Hello, friends of joyful investing,

I’d like to share another milestone with you—one that came sooner than expected:

The portfolio has surpassed the 400k mark.

First off: This is just a snapshot. Markets aren’t a one-way street, and things can easily swing back in the other direction. Still, I’m happy about it and am consciously savoring the moment.

My strategy: Quality Growth with a strong moat

I continue to follow a quality growth approach. I look for companies with

• a strong, hard-to-attack moat (network effects, switching costs, technology leadership, market standards),

• high and stable margins that demonstrate the business model’s pricing power,

• high return on equity and the ability to profitably reinvest earnings,

• tailwinds from global megatrends such as AI, the cloud, cybersecurity, the digitization of payments, and healthcare.

My goal is actually quite simple: to invest in outstanding companies and then watch them grow as compounders over the years. Trade less, hold more.

Deliberately Concentrated

The concentration in the portfolio is intentionally high. I am convinced that companies like $NVDA (-2,34%), $GOOGL (-0,22%) , $MSFT (+0,19%) , $META (-1,01%) , $AMZN (-0,25%) , $AVGO (-1,2%) , $CRWD (-2,63%) , $ANET (-5,25%) and $ASML (-0,26%) will continue to benefit significantly from these megatrends in the future. This is complemented by high-quality companies with near-monopoly positions such as $V (+1,58%) , $MA (+1,5%) , $SPGI (+3,46%) , $MCO (+3,35%) and $CTAS (+1,55%) , which consistently deliver high margins.

Conclusion

Patience and conviction pay off when you invest in the right companies.

I’m sticking to my strategy and seeing how things play out.

What do you think: focus on quality, or is a broad diversification better? I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

$AVGO (-1,2%)

Hock Tan, CEO of Broadcom, said Monday in Singapore: “A lot of investors have no clue what they’re investing in.” They set “very extreme expectations, only to find out that it’s almost like they’re in a casino.”

He does not see chips, memory, or power as the industry’s real bottleneck: “What I think might be the biggest constraint is capital.”

Broadcom forecasts for the fiscal year 2028 AI semiconductor revenue of $230 billion, up from $58 billion this year—a fourfold increase (+396.5%), for which, in his words, the supply is secured.

The capital shortage is now affecting Broadcom as well, and the company is resolving it on its own: Anthropic’s IPO prospectus indicates that it up to $42 billion with Broadcom as a convertible bond from Broadcom. Thus, Broadcom is effectively financing its own chips.

All in all, , this “casino” statement is not a warning about AI expansion, but rather a description of its biggest bottleneck—and that bottleneck lies not in the technology, but in the balance sheet. The statement can also be seen as an argument to justify the—rightly criticized—recycling of funds for AI expansion.

Sources:

https://investors.broadcom.com/news-releases/news-release-details/broadcom-inc-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2026-financial

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/broadcom-ceo-likens-many-ai-investors-to-casino-gamblers

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/01/broadcom-lending-anthropic-42-billion-chips-reuters.html

$NVDA (-2,34%)$AMD (-2,13%)$INTC (-2,98%)

Dear Community,

I’d like to present my portfolio once again.

The core of my portfolio is the $VWRL (-0,25%) which I contribute to monthly.

I also hold a few dividend-paying stocks such as $ALV (+1,68%)
$MCD (+1,19%)
$BMY (+1,66%) and $TTE (-1,28%) these stocks are my “dividend stocks”—to be honest, I don’t expect much in the way of returns from them, but they might still surprise me. As for $BMY (+1,66%) I’m not quite sure yet whether I should hold onto this stock or focus more on growth in the healthcare sector— $SYK (+4,34%) For example, looks interesting right now—it might even be my new employer in the future 😜.

Then I also have a bit of growth with dividends, though that’s not my main focus $TSM (-2,59%)
$AVGO (-1,2%)
$SU (-1,67%) and $8001 (+0,48%) Itochu is sort of a middle ground.

Last but not least, of course, $BTC (-0,24%) to cover crypto.

Once I’ve adjusted the positions under $MCD (+1,19%) the top holdings—with a target of about 5,000€ per stock for now and BTC at 3,000€—I plan to add new holdings in the form of $VST (+1,45%)
$XYL (+0,67%) and maybe again $RKLB (+0,66%) , though other holdings are of course possible until then.

Thanks for your support, opinions, suggestions for improvement, etc.

Best regards and have a great start to the weekend,

Florian

Slows down Dario Amodeis Is the call for a slower pace in AI now hampering the industry’s growth? The Anthropic CEO called for this over the weekend in his essay “We Must Pace the Frontier”—to deliberately slow the advancement of AI model capabilities— OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI CEO Elon Musk publicly agreed within hours.

Amodei’s core argument: Recursive self-improvement and security incidents such as the OpenAI Hugging Face incident showed that the models’ capabilities are growing faster than the ability to control them. His three-step plan begins with independent auditors working directly within the companies. By this, he means not
halt to training, but rather more time for safety work to proceed in parallel with progress.

Why many see this as a brake on growth

Within the community, the call is being interpreted as a warning sign regarding the AI industry’s high growth rates. A slower pace in the release of new models could dampen demand for fresh computing power and thus weigh on the valuations of AI companies and Neoclouds. Coinciding with the announcement, market prices for Anthropic and OpenAI shares fell.

Why this misses the actual driver of growth

Amodei’s appeal targets the training of new models—and it is precisely this part of the AI value chain that is now the smaller and shrinking segment. According to Deloitte, by 2026, around two-thirds of global AI computing power will be directed toward inference (the ongoing operation of already trained models).

