Apple. It trades at a high P/E and it's super slow growing. I want to address this claim of the slow growing Apple. So let's go ahead and take a look at Apple. Here using Qual Trim insights is the page that we're going to be looking at, which is a stock analysis tool that I developed. It's part of the Patreon membership. Let's bring up Apple here and we'll look at how slow growing Apple is.
We can look at it annually and look at a bigger timeline. Here's the slow growing Apple. The revenue for Apple has grown at 19% over the past two years, and over the past five years the revenue has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 11.46%. That's much faster than the S&P 500 as a whole. So the revenue is not growing slowly. Another thing that I'd mention is that this is entirely organic growth, meaning the Apple didn't do any big acquisitions that
added on revenue. This growth is just from selling more products, increasing prices and having more services. Completely organic, almost 12% growth over the past five years. Let's go ahead and take a look at the not growing apple when it comes to earnings per share. The earnings per share over the past five years have grown at 21.58% on a compound annual growth rate. Look at the substantial leap in
the earnings per share. Even last year when it slowed down after the massive year from 2020 to 2021, they still manage growth of almost 9%. We can look at the not growing apples free cash flow. The free cash flow grew at 17% over the past five years. That's a pretty substantial free cash flow growth for a company that's supposed to not be growing. And keep in mind the average growth rate of the S&P 500 with free cash flow per share is
around 8% per year. That's what the average of the S&P 500 is. Over the past five years, Apple grew their free cash flow per share at 23 percent, 23% versus the S&P 5 hundreds, 8%. This is the not growing Apple. The reason that people have said that it's not growing is because of the slowdown in the previous quarter. But when you zoom out just ever so slightly past one year, you see the longer term trends of Apple and the company has had a
very strong growth history. My assumption is that Apple will continue to outperform the majority of other companies in the market and I believe it will continue to outperform the market at large. That's part of the reason that I remain invested in the company and I believe that that Berkshire is going to do really well with this being a key
holding. So I think it makes sense for Buffett to continue holding this company when it has such a substantial mode, a grasp on so many consumers and it has over 2 billion installed devices as of last quarter. The amount of pricing power that Apple has, the levers they can pull are virtually endless at this point. So trading at what it does right now, A25, 4PE, I do not believe it's too expensive for this company and I was not surprised at all to see Buffett hold on to this one.
And as we go through the portfolio, it looks mostly the same. And this is typically what good investors do. They buy good enough companies that they don't have urgency to sell them quarter by quarter. So in most cases when we're looking at big portfolios of good investors, a lot of them like to hold on to their key
holdings for a multiyear basis. Now Next up we have an investor that's a little bit lesser known, but my goal is to make him more known because I think that he needs to be known. His name is Dev Cantasaria of Valley Forge Capital Management. Now if I had a tear ranking, in fact I plan on doing a tear ranking list of super investors in the future. But spoiler alert, Dev is going to be at the very top of that
list He is asked here. He's right there with the top elite investors and I believe that he deserves to be there. His investing acumen I think is incredible. I think that he does deeper dives on companies and understands them as fundamentals and the future growth of the company far more extensively than most investors. One of the most impressive pieces of research was the business breakdown he did on FICO. I've never seen a business breakdown like that before.
His understanding and comprehensive knowledge of companies and doing analysis on them I think is second to none. His portfolio is highly concentrated in the companies that I think are the top of the list. I think these companies are the best of the best and I like seeing his trades because we share a lot of the same holdings. So let's go ahead and take a look at what Dev has been up to recently.
Now consider this. The number of stocks that Dev holds is 8-8 different positions for a portfolio that's nearly $3 billion. I hear investors saying they feel a little uneasy with their $50,000 that they have invested, only investing in 15 companies. Deb here has eight different positions, and he's managing $3 billion. That is an immense amount of concentration. But again, he agrees heavily with Warren Buffett. Deb's favorite investor is Warren Buffett.
