A few days ago I published my portfolio with average entries:

• SpaceX (SPCX), $123 - up 20%

• Oscar Health (OSCR), $13.19 - up 150%

• Amazon (AMZN), $247.55 - flat

• Eli Lilly (LLY), $1,186 - up 5%

• Natera (NTRA), $210 - up 90%

• Palantir (PLTR), $133 - up 43% (sold)

• Recursion (RXRX), $3 - up 50% (sold)

These are the results of the way I actually invest: identify category-defining companies, size them properly, and stay with the winners while the thesis is intact. The returns speak for themselves when you stack them against almost any other research product on Substack or elsewhere.

I am not a 20 stock guy & you already know that. That is likely why most of you are here. I make large, high-conviction bets on businesses that can absorb significant capital and still compound meaningfully. The goal is to increase net worth as efficiently as possible. When a name has delivered what I underwrote, and a clearer opportunity is visible, I move.

That is exactly what is happening now.

I am exiting…

Read more

The thesis is simple: As societies get wealthier, metabolic disease becomes more common.

Or even simpler: abundance → obesity → Lilly

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are rising across the developed world and increasingly in emerging markets. Lilly already owns the dominant position in the most effective class of drugs addressing this.

Full details on position sizing & the monthly add are for paid subscribers.

Now is a good time to join.

Read more

Recursion $RXRX is up +50.67% from our entry.

The stock is extremely volatile right now and full of crazy market participants. Feels like a good moment to take profits and wait for a cleaner re-entry.

We bought at $3 & shouldn’t be disappointed with a return like this in such a short time. And here’s my next move:

Read more

I sold my entire Palantir position and put the money straight into SpaceX.

I originally bought Palantir at $133 and sold around $190, which works out to roughly a 43% gain. This was always meant to be a sentiment trade and I was open about that from the beginning. The trade worked well and I’m satisfied with the result.

At the same time I’ve been watching the latest developments at SpaceX very closely. The most recent Starship flight finally reached orbit for the first time and successfully deployed 26 next-generation Starlink satellites. That was the first real commercial payload on Starship and even though an engine issue forced them to cut the mission short, it still marked a clear step forward.

On top of that the compute side of the business is turning out to be much larger than most people expected. SpaceX is already leasing significant AI compute capacity and some analysts now believe this could become their biggest revenue stream as early as 2027. They already have large contracts in place with companies like Anthropic and Google.

Palantir is still a tremendous company and I have a lot of respect for what they have built. But SpaceX is operating on a completely different level of complexity and durability. They are solving hard physical world problems at scale across launch, satellite internet and now compute infrastructure, and the moat they are building looks extremely wide to me.

I believe SpaceX remains undervalued relative to where Palantir is already trading, so I decided to move the capital.

Btw...

I use Revolut as my main account for investing, saving, and traveling across Europe, the US, and beyond. It's the closest thing I've found to a true all-in-one account.

Join me and over 80 million users here:

Join Revolut with my link

Here is my updated portfolio allocation as of today:

Read more

Owning Amazon looks uncomfortable right now. It’s my second biggest position and the stock has been heavy after Meta launched Muse and Amazon blocked the agent from shopping on its site.

Muse is an AI agent that can browse, compare, and buy things for people. If these agents become the default way people shop, the fear is that Amazon loses control of the customer relationship and its ad business takes a big hit.

Here’s how I see it:

Read more

They call me one of the Oscar Health OG’s around here. I covered the stock early and initiated a position when almost nobody wanted to hear about it. My average cost is $13.19. As of today that position is up roughly +144%.

I watched the full Investor Day materials (September 16, 2026), and the business looks stronger than ever.

A few numbers that matter:

• They raised the 2026 earnings outlook by $100 million.

• Full-year 2026 guidance now at $18.7–19 billion in revenue and $600–800 million in earnings from operations.

• Membership has grown from about 1.6 million in mid-2024 to roughly 3 million by mid-2026.

• By 2029 they are targeting more than 20% revenue CAGR, 5–7% operating margins, and EPS above $4.

• They plan to expand into another 400–600 counties and push national ACA market share toward 18%.