And it is precisely this demand for inference that is growing faster than ever before:

• $GOOGL (-0,22%)-Cloud order backlog: from $240 billion to $460 billion within one quarter
• Tokens processed by Google: 16 billion per minute, an increase of 60% compared to the previous quarter
• $MSFT (+0,19%): AI order backlog increased more than twelvefold
• GPU rental prices have grown from ~10 million/MW in early 2026 to as much as ~40–50 million/MW today

So the real bottleneck remains computing power itself, not the political will to slow things down. Microsoft and Google each have investment budgets of around $180–190 billion just to meet demand at all. Training pacing is unlikely to make much of a difference to this scarcity as long as current models are already so powerful for users that demand for their use continues to grow.

Overall , the appeal seems more like a shift in priorities—away from a pure race for capabilities and toward greater safety and control. In my opinion, it is wrong to believe that this will act as a brake on the entire AI value chain.

The largest and fastest-growing part of it—inference—remains virtually untouched by the debate.

This announcement could also come at a strategically opportune time: Training new frontier models costs a great deal of money (tens of billions per model). A deliberately slowed pace would alleviate precisely this cost burden and improve the profitability of Anthropic and OpenAI, just before both are set to make potential IPOs . This safety call—which, incidentally, protects their own balance sheets—comes at just the right time for the model providers.

What are your thoughts on this?

$IREN (+0,15%)$NBIS (+0,44%)$NVDA (-2,34%)$AMZN (-0,25%)$AMD (-2,13%)$WULF (+9,6%)$ORCL (+2,12%)$CSNDX (-0,7%)$AVGO (-1,2%)$SPCX (-2,4%)$PLTR (-0,35%)$META (-1,01%)$CRWV (+5,04%)$DELL (-6,89%)$BE (-0,7%)$MU (+1,5%)

Sources:

https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/2026-tmt-predictions.html

Alphabet $GOOGL (-0,22%) exceeded earnings estimates by 214 percent. The stock price then rose by 0.65 percent.

Coeur Mining $CDE (+1,94%) missed expectations by 54 percent during the same period. The stock rose 11 percent.

Since the end of May, I’ve had every quarterly earnings report from my stock universe automatically recorded, along with the stock price reaction the following day. A total of 122 reports were collected between May 27 and August 20. This isn’t a simulation; the data was collected as events unfolded.

The common assumption goes like this: A company beats estimates—that’s good news—so the stock price rises. None of these three steps holds true.

1️⃣ Almost all beat estimates

112 out of 122 were above expectations. That’s 91.8 percent. Ten missed.

The rate says nothing about the companies. It says something about the estimates. Analysts lower their forecasts in the weeks leading up to the earnings release because the companies prepare them accordingly. What’s left is a bar that practically everyone clears. Anyone who reads “exceeded expectations” has learned about as much as they would from the news that a train departed on time.

2️⃣ The stock price falls anyway

Of the 112 companies that beat estimates, the stock price fell in 65 cases—that’s 58 percent.

On average, the reaction after a “beat” was a decline of 0.03 percent, and after a “miss,” an increase of 0.53 percent. The median shows the same pattern: -0.47 versus -0.28. Both figures are close to zero, so I wouldn’t base a trading rule on them. With only ten misses, the second figure is insignificant anyway. But the trend is consistent in both calculations.

3️⃣ Even a big surprise doesn’t help

It might seem obvious that two percent above the estimate isn’t enough and that a real outlier is needed. The correlation between the magnitude of the surprise and the price reaction is minus 0.042. That’s just noise. Alphabet $GOOGL (-0,22%) 214 percent above estimates, stock price up 0.65. Warner Bros. Discovery $WBD 154 percent above estimates, stock up 1.44. Centene $CNC (+0,33%) 133 percent above estimate, price down 1.59. Intel $INTC (-2,98%) 95 percent above estimates, down 7.89.

There’s movement, but it’s coming from elsewhere

NetApp rose $NTAP (-3,93%) up 22.4 percent, Teradyne $TER (-5,02%) up 14.4 percent, and Seagate $STX (-4,72%) up 11.4 percent. On the downside, Reddit $RDDT (+6,79%) was down 21.0 percent, Ciena $CIEN (-1,18%) down 8.9 percent, Broadcom $AVGO (-1,2%) down 7.9 percent, and Apple $AAPL (-0,85%) down 7.4.

These are double-digit daily movements. Reddit $RDDT (+6,79%) beat estimates by 30 percent and lost a fifth of its value. Broadcom $AVGO (-1,2%) was 1.7 percent above estimates and lost nearly 8 percent. The number in the headline doesn’t explain any of these movements. It’s about the outlook, margins, and a statement in the earnings call.

What it isn’t

Three months constitute an earnings season, not a cycle. In a period of falling earnings, the 92 percent rate would likely look different. I measure only the day after the announcement, not the two weeks that follow. My universe consists of large-cap stocks from fourteen indices; with small-cap stocks, things can play out differently. I’ll keep collecting data; in a year, I’ll have four quarters.

For me, this means: Anyone who buys after a report because expectations were exceeded is reacting to information that everyone has and that almost always comes to pass. The reverse scenario is more interesting—when a stock price reacts strongly even though the numbers were unremarkable. That means there’s something else in the report.

❓ Do any of you deliberately trade around earnings reports? And does anyone have an explanation for why misses, on average, fare better than beats?

👇 Leave your thoughts in the comments!

➡️ I do analyses like this regularly; in between, I post the monthly Wikifolio update.

🗞️ Newsletter: codeandcapitalquant.beehiiv.com

📈 Wikifolio: https://www.wikifolio.com/de/de/w/wf0gquant6

Not investment advice; based on my own research. Past performance is not indicative of future results.