8 Comments
User's avatar
Peter Freriks's avatar

I think we should look at absolute quarter-on-quarter growth rather than percentage growth. The results might look astonishing:

- Google GCS 24,8 + 4,8 Q-Q

- Amazon AWS 42,2 + 4,6 Q-Q

- Microsoft intelligent cloud 39,3 + 4,6 Q-Q

Alle are increasing their revenue growth Q-Q with their cloud services with 100% or more. And the growth is almost evenly spread between the three hyerscalers. Too early to tell who will actually do the best. Maybe not much of a competitive advantage between them, for now, as long as demand exceeds supple, but maybe we see a oligopoly with 3 companies, just like master card, visa and Amex. I think they are way ahead of any other company offering cloud, they will have superior learning curve and massive economies of scale and the runway is very long because those contracts have a minimum length of 5 years.

Wolf of Harcourt Street's avatar

Long big tech is a simple thesis

Teddy G's avatar

Thanks for the write up Wolf. My portfolio overlaps significantly with your's so alway interested to see your thoughts.

I hope your Take Two play works out for you. The gaming industry is going through a tough time at the moment but I think the power of GTA will override all that!

Curious to know if you ever looked at Nintendo as an investment?

Wolf of Harcourt Street's avatar

Appreciate the kind words Teddy.

With regard to TTWO, I hope so too. Gaming is suffering from two narratives I think: 1. The cost of memory for consoles and 2. AI enabling the vibe coding of games. One doesn’t impact TTWO and I think I’m clear on where I stand on 2 in relation to GTA VI. The TTWO thesis very much hinges on a single catalyst.

I’ve never really looked at Nintendo closely as I do think the consoles are more boom and bust although I appreciate it is transitioning to a more reoccurring revenue model.

DauBli-Invest's avatar

That’s a lot of good names.. :) Thank you sharing!

Wolf of Harcourt Street's avatar

Thanks for the feedback 👍

Suveer Arora's avatar

What’s your view on how to keep capital interested while one keeps focus on good quality companies which at times fall out of favour as money moves away from these into shiny new stuff say the AI darlings etc .. Terry Smith has been facing the brunt - would it be wise to add some speed boats to the portfolio at all times ( say 20 percent ) and these you can move in an out of at a faster rate etc

Wolf of Harcourt Street's avatar

I think it ultimately comes back to having an investing philosophy you genuinely believe in and can stick with through a full market cycle. Mine is centred on owning high-quality businesses, understanding what I own and being willing to look wrong for periods of time when the market moves in a different direction.

I wouldn't add a 20% "speed boat" allocation simply because AI or some other theme is outperforming. That risks abandoning the very process you're relying on to compound over the long term. I'm happy to have a tactical position when I see a specific opportunity (TTWO in my case), but it needs to fit within the broader philosophy rather than being there to chase performance.

There will always be a new shiny area of the market outperforming. The advantage comes from having a process you know works, understanding why it works, and having the conviction to stick with it when it inevitably goes through periods of underperformance.