And Buffett says that concentration is not risky if you know what you're doing. It is risky. To the investor that is buying things based off of unknowns and things that they haven't studied. So Dev has a very good knowledge of every position that he holds and he concentrates in the companies that have a reduced amount of operational risk. If we look at his holdings today, the top one right now is FICO and this company, it has
something special. I've been following this company for over a year now and every time I look at investing in FICO, I think I'm going to wait around for a dip in this company. I'm going to wait around for it to to just trade down a little bit and this is what the price chart looks like. Can you spot the dip on this company? It's up 47% year to date, then we go past one year and it's up 73%. We go past five years and it's up 303%.
There's not many time periods where it seems like it's okay to buy this company because the valuation always trades a little bit lofty. But FICO has everything that Dev looks for in a company. Strong organic revenue growth, strong organic free cash flow growth, strong organic earnings per share growth. And they do this while having a very desirable monopolistic position in the credit rating of individuals. FICO in many ways is the S&P Global and the Moody's of the individual.
Dev loves these rating businesses where you rate the creditworthiness of a business or an individual. So he has a huge investment in the S&P Global, a huge investment in the Moody's, and a huge investment in the FICO. Each one of these are creditworthiness rating businesses. FICO does it for individuals with your FICO score. Anytime you get a mortgage loan or you get a auto loan, they're going to run your FICO score. FICO makes 95% profits when they run that score.
So even though it's like $0.80 or a dollar, almost all of that is pure profit for FICO. SP Global makes money anytime they do ratings for major business, any of the debt they issue and Moody's does the same. So he has really concentrated his portfolio into all these different rating companies and the ones that are growing in volume and pricing power. We look at the next group of companies that he's concentrated in, which is the duopoly of MasterCard and Visa.
Now MasterCard and Visa are not a duopoly on all payments. There's lots of different forms of payments. You can do a Ch transfers, you can do Venmo and PayPal, and there's lots of ways to move money around. But MasterCard and Visa have a very favorable desirable spot and what most people have regard for as the safest payment form, which is swiping a credit card, having that payment insured and ran by MasterCard or Visa through their strong network
with all of their protections. You know that your payment can be disputed if there's anything wrong. And that security makes it so that they have a very strong Moat in their business. So MasterCard and Visa combined make up around 29% of the portfolio. Moody's, S&P Global and FICO combined make up 60% of the portfolio. So between those two groups of companies, you have the huge majority of his portfolio. It's comprised by the credit rating businesses and the
payment processors. Every one of these companies has desirable operating trades. They have low amounts of CapEx, low amounts of research and development, low amounts of stock based compensation expense. They are tollbooth companies. They have incredibly good network effects. They're incredibly difficult to compete with and they sit on these busy roads running this tollbooth between all the credit markets and between all the
payment processing market. So these companies have very desirable positions and great economics wide motes and they attract investors that seek quality investments which is what DEV does. Now another company that I own that DEV has as well is into it. He has this as a 7% position and I believe that Intuit is highly underrated from retail investors. Most retail investors I think don't like Intuit because of negative association into it's the TurboTax company and I hate taxes.
I don't like TurboTax, I don't like dealing with it because of that negative association. I don't like into it. Into it is QuickBooks the accounting software. Nobody really loves accounting. Accounting software is not exciting, and the only people that really have much to say about quick books are the people complaining about the different problems they have with it. So the problem with Intuit, I believe, is many investors look at this and they look at the
products. They're not exciting, they're not sexy. They turn investors off from the company when really what you have is a dominant company in the market with the franchise of products that have incredibly long runways of growth and into its free cash flow per share growth has been astounding. So I think that into it is underrated. I don't think it will ever be a very popular stock online, but it's one that I feel very
comfortable holding right now. Now I can filter by the biggest changes to his portfolio in Q2. The first one here is he sold entirely out of Adobe. This was a 3.6% position. So it was a meaningful position as portfolio and Adobe does fit a lot of the characteristics that Dev looks at, organic growth, pricing power, very efficiently made products. But I believe there is one thing Adobe did to probably make him sell out of it and I believe that was the Figma acquisition.
