Investing is about risk and reward. And I think the current state of the AI buildout has more risk built in than many investors want to think. Those risks came to light over the weekend. In essence, Dario’s argument is that AI development should be “paced” in three ways: Embedded evaluators to verify the safety of models. This is similar to how big banks are regulated today. AI labs coordinate to create safety frameworks and limit “unchecked AI progress”. Coordination globally. I have a lot of thoughts, and I don’t think there are 100% certain answers to the safety, risk, or future development of AI. But I do think the argument and the fact that all of the major lab CEOs seemed to agree bring forward some major risks for investors. And it seems to be pulling the rug out from under some of

$Microsoft(MSFT)$ was formed in 1975, and the PC revolution started only a few years later. But it would take 24 years before half of the homes in the U.S. had a PC. In 1994, the first online payment was made, but it was 12 years before $Shopify(SHOP)$ was founded. $Amazon.com(AMZN)$ launched in 1994, and even today, only about 17% of purchases are made online. $Apple(AAPL)$ iPhone launched in 2007 when nearly everyone already had a phone in their pocket, and it still took six years for half of Americans to adopt the smartphone. Consumer adoption of products often takes longer than we think or remember, which is both an

$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$ is coming at robotaxis with a simple thesis: Efficiency wins. Take the biggest part of the demand curve — one or two riders, short trips, dense metro areas — and drive the cost per ride as low as possible. Tesla’s Cybercab is clearly designed around that philosophy, with a small two-seat configuration and a focus on low operating costs. But there’s one problem. People don’t always choose the cheapest option. If cost were the only thing that mattered, everyone would take the bus. People pay for convenience. Comfort. Safety. Cleanliness. Predictability. Privacy. And sometimes, simply a better experience. That’s where $Uber(UBER)$ has an interesting advantage. Uber doesn’t need to provid

Over the past year, historic spending on the AI buildout has arguably kept the economy afloat. Yet, despite that historic spending, real GDP growth (growth on top of the rate of inflation) was just 0.5%, 2.1%, and 1.5%, respectively, in the past three quarters, well below what experts thought it would be coming into the year. That’s not a great rate of growth given the level of capital investment and there are plenty of signs consumers are being squeezed by high oil prices and interest rates. The problem is, I don’t think either can or will get any better anytime soon. More on that in a moment. Why Gasoline and Interest Rates Will Stay High One of the big misses a lot of prognosticators and CEOs made coming into 2026 was expecting interest rates to be lowered, boosting economic growth. For

A large percentage of the Asymmetric Portfolio is invested in companies that could have major tailwinds from autonomous driving. My thesis is that many companies will make autonomous vehicles, leading to the modularization of components and technology, and aggregators like $Uber(UBER)$ ( ▼ 0.26% ) and $Lyft, Inc.(LYFT)$ ( ▼ 3.24% ) being huge winners as supply is commoditized. The view of a more autonomous future is consistent with many investors, but how I envision that future is very different. The market still thinks that $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$ ( ▼ 5.92% ) — who first promised Teslas could soon drive across the country fully autonomously in January 2016 — will d

The argument around $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$ ’s FSD has become pretty simple. Cost vs. safety. Tesla’s approach has always leaned heavily toward making autonomy work with a simpler hardware stack. But real-world driving isn’t predictable. When something goes wrong, safety often comes down to redundancy — having another system available when the first one fails. That’s why the FSD debate isn’t really just about whether the system can drive. It’s about whether the system has enough backup when the real world throws something unexpected at it. Tesla says FSD is still supervised and does not make the vehicle fully autonomous. That distinction matters. The bigger question is whether a lower-cost approach can eventually deliver the level of redundancy peopl

Today, the Asymmetric Universe includes 25 stocks I’ve covered in spotlight articles, and the list will continue to grow over time. 🌱 Being part of the universe does not guarantee an investment. Some stocks may never receive capital, while others can be purchased multiple times as opportunities emerge. 💰 How I Allocate New Capital I invest $500 in new capital every month. 📌 If the $S&P 500(.SPX)$ or $NASDAQ 100(NDX)$ falls 20% from its all-time high, monthly capital increases to $1,000. 📌 At a 30% decline, I’ll add $1,500. 📌 The allocation continues to increase as the broader market falls further. The idea is simple: put more capital to work when the market becomes more distressed. 🔄 🎯 How I Pick Stoc

