Matk

$HIMS is very early. Purchasing more today. If we go 20ish range, I reload the boat.

As someone who has personally spent $500k / mo+ on Google Ads for years, I can tell you with certainty: This revenue growth in Search is artificial & extremely unhealthy for Google’s business long term Search volumes are declining as legacy search is being increasingly cannibalized by non-monetized LLM queries Google’s response? Manufacture revenue growth via short-sighted, highly extractive, customer-hostile tactics. I.e. charge advertisers more for lower quality clicks, including clicks they do not want and explicitly did not approve Google to charge them for A few examples to illustrate: For all of its history until recently, Google operated on a 2nd price auction model I.e. if you bid $5 CPC and the next highest bidder bids $1 CPC, Google charged you $1.01 for the click (one penny more than the 2nd highest bidder) rather than the $5 you bid This was a genius move by Google early on as it incentivizes advertisers to input their true maximum willingness to pay rather than trying to play the game of bidding low and constantly adjusting to try to stay just ahead of the next highest bidder while still not paying too much However recently, Google silently deprecated the 2nd price auction and began charging advertisers as much as their bid and budget caps allow, regardless of what anyone else is bidding It’s a short-sighted cash grab at the expense of the long term health of the advertiser ecosystem Making thing worse, Google also recently nerfed keyword targeting precision Google previously had precise keyword targeting settings that allowed advertisers pick individual search phrases to bid on, defined down to the character w/ exact match or phrase match targeting This was one of the core features that made search advertising magic, enabling advertisers to run extremely precise campaigns based on exactly what their target customer typed But now, even if you bid on a specific term or phrase using the strictest exact -match targeting settings, Google will show your ad across 1000’s of unrelated keywords, labeling them as as “exact match (close variant)” The definition of “close variant” means whatever they want it to and changes constantly. The result is advertisers get billed for clicks that are totally irrelevant to their business and that their targeting settings explicitly forbid Google from targeting. Google does it anyway and there’s no ability to turn this off So now exact match is broad match, and broad match is just meaningless spam This is all very bad for advertisers, but for Google, it allows them to show your ad and bill you for clicks across 1000x more searches that were previously going unmonetized (mainly because they’re garbage queries no one wants) This is how you grow revenue atop declining search volumes Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, Google quietly stopped respecting budget caps by a factor of 2x. For example campaigns we’ve been running for years with $1000 daily budget caps suddenly began spending $2000+ per day And the extra spend is entirely on the garbage keywords Google arbitrarily throws in as “exact match (close variants)” which have no value to our business, but can’t be turned off Google offers no refunds nor any recourse for overspend or spend on keywords you explicitly did not target These are not the actions of a healthy business. These are the actions of company whose core business is in decline but desperately needs to pump quarterly earnings so Wall Street will continue to fund insane capex while hopefully looking through their rapidly deteriorating negative free cash flow Google operated a benevolent monopoly for the better part of 25 yrs Meaning the value Google captured from Search was but a small fraction of the value it created, and that spread produced a potential energy that justified expectations of high earnings growth far, far into the future This is now no longer the case At the alter of AI capex, Google is sacrificing the golden goose

I just posted a video about solana:LLYuwZ33keFihgwoxXsBawy31AiRFLFSva32TYq5TvD Retatrutide compared to $NVO UBT-251. As the market continues to treat $NVO as if $LLY has already won the entire obesity market, there is one very interresting asset in @novonordisk pipeline that often gets overlooked! Especially when speaking about Retatrutide! Perhaps the biggest winner in all of this is $HIMS as the increasingly become the distribution optimization layer for big pharma, but in this video I focus on Retatrutide vs UBT, and some of the finings might surprise even the biggest of $LLY bulls! Watch the full video here: Can Novo Nordisk Compete With Retatrutide? https://youtu.b Can Novo Nordisk Compete With Retatrutide? youtu.be/Ha0-cEZrlzM Not financial advise - i own Novo Nordisk

