+20.0
net board stance
what this means
86.71
-1.2% · close 2026-11-06
+8% / -11% /
1m / 3m / 12m
+10%
vs SPY since 2026-09-11
25%
of 52w range · -24.2% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where All-In Alpha stands — 1 live idea
| idea | call | play | conviction | contributes | moved yet? | scored in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 📈 Nike's $200B collapse is structural, not cyclical POD DISAGREES | ▲ LONG | adjacent ×0.5 | 40.0 | +20.0 | — | 308d |
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 8 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. From the
conviction ledger; an idea counts from birth until its window closes. Dots mark episodes
where this ticker's ideas were actually mentioned; a dashed stretch is silence.
Last mention E289 · silent for 7 episodes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × that idea's direction ON THIS TICKER × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down, unless this ticker is listed as the other side of it. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
What resolves next
scoring dates for the live ideas holding this ticker — each one turns into a scored result on that date, whether it flatters anyone or not
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding DECK, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
Chamath
oppose ×2
▼ on
📈 Nike's $200B collapse is structural, not cyclical
E289 · 2026-09-11
▶ 1:30:41
If they find mastery and excellence as their North Star again, I think they'll be fine because I think it's a coiled spring in terms of its potential.
Friedberg
support ×3
▼ on
📈 Nike's $200B collapse is structural, not cyclical
E289 · 2026-09-11
▶ 1:26:39
It wasn't that the ads went bad. It wasn't that the ordering was bad. The product started to suck. The shoes literally fell apart in like six weeks.
Jason
support ×1
▼ on
📈 Nike's $200B collapse is structural, not cyclical
E289 · 2026-09-11
▶ 1:23:36
why would they kill the retail channel, of all things, and piss off those folks who were their big advocates?
Sacks
support ×3
▼ on
📈 Nike's $200B collapse is structural, not cyclical
E289 · 2026-09-11
▶ 1:22:26
So they blow up all their retail operations, all their retail relationships. They had all these stores that had shelf space for Nike. And now that goes to competitors who then took a huge amount of market share.