• Lucie (the marketplace side) is being positioned as a long-term higher-margin engine with a multi-hundred-billion-dollar opportunity set.

The core message from management: the ACA is just the foundation. They want to turn the individual market into the main consumer health platform in the United States and own both the insurance side and the shopping layer.

I still see Oscar as a category-defining company in the making. The combination of a scaled insurance book, a growing marketplace, and AI-first technology is “special” in this industry, that mainly operates as if we’re in the 70’s. That is exactly why early conviction required both imagination AND good human judgment. Most people only wanted to look at the losses and the “here and now”. The ones who stayed laser focused on the trajectory are the ones sitting on the beautiful gains today.

From current levels I believe the stock still has a realistic path to double over the coming years if they keep executing on the plan they just laid out. I remain a long-term owner.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Happy Saturday ;)

FJ

Subscribe

Current positions & avg. entry

⬇️⬇️⬇️

Read more

Nubank delivered another clean quarter and finally entered the US market:

• 139 million customers

• Revenue $5.9 billion, up 39% year over year

• Net income $1.1 billion (first time over a billion)

• ROE 33%

• ARPAC $17

• Efficiency ratio still around 20%

Brazil is still the core with 118 million customers. Mexico is strong with 16 million, Colombia at 5 million. The “machine” in Latin America continues to work nicely.

The bigger story this month is the US launch. On September 10 they started offering products through a partner bank (Lead Bank) while waiting for their own national bank charter. High-yield savings at 3.5% APY, no-fee credit card, remittances, and a new multi-currency product called Nu Global that uses stablecoins. Management is clear that the first target group is the Hispanic/ LaTam community in the US.

On paper the numbers look bullish and the US entry is a great expansion move.

Subscribe

Full thesis and trade action below for paid members only.

I updated my previous research (Early 2025, one of the first companies I covered here) and looked at the competitive position again with fresh eyes.

Read more

I never wrote a SpaceX deep dive because the company is already picked apart every week.

Facts first, then what I think they mean for us as $SPCX owners.

On 10 September, at Goldman’s Communacopia conference, SpaceX CFO Bret Johnsen said the company closed another AI hosting deal earlier this month. This translates into about $1.11 billion a month starting 1 December 2026, or roughly $13 billion of ARR, and that gives them even more conviction on the $100 billion ARR target by year-end.

Two things get mixed up in the coverage. ARR here is an exit run-rate, meaning December annualized. It is not a claim that SpaceX will report $100 billion of 2026 revenue.

Johnsen also said almost all of these hosting deals are 90 days plus a 90-day out, so call it a six-month commit. That is not a ten-year Microsoft Azure contract. SpaceX wants the option to pull capacity back for its own models. That flexibility is a feature for them and a risk for anyone treating $13 billion as locked forever.

The compute relationships already in the public record are Anthropic at about $1.25 billion a month through May 2029, Google at about $920 million a month from October 2026 through June 2029, the new unnamed December deal, and a separate ~$6.7 billion six-month cloud deal discussed on the August call. William Blair suspects that last one is DoD. SpaceX did not name it. Capacity target from the same session is a little over 2 GW terrestrial by end-2026 and 5 to 10 GW in 2027, still on Nvidia for the GPUs.

On 25 August SpaceX and “Louisiana” announced Starbase Louisiana in Vermilion Parish. About 125,000 acres, a stated $100 billion investment, the fourth and largest launch site, five complexes, ten pads, propellant, power and housing. Construction is aimed at 2027 and the first launch is targeted as soon as 2029.

The official job figure is 3,000 direct over ten years at about $93k average. Shotwell said the site is also there to put mass in orbit for orbital data centers.

(Btw I think we should all be happy when a company creates good-paying jobs and attractive opportunities. And these are mainly field roles, not laptop remote jobs.)

Share

But in all honesty, this is not relevant for 2026 ARR. It is basically a cadence insurance for Starship and for the orbital compute story. If you cannot launch often, you cannot build a data center in orbit, and Texas alone is not enough pads for a launch every few hours.

Louisiana’s incentive package is large. Reports put the tax package in the mid-twenties of billions, mostly a long property-tax holiday, with annual payments back to the parish instead. Watch permitting and watch whether construction actually starts in 2027.