Adobe paid a lot to buy a company called Figma. It's around four years worth of free cash flows to pay for it. And I know that investors like Dev do not like these type of defensive acquisitions. If they're going to buy a company and they're going to do an acquisition, they want it to be an offensive acquisition, something that they're doing because they want to grow the company, but they don't
necessarily have to be doing. Adobe felt pressured into buying Figma as defense to protect their Moat from a potential invader. That is a very defensive acquisition. And I think that Dev looked at that very negatively. The next big change that Dev did was he really bumped up his S&P Global Stake, adding another 18% to it, which is 3.57% of his total portfolio. So S&P Global is already a second largest holding. He's up on this company hundreds and hundreds of percentages, but
he added another 18%. And I think this is a great lesson and avoiding anchoring bias. Even though Deb is up substantially in S&P Global and he's owned the company for around 10 years, he's still buying more. He doesn't care. He still thinks it's a good value, so he doesn't have the price anchored to his previous buy in price. Now another company that he sold completely out of is Autodesk. I'm not as familiar on this company. I know that it's basically ubiquitous with many careers
unavoidable. In my opinion, it feels a little bit familiar. Or similar to Adobe. They both are required for certain types of careers, but it looks like he dumped that one as well, sold his entire position. Now the next one is a new entry to his portfolio. He bought a new position which I know this one is going to make many retail investors happy because a lot of people are already in this company, which is a SML, the semiconductor
company. Now I've heard about this one for a long period of time, people have told me, Joseph, you need to add a SML to your portfolio. It's the perfect fit, it's monopolistic, it has pricing power, it sits at the very top of the food chain. It has all the structural power and position in the market.
And so far I haven't, I haven't been close enough to buying this company, but the fact that Dev can't Assaria added this one to the portfolio, I think is a big validating factor that this one must have passed all of his screeners, all of his research to be added even as a small position. So right now this one is a very small position compared to his other ones, but I think it's very positive and meaningful that this one was added to the portfolio. Another one that he added to was a ZPN.
This was an existing holding, but he added slightly to it, just .68% of the portfolio. So it's still a very small position. I think overall this portfolio is strong. I think it's 10 out of 10 now. Next up we have Bill Ackman. He's another super investor that runs a very concentrated portfolio, only holding 8 positions and he has a $10 billion assets under management. So this is a lot of money into a small amount of positions.
Now, one thing I'll mention is that this shows his US holdings and he does have some international holdings as well, like a Universal Music Group. So this doesn't represent his entire portfolio, but this is the majority of it. Now when you look at what Bill Ackman has been doing over the past quarter, we can see the changes right here. The biggest one is a reduction in Lowe's. Now Lowe's has been a holding that he's held for over 10 years
now. It's a company that he's been very bullish on for a long period of time and his thesis has played out. Lowe's has beat Home Depot over the past decade in total returns. So he's done really well on this company. It's been an outperformer of the market. But what we're seeing now is a lot of weakness in new home
projects. Home Depot just reported their earnings report and Lowe's and they both say that people are starting to cut back a little bit on home renovations and backyard projects and different things like that. A lot of them say that it's higher interest rates impacting that. So these companies have been going through a little bit tougher of a time this year. So it doesn't surprise me to see him pull back on Lowe's a bit. This was a 25% reduction, which is 5.36% of the portfolio.
He also reduced Chipotle ever so slightly. Now, I don't know exactly when he sold this position, when it was above $2000 per share or around $1900 per share. He reduced it ever so slightly, 7%, which is 1.49% of the portfolio. After that, he has Alphabet as a major holding. He increased the position size by 1.46. Now after that, the trades are so small that I don't think they're meaningful.
