+0.0
net board stance
what this means
335.86
-0.4% · close 2026-09-08
+2% / +40% / +48%
1m / 3m / 12m
+60%
vs SPY since 2025-03-01
91%
of 52w range · -5.8% off high
0/3
hit rate as primary · α -36
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 60 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
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 × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on SNOW
As a PRIMARY play the besties are 0 hit / 0 partial / 3 miss over 3 closed windows — credit 0.0, average α -36.3. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 📈 Quality software grows through the de-rating — Snowflake | ▲ LONG | primary | MISS | -42.1% | -30.4 | 2023-03-26 |
| 🤖 Own the top 30% of global tech and hold it five to ten years | ▲ LONG | adjacent | HIT | +97.3% | +14.2 | 2026-04-17 |
| 🤖 Consumption-based software pricing destroys the business — Snowflake is the case study | ▼ SHORT | primary | MISS | -8.7% | -34.5 | 2026-06-21 |
| 🤖 Data-infra platforms buy the AI tool chain — more M&A at premium multiples | ▲ LONG | primary | MISS | -19.3% | -43.9 | 2024-07-01 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding SNOW, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
I just wanted to comment on this consumption-based pricing. It doesn't work. And what I mean is you can have some adoption in the short term. The best example is Snowflake. But in the long term, it destroys your business.
as these companies become successful again, as tech re-emerges again from this multi-year malaise, are folks going to find their voice or not?
So unfortunately, that's going to hurt everything that's not the top seven tech companies. ... So it's really good for the magnificent seven. I think it's really bad for everything else.
the Europeans don't want to be left out in the action, so they're jumping in. So I think the M&A market is effectively dead.
Why not top 20? Why not top 100? I mean, are you willing to say that for the next 10 years that you should only buy the top 10? What if over the next 10 years it's more of the field versus the next 20?
over a 20-year investment period, if you basically just buy the top 10 public tech stocks and at the end of each year rebalance to the top 10 at the end of the year, your multiple over that period of time is 24X.
And they think over the next 10 years, it's gonna go from 10 trillion to 25 trillion, which is still a great return.
Peak M&A froth happens at the beginning of the cycle when hype is at maximum and facts are at the minimum.
I think for sure there's going to be more M&A. And I think the valuations will be high, not because these companies have a lot of revenue yet, but because it's very strategic for these big infra companies to assemble the end-to-end tool chain.
which means that there are more acquisitions still to come.
Find five companies that you think are going to grow and earn more money, irrespective of the direction of rates and inflation. Own those and enjoy your life.
You know, I tend to agree with Friedberg. I mean, you find these businesses that you like, and if they appeal to you and you do your work, that's the most important thing.
And there are many businesses that are public that operate like that, that regardless of any of these turtles popping their head out, those businesses will perform well over the next decade.
Last year, we distributed over $6 billion, which was more than all the venture we raised in our first five funds. Why? Not because I didn't like Unity or I didn't like Snowflake. ... Because there we haven't sold a share of Snowflake.
when you think in the public tech markets, what is a reliable, must-own company? Well, I would put Snowflake in the list of these must-own high-growth software businesses, right?
Snowflake this year will grow its free cash flow at over 100% a year. Next year, probably, you know, 80 or 90% free cash flow, not just revenue, free cash flow. ... That business, so let's say we reduce the multiple by 50%, but the company's growing top line and free cash flow by 100%. Doesn't take you very long to grow through the multiple compression.
the idea that markets bucket, quote unquote, growth stocks together, I think kind of obfuscates an important point, which is that some of the businesses in that category are real businesses that are going to succeed over the long run. And some of them are speculative and are likely to fail over the short run.
over the last 15 or 20 years, what was once a question is now definitive, which is that the things that are valuable tend to be technological, because they're super high margin, they grow really quickly, they compound, they create enormous cash flows at scale.
We had this happen in 2018 because in 2018 it looked like there was going to be inflation. ... Powell basically killed the market, he raised rates, and then it turned out he was completely wrong and China was okay and everything was fine, and then the market just completely violently snapped back. Again, this is what I'm saying, which is it's too early to tell whether this is just a short-term opportunity for people who have made a lot of money to de-risk.
Just buy productive assets, great businesses that have durability, and let them ride for 20 years. ... why trade the market when you can just buy great businesses, own stakes in them, and let it rest?
You have to remember, when Sequoia distributed Google, every single partner got Google shares. Now, had they held those shares, they wouldn't be saying any of this. ... he told me he had never sold a single share of Amazon that was distributed to him, and he had only sold a handful of shares of Google only to fund future capital requirements at Kleiner at the time. ... I think probably what Sequoia was saying is, man, I wish I had not sold my Google shares when they were distributed to me
when you saw these quarterly earnings, there is no better business in the world than Google. ... Single-handedly par excellence, the most incredible money making machine that's ever been created, and a close second, as it turns out, is Microsoft.
Literally, the most vertically integrated business in history with a moat that no one will ever be able to catch up on. ... If you look at YouTube in the quarter, YouTube generated, this is insanity, YouTube is now operating at a nearly $30 billion revenue run rate.
And then you have these companies that are just so superb. ... And I'm talking about Microsoft, Google, Apple and Facebook, that now trade in many cases at some pretty deep discounts to their intrinsic value.
we may have underestimated its power is what we're sort of realizing collectively here today is that we've always thought that this thing is hitting all time highs. This might be the beginning, right?