On the SpaceX-Tesla-merger I am going to say this as my view:

I think an all-stock Tesla combination gets announced in the first half of 2027. The operational overlap is already there: Terafab with Tesla, Tesla’s disclosed SpaceX stake and framework agreement, Cybertruck spend, shared talent, Grok inside the house, and cars and robots that need cheap launch and cheap compute. Shotwell already said on IPO day that putting the companies together might make Elon’s life a little easier and that the synergies are visible.

Wall Street is split. Dan Ives has been bullish on a 2027 merge. Prediction markets have been pricing a 2027 announcement as a coin flip. Oppenheimer has argued they may be more useful apart.

If it happens, you get launch, constellation, terrestrial and orbital compute, vehicles, robots and an in-house model under one roof. That combination does not exist at one other public company. What it is worth is not a spreadsheet exercise I trust, and I will not pretend it is.

From about $2 trillion today, $10 trillion in 2030 is about a 5x. I can say the sentence but I cannot model it cleanly. It only works if the $100 billion exit run-rate becomes a much larger earned revenue base, launch cadence actually shows up in Louisiana, and the multiple does not collapse when growth slows.

On physical AI and growth:

McKinsey’s midpoint is about $2.9 trillion of US economic value by 2030 if agents and robots get into workflows rather than slide decks. They also put the global data-center build in the $7 trillion range for 2025 to 2030. Goldman’s real-economy note is that the next phase is factories, robots, power and logistics, not another chatbot. Anthropic’s own scenario work has a wide band: a modest GDP lift by 2030 on one end, and something much larger only if adoption is extreme.

Ok back to SpaceX

This is a category-defining company.

Launch is already a quasi-monopoly in the West. Starlink is the civilian and government connectivity layer that other satellite stories have to compete with. The compute business is new and the contracts are short, but the customer list is not a science-fair.

Vermilion is the attempt to make Starship a factory, and Governments already treat this “stack” as infrastructure. You do not recreate the pads, the constellation, the talent and the relationship with Washington easily, aka we have a big fat moat.

SpaceX is a lifelong hold for me the way Coca-Cola is for Warren Buffett.

I like the mission, and I think this company has to exist and adds value to humanity.

Thanks for reading

FJ

—

FJ Research covers the few category-defining companies that can dominate their industry and still multiply in the decade ahead.

This is for folks who want a concentrated book and the thinking behind it. What is in, what came out, and why.

If that is how you invest, subscribe.

Subscribe

Sources

• Bret Johnsen, Goldman Sachs Communacopia & Technology Conference, 10 September 2026 (Yahoo Finance / Pras Subramanian, Seeking Alpha, Benzinga)

• SpaceX Q2 2026 results, Form 8-K / Exhibit 99.1, 4 August 2026

• Louisiana Economic Development, NYT and NOLA.com on Starbase Louisiana, 25 August 2026

• Gwynne Shotwell, CNBC IPO-day interview on Tesla synergies, June 2026

• McKinsey MGI, agents and robots / AI economy notes, 2025–2026

• Goldman Sachs Investment Banking, Harnessing AI for the Real Economy, June 2026

• Anthropic, Scenarios for our Economic Future

Positions & avg. entry:

Read more

I have been turning this Tesla story over for a while and I keep landing in the same place. The interesting part is whether this company becomes the firm that builds machines which actually move through the world and learn from that movement.

A lot of AI right now is on a screen. Tesla is trying to put it in traffic, in a factory, and eventually in a house. That sounds simple when you say it out loud. It is not simple to do. You need cars that already drive, cameras that already record, plants that already stamp metal, and chips that do not melt when you take them out of a data center. Very few companies have all of that under one roof. That is the “category-defining-Tesla-case” as I see it.

Robotaxis are the first place this becomes visible to a normal person. Waymo is the service you can book today in a serious way. A few thousand vehicles, more than a dozen cities, hundreds of thousands of paid rides every week. Tesla is behind that commercial scoreboard and I will not talk around it. In Texas the registered autonomous fleet is in the low hundreds, including the first Cybercabs, and the fully driver-out cars that the public can actually use are still a smaller group. So Waymo is winning the present.