I started investing in $NBIS in January 2025. Since then, dozens of smaller "neoclouds" have emerged. Almost every week, someone would ask me why I wasn't investing in one of these smaller players instead. The argument was almost always the same: Nebius was no longer as cheap as when I built my position, while these smaller companies supposedly offered significantly more upside. My answer was always consistent. I wouldn't bet against them. Demand for AI compute was exploding, capital was flowing into the sector, and investor sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. In that environment, even companies with questionable business models could perform exceptionally well. But I also consistently warned that this was an industry with unproven long-term unit economics and significant risks that, in my view, weren't always being adequately reflected in valuations. Buying GPUs is relatively easy when capital is abundant. Building a sustainable, differentiated AI cloud business is something entirely different. It's about having the right team, securing reliable access to power, developing infrastructure at scale, optimizing the total cost of ownership, maintaining access to affordable capital, building the right customer relationships, and ultimately generating attractive returns on invested capital over multiple hardware cycles. Not all "neoclouds" are created equal. Some are essentially intermediaries, relying heavily on third-party infrastructure, external financing, and a favorable pricing environment. Others are building vertically integrated platforms, with greater control over their infrastructure, hardware deployments, networking, software, and overall cost structure. Having a best-in-class engineering team, proprietary technology, established ecosystem relationships, and the ability to execute complex infrastructure projects at scale can create competitive advantages that are much harder to replicate than simply acquiring GPUs and plugging them into a power source. Of course, vertical integration comes with its own challenges, particularly the capital requirements and execution risks involved. But when executed well, I believe it can provide a meaningful edge through greater operational control, efficiency, and better long-term margins. The cost of capital is another critical differentiator. In such a capital-intensive industry, even a few percentage points in financing costs can dramatically change the economics of a project. And we still don't know what those economics will look like once the current supply-demand imbalance eventually normalizes. Being right about the future of AI compute demand doesn't automatically mean you'll be right about the long-term economics of every company trying to meet that demand. That's precisely why I chose to focus on the company I believed was best positioned to build a sustainable business over the long term: Nebius. Its engineering DNA, proven track record of execution, vertically integrated approach, capital allocation strategy, and focus on building a full-stack AI cloud platform were among the key differentiating factors behind my original thesis. I'm not going to go into detail about everything that differentiates Nebius from its competitors here, as I've been discussing those factors extensively since I first invested. The point of this post is simply to explain why I've always been so selective about where I invest within this sector. I never argued that every other "neocloud" would fail, or that their stocks couldn't outperform $NBIS in the short term. In fact, I consistently said the opposite. My point was that not all these companies would emerge as long-term winners, and I preferred owning the business I had the highest conviction in rather than chasing whichever smaller player appeared cheapest or had the most upside on paper. Now, with growing concerns about the sustainability of the neocloud business model and the availability of financing, the market is beginning to pay more attention to some of those risks. And frankly, I think that's healthy. It was never particularly healthy to see companies pivoting from completely unrelated industries into AI infrastructure, without experienced teams, and still managing to raise capital simply to acquire a few GPUs. If the sector begins to consolidate, I actually believe that could strengthen the position of the best-capitalized and most operationally capable players. Weaker competitors scaling back could mean less new capacity coming online, a longer-lasting supply-demand imbalance, and potentially better pricing and margins for those able to continue expanding. Over the long term, I believe the companies with genuine competitive advantages will be in a much stronger position. And to be clear, Nebius isn't immune to any of these risks. This is something I've emphasized in every single article I've written about the company: $NBIS, and this sector as a whole, isn't suitable for every investor. We're talking about an industry with significant uncertainties, where execution will be critical and many questions about the long-term economics remain unanswered. But nothing about the recent debate changes my original investment thesis. I never invested in Nebius because I believed every "neocloud" would succeed. I invested because I believed Nebius had the right differentiating factors and long-term vision to become one of the few sustainable winners in this industry. And I still do.

$NU and $MELI stock is collapsing on the news of Brazilian election results. I just posted a video, where I share my thoughts about the whole debacle: youtu.be/bJEGWmVYFhY Long story short - through Lulas recent office, the two companies created immense value, grew their platforms, their regional importance while continuing to enhance living standards of latin american people. My best guess is, that through the next 4 years, they will continue doing the same. But, thinking about the next 4 years is wrong. You should be thinking about the next 20 years. For great content om $MELI: @CapexAndChill and @Brian_Stoffel_