Now we look overall at his US portfolio, we have as his largest position Chipotle. And this is a company that I've recently been buying in a small stake in because I believe Chipotle is a really great company. Looking at the fundamentals, the unit economics, the growth plans and overall how much cash flow this company generates quarter after quarter. I think it's a highly scalable company, has great operating leverage.
It has a very long runway of growth and I think the story is still on for Chipotle. I assume a lot of future growth in the company over a long period of time. I think there could be some weakness in the upcoming quarters going into 2024 with the slowdown of the economy. But if you're looking at a longer timetable, that's usually
not a huge concern. And then his second largest holding is Restaurant Brands International, which is the parent company of Burger King and Tim horton's and a number of other brands. So he really has a concentration into the quick service restaurant category. And he previously made a lot of money in Starbucks. So that was another restaurant company that he did really well in. Bill Ackman is really good with restaurants. He has a very high success rate
with them. Almost every restaurant that he invests in is not only a money maker, but it's one where he typically beats the S&P 500 with. So these companies have been great. Overall, in my opinion, I think that Chipotle is a much better brand quality than Burger King. I like the positioning a lot more, but regardless, he has a high concentration into these quick service restaurant companies.
Then in 3rd place, we have Lowe's, The reduction of 25% takes the position of the portfolio down to 15%. After that, we have Hilton Worldwide, which I think is another great company, very good economics, very good brand value and it's kind of a licensing company. So that one seems like a really strong one. In his portfolio, we have the Howard Hughes holding. This is 1 where he has a lot of special deals and things that he can do by the size of his fund that retail investors can't
mimic. But Howard Hughes Corporation is always a significant position in his portfolio. Then we get to Canadian Pacific. He's owned this one previously and he bought it again. It's now an 11% position. He's very bullish on the acquisition they did, the big merger and the leadership of the company. He believes it will generate growing free cash flows and I agree with him on that assessment. And then after that, we have the combined Google and Google, the
different types of shares. That's a combined 12%. So Google Now is actually around his fourth largest US position, very meaningful position. And of course, I think Google's a great buy right here. So I think that Bill Ackman is taking a very conservative but good bet with Google right now. Overall, I really like Bill Ackman's portfolio. It's concentrated into a group of great companies that I think overall have low downside risk. They generate growing free cash
flows. They have very strong business models. So I can see why he would want to own each of these companies and many of them. He's had stellar returns in which Chipotle, for example, he's up over 5X on this position. So I think that he's doing a great job. I think that he's likely going to have market beating returns. Now Next up, we have some controversy with an investor that I both love and hate called Carl Icahn. Now Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman, who he just went over.
They're not buddies, they're not friends, and they've had some incredibly explosive drama on CNBC in the past. If you haven't seen that, you'll just have to look up the old clips. But they've had calls and different things where they bet against each other. Carl Icahn short squeezed Bill Ackman's investment into Herbalife, and it's a whole long story.
But recently, after all of that drama of Carl Icahn sticking it to Bill Ackman, Bill Ackman is having the last laugh because a research company called Hindenburg Research, which is a short seller, did this extensive research on Icon Enterprises, the corporate Raider throwing stones from his own glass house. The claims that he makes in this research analysis are extremely
damning. Icon Enterprises is an $18 billion market cap holding company run by a corporate Raider and an activist investor, Carl Icahn, who along with his son Brett on approximately 85% of the company. Our research has found that I EP, which is a ticker symbol of IT units, are inflated by 75% plus due to three key reasons. I EP trades at a 218% premium to its last reported net asset value, vastly higher than all comparables.
We've undercovered clear evidence of inflated valuation marks for I EP's less liquid and private assets. And then three, the company has suffered additional performance losses this year to date following its last disclosure. That's just the premise of it. This research by Hindenburg is so extensive. Just look at the bullet points.