On September 9, 2026, $Apple(AAPL)$ is expected to announce the iPhone 18. For 19 years, the iPhone has been one of the most anticipated devices of the year, but this year, I can’t help but feel it’s going to be a dud. And not because the phone itself won’t be impressive. Consumers’ reactions may be driven more by prices. Maybe it’s because I’m in the market for BOTH a new Mac Studio and an iPhone that I’m feeling the pain of recent price increases. But as someone who doesn’t have any interest in running AI on-device, why should I pay 25% more for a device that does essentially the same thing as it did a year ago? Sure, the chip is faster, but that’s always the case. The reason prices are up is because of memory costs. There’s going to be a subset

One of the big topics on Wall Street over the past few weeks has been interest rates. I’m not talking about the Fed funds rate, which is the one mentioned after Fed meetings and where the Fed actually has some control. I’m talking about long-term rates. These rates are set by the market. The market will take hints from the Fed, but if the Fed, White House, or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent want to lower long-term rates, they have fewer options to influence the market. It’s possible to impact the market with something like “quantitative easing,” which is essentially printing money to buy bonds, but you'd better do it at a massive scale with $40 trillion in debt outstanding! That hasn’t happened, and the market is now demanding a higher return (yield) on 30-year U.S. treasury bonds than at

$Hims & Hers Health Inc.(HIMS)$ ( ▲ 6.03% ) has a lot of the characteristics of a winner in the pre-AI tech paradigm. The company can be an aggregator of demand and leverage scale on a global level to disrupt a multi-trillion-dollar market. But AI business models aren’t likely to replicate the business models that won over the last 20 years. The biggest problem I see is that AI companies continuously disrupt each other with no sustainable differentiation or feedback loop that keeps a company ahead for long. Anthropic takes a lead in coding in January, OpenAI takes it back in July, and Grok may be the winner by September. That’s made it difficult for me to see/invest in “AI winners.” What does it mean to win the next 6 months if you lose your e

4 Stocks Where Fundamentals Are Telling a Different Story 📊 1. $Uber(UBER)$ — Bookings Still Matter Most For Uber, gross bookings remain one of the most important metrics to watch. So far, there's little evidence that Waymo is disrupting Uber's core business. The key question isn't whether autonomous driving will change mobility — it will. The question is whether Uber's marketplace can continue growing before that disruption becomes meaningful. For now, the bookings data is still telling a relatively strong story. 🚗 2. $Zeta Global Holdings Corp.(ZETA)$ — Growth Isn't the Question Zeta is clearly out-growing many of its competitors. That's not really the debate anymore. The bigger question is: How much

It’s 13-F season, which means we’re getting position disclosures from hedge funds and asset managers as of the end of the second quarter. This isn’t something I usually follow, but this quarter I think it’s especially interesting. Not because there are some brilliant moves, but because everyone is making the same trade. They’re all going long the AI buildout in one form or another. Some are buying chip companies, others are buying chip equipment, and some are playing energy, but it’s all the same trade. And I find that fascinating because it’s a consensus trade that everyone thinks will work. More on that in a moment. Hedge Funds Making the Same Bet One of the things I always find interesting in the public discourse about stocks is how much everyone is just talking their book. And this qua

Asymmetric Investing isn’t about being right about every stock; it’s about being VERY right when I do find a winner. I’m swinging for 10-run homeruns (yes, I know those don’t exist), not for a high batting average. That philosophy can lead to high variability in returns. If I get a trend wrong or the market is focused elsewhere (ahem, AI in 2026), I can underperform for a long period of time, even if I’m beating the market long-term. But one winner can also make up for a lot of mistakes. In 2024, that was $Spotify Technology S.A.(SPOT)$ ( ▲ 2.93% ). In 2025, it was $Robinhood(HOOD)$ ( ▼ 3.83% ). This year, there haven’t been any big outperformers. Until now. $Zeta Gl

The market doesn't like seeing revenue growth slow, but I think the bigger question is what $On Holding AG(ONON)$ is giving up to protect profitability. Management appears willing to accept some moderation in growth rather than sacrifice margins just to keep the top line moving faster. That tradeoff could become increasingly important over the long term. If margins continue to expand, the earnings power of the business can keep improving even if revenue growth settles at a lower rate. At around 22x trailing earnings, the valuation also looks much more interesting if margin expansion continues to translate into stronger EPS growth. What looks expensive on today's numbers can look very different a few years from now if the company keeps improving it