This is the summary of the research and it goes on for dozens of dozens of pages of damning evidence about what they've been doing, the way that they've been conducting their business, the valuation of it, and so on and so forth. If we look up IEP and the stock price performance, we can see that they've ran into some trouble after this report. It went from $50 per share down to $30 per share, then from $30 per share all the way down to $23 per share.
So year to date, his company has lost 54% of its value. That is damaging, damaging when you make a lot of money by diluting shareholders and selling off those shares. At Inflated Values, we can see the massive amount of shares outstanding increase, the massive amount of dilution the IEP was doing. So the fact that the share price is down 50% means that when they sell these shares, they're
getting half as much money. Now this has obviously been a tough year for Carl Icahn, but Bill Ackman, on the other hand, I believe is thoroughly enjoying himself watching the destruction of IEP. He tweeted out right as this was happening, a quote from Wall Street, which says quote on Wall Street, if you want a friend, buy a doc. So Bill Ackman is getting the last laugh here.
Now, even though I disagree fully with a lot of the ways that Carl Icahn conducts himself, and I agree that in many cases he is a corporate Raider, he comes in and he just destroys companies to extract value out of them. So in some cases, he has a very adverse effect on the long term of a company, and I think that that's dangerous.
But in other cases, I do like activist investors that will go in and they will get executives that are lazy and not doing their job to actually start doing their job. And I've seen some examples where I think that he's had a net positive effect on companies. So it's neither all good nor all bad. I think some of the stuff Carl Icahn does is positive, but I think some of what he does is largely negative. And I think that the valuation of his company dropping by half
is more than warranted. When I looked at the fundamentals of this company, I agreed with Hindenburg Research. Overall, I like some of the drama that comes from Icahn and some of the things that he says. I like some of the stories he tells, but I would never recommend investing in his fund or IEP. I look at the company's fundamentals and I think it has a substantial amount of problems. So this is one that I would stay
far away from now. Next up we have Chase Coleman of Tiger Global. Chase Coleman has been known to be one of the most aggressive tech investors. Entire Global has had phenomenal performance since the inception of its fund all the way up to 2021 and we know what happened at 2021. Interest rates going up rapidly more than we've seen in the past decade, caused a cascading effect of massive devaluation and multiple contraction.
For lots of tech companies, Chase Coleman like Ark Invest was one of the funds that had utter devastation caused to their fund During this time period, it dropped substantially, 70% in a matter of months. So 10 years of Alpha were wiped out in a matter of months. And This is why I say there's a lot of fund managers that are good for a short amount of time, five years or 10 years, but the real test is going past entire economic cycles.
All different environments, being able to weather, all different interest rate environments and recessions and different factors in the market really proves how good an investing strategy is. Now when we look at his trades overall, this is one of the firms that trades a lot based off of technicals and valuation and momentum and lots of different factors. So when I look at this, I don't take any of these buys and sells ersonally.
I don't look at them as assessing the intrinsic value of the company over the next 5 to 10 years. I look at this as largely algorithmic or momentumbased trading. For example, he sold a lot of Amazon, a lot of Google. He sold a lot of MasterCard, the entire position. But then he also bought more NVIDIA. He's buying NVIDIA at today's price. So you could try to dissect everyone of these trades, but I think a lot of them are based off of momentum of these companies.
When I look at Chase Coleman's portfolio, I think that it's a little too unpredictable and I would never want to invest in a method that has 70% drawdowns when the rest of the market goes down 16%. I think largely that's indicative that what you're doing is too risk prone and you
should rethink your strategy. Now Next up we have Nelson Pelts who is another investor that runs a large fund, $3.8 billion in assets under management and he also has a concentrated portfolio until only eight positions. You'll notice that many of these investors that do ample research and understand the risks associated with their companies, they're willing to concentrate into a small amount of holdings.
That level of confidence comes from studying the history and the risk factors of the business. So when I look at Nelson Peltz, I really appreciate a few things that he does. One of the things that he did that I really enjoyed was his involvement in Disney.
If you recall Disney going through their terrible string of decisions by hiring Bob Chapeck and then firing him and then blaming him after they picked him to be the CEO bringing back Bob Iger and the company just seemed to lose its way over the past couple of years. Nelson Peltz came in and he was a voice for the shareholder to tell the board that they're screwing up. They don't have things figured out. They need to reduce their pay until they get this company back on track.
They need to start paying a dividend again. They need to really get Disney back into profit mode and to have a vocal activist, someone that comes in and can speak on behalf of the shareholder, I think was very necessary. Now if we look at his portfolio, we can see the changes he's made and there's not many 2 to 3% turnover for the quarter. He reduced his Ferguson position by 6%. He added to Disney a 9% addition to Disney and then he sold a tiny amount of Wendy's. So there's the trades.
Mostly what he did was reduced Ferguson and bought a bit more Disney. If we look at his portfolio construction, it's concentrated into four different companies. The first one is Janice Henderson Group, which is a asset management company. Then we have Ferguson, which we've seen before in a couple other super investors portfolios. They are a plumbing and heating supply company and from what I've seen, they're described to be the monopoly of that company. They control the distribution.
They have the most products. They really have a good superior position in that market. So it's interesting that he has such a huge concentration in that company, but it shows that he sees something special there. The next company is Disney. We know his thesis on that because he outlined it in his activist investor letter. Then we have Invesco, which is another asset management company. So not much change for a highly concentrated portfolio.
As far as Nelson Peltz is concerned, he likes the stuff that he owns and he continues to own it. Now Next up we have David Einhorn, who is an interesting investor. He recently came out with an interview that made a lot of headlines because he basically said that things are so bad that value investors or investors in general may never recover from what's coming. So he's predicting a lot of doom and gloom. Now, of course, that impacts your psychology and the way that
you invest. If you have a very bearish view on the economy or the overall trajectory of the world, then that does factor into your investments. And you can see that with his portfolio. Now looking at his overall portfolio, he holds a lot of companies that I'm not familiar with. This is a long list of smaller companies, but they have a common theme. Many of them are in energy and they're in home building or related categories.
And if I had to guess what he's trying to do here, I think it would be very defensively related to low valuations and a shield from inflation. He's trying to protect his investors from inflation that he's probably predicting. So that would be my assumption with the portfolio. But granted, I don't know his overall strategy. So this is just my guess. Now Next up, we have Bill Gates. Now Bill Gates, I believe, is an underrated investor.
A lot of people consider him brilliant for starting Microsoft and how difficult that business was to start and run and grow to the behemoth that is today. But you have to give him credit for his investing acumen. Bill Gates is just smart all around and he's very smart with protecting his assets that he's worked really hard to acquire. When we look at the holdings here, he has 31% in Microsoft. Now you might say there's a little bit of bias there, but I think that that makes sense.
Bill knows Microsoft more than probably anyone, so he knows the quality of this company. And plus, even from an unbiased third party perspective, Microsoft is one of the most stable cash producing companies in the world with a credit rating better than the US government. So when I look at Microsoft, it makes sense that 31% of the value of this portfolio is in that company. The next one we have is Berkshire. 20% right there. We have over 50% of the portfolio concentrated into
these two companies. And then he added to this position last quarter. So the top two companies are what I consider to be bulletproof. And then Company #3, I also consider to be bulletproof. Canadian National Railway, I believe any Class 1 railroad within the US and Canada is an incredibly resilient business. It's going to have a very difficult time losing substantial amounts of money. The risk return on these are
very high. And then after that you have another company that's considered largely to be another bulletproof company, Waste Management. This is a basically necessary utility company that people cannot survive without. His portfolio, by and large are these four companies, and Bill Gates once again does the same
common theme. He shows that the huge majority of his invested capital, all of this money which he's carefully accumulated over decades of time, and that he considers to be incredibly important, that he wants to protect. He feels good about putting it into four different positions, a huge level of concentration. Now. Next up we have Daniel Loeb of Third Point, another activist investor. Now, they started off with a very strong start, beating the market for a long period of
time. But then after around 2010, 2011, the returns have mostly been around the S&P 500. So we're looking to see a recovery and outperformance from Daniel Loeb. Now if we look at his trades of the most recent quarter, I can see a lot of cells here. Right off the bat. He sold his largest holding, the whole thing, Colgate, the toothpaste company. This is a very defensive company that he bought into with 14% of the funds assets and that one's gone now.
This was a company that's gone nowhere since he bought it. The stock price is essentially flat, so no gains being made there. I think it was a bit of a waste of a position. Now he also reduced Google, so we reduced that one by 70%, which I think is interesting and confusing. I think that Google still maintains a decent valuation, so obviously he had better things to do with that cash he sold entirely out of Salesforce. That one doesn't surprise me because Salesforce has raced up
60% year to date. And then he also sold United Healthcare Group. That's another one that he completely exited the position. Now what did he buy? He bought a lot of Amazon, increase that one by 8%. Then we have TSM. He bought into that. He bought more NVIDIA. When I see people buying NVIDIA at these prices, I have to believe that they're part
momentum trader. This follows the theme of Daniel Loeb. He's another one where I wouldn't take it too personally if he buys a company that you own or he sells a company that you own because he trades in and out of position so quickly. I don't think that he's looking at the longterm intrinsic value of every company as much as doing a lot of value trades, quick run ups and companies and some momentum trading. His portfolio is more diversified than most super investors.
He holds a lot of these smaller watcher positions and he has a lot of two and 3% position. So he's on the other side of things. He does like the level of diversification. Now finally, we have Christopher Bloomstrand with Semper Augustus.
Now Christopher Bloomstrand I think is a great follow on Twitter. You should find his account and follow him because he does these tweet storms where he breaks down the financials and different aspects of a company and he has a great way of looking at them. He has a lot of insights on different businesses. Now when we look at his portfolio, you'll notice that he holds Berkshire as around 30% of his total portfolio.
A lot of people are critical because they say why don't you just invest in Berkshire directly. I think that's a valid criticism, but what Christopher does is he knows Berkshire so well. He's able to read the report really indepth and understand the valuation of it. And he's always trying to add to this position at a 20% or greater discount. That's when he likes to get new investors funds into Berkshire, so he'll hold cash or he'll invest in different companies.
Once Berkshire goes 20% under intrinsic value, then he adds to that position. Now if we look at the amount of activity over the past quarter, there's a lot of small trade, some rebalancing in the portfolio. If we look at the biggest ones here, he added to Dollar General, that one is in a decline right now, so he's adding to that one. Then he also added to Mercury General Group 4.31%. Now looking overall at the portfolio, I would say that there's a lot of high quality
companies. They trade at usually low valuations. He likes to buy companies that are cheap. They have good cash flows and high free cash flow yields. So you'll notice that throughout the portfolio, but I'd also say that it's very conservative. And I think that if you're investing in a portfolio like this, you're likely not going to have dramatic outperformance of the S&P 500. It'll more be in line with the S&P 500, maybe marginal outperformance, but relatively
low downside. So I believe overall the portfolio construction is very conservative. But I really do like looking at Christopher's letters, his write ups, his tweets, because I think he has a ton of knowledge to share with others. Now that wraps up Part 2 of the Super Investor update. I'm going to be doing an update on My Portfolio in similar fashion to these super investors. So if you want to see that, make sure you subscribe to this channel and the other channel,
my main channel under my name. If you haven't subscribed to that one, make sure you are because I believe that's where I'll be doing the update on My Portfolio. That's all for now. I hope you enjoyed and I'll see you in the next one.