Tesla’s argument is the next step. They can manufacture more vehicles in a day than Waymo has in the whole fleet, and they already have billions of miles of customer driving video against Waymo’s low hundreds of millions. That only turns into a business if the software is good enough to leave the driver at home and if cities keep saying yes. If those two things happen, the factory starts to matter in a way no lab can copy. If they do not, you just have a well marketed pilot.

What Tesla is worth from here, how I order robotaxi against Optimus and Terafab, and where I think the cash actually shows up first is for paying readers.

Join FJR now

Read more

A few of you asked what I am doing with Tesla’s Cybercab week. Short answer first, then the book.

I am not buying a robotaxi and I am not building a little fleet around it. The product is still a waitlist and private cars still cannot earn on that network. What I can own today are publicly traded stocks!

Here we go:

These are the FJ Research bets, ordered by portfolio weight.

We are winning and outperforming the index with a concentrated book. A few names, sized so they actually matter, held long enough for the business to do the work. As all of you know, I am not running 20 ideas so I can look busy & I am not religious about the list. Palantir was a sentiment gift and I took it. SpaceX I wanted to own before the story was “comfortable”, knowing it could go lower and that I would add if it did. That is invest, then investigate (Druckenmiller). You take the position when the chance is there. You do the deeper work while you own it. When the facts change, I change. I sold names I had already written about because the risk-reward was no longer the same.

I get asked about Oscar and Amazon more than the rest, so here is how I think about the risk-reward:

Full details on position sizing, the monthly add, and what I’m buying next are for paid subscribers.

Now is a good time to join.

Read more

Two things AI can’t replace:

1.  Taste

2.  Real life human experiences

Concerts, festivals, events, standing in a crowd with other people who came for the same reason. The kind of thing you can’t and don’t want to fully digitize or outsource to a screen.

I think demand for this is going to grow more than most people currently price in. You can already feel it when you’re at shows. People soak it up differently now. There’s a hunger for the real thing that got louder after years of screens and remote everything.

LiveNation ($LYV) is the default business for this. They’re the largest concert promoter in the world, they own Ticketmaster & they sit across venues, promotion + ticketing. In Q2 they did $7.7 billion in revenue, up 9%. Fan attendance is still growing & their machine is running.

Main competitor is AEG. They’re good, but they’re not at the same scale.

The obvious risk is the monopoly story. LiveNation has been under constant pressure for years over Ticketmaster and how tightly they control the stack. There was a DOJ case, a settlement & then a jury still found them liable on the monopoly side in the state cases.

The “live” thesis stands outside the usual AI and software narratives. It’s also one of the few areas where field research is actually fun: you just go to events and talk to people.

I’m not a big fan of being contrarian just for the sake of it. Most of the time the “crowded trade” makes more sense and more $$$ if you buy it right. But here the more contrarian angle looks cleaner. The world is getting more digital & the appetite for the real thing is not going away.

Thanks for reading and for being part of the community.

FJ

Subscribe

btw this is our current portfolio performance as of today for those who are interested:

Read more

I do not claim to know the future. What follows is my current best estimate of the world in 2036, based on the structural forces I have been tracking. I will update it when the evidence changes.

The core picture

By 2036 the decisive divide will be between people who own productive capability and people who operate it.

AI will have restructured who can create value at scale. The companies and individuals that control the best models, data, compute & distribution will sit in a different economic class from everyone else.

I put roughly 70% probability on a world where a small number of category-defining companies and the people behind them capture a large share of the economic upside from AI, robotics & related infrastructure. The remaining 30% covers scenarios where regulation, open-source diffusion or unexpected political pushback slows that concentration more than expected.

Three structural forces

1.) Ownership of capability becomes the central economic question.

Human labor will still exist but its relative value will keep falling in many knowledge and routine service jobs. The people and firms that own the systems that replace or amplify labor will do disproportionately well.

2.) Power shifts from the edges first.

New advantages tend to appear in markets, geographies & technical domains that existing institutions undervalue. By the time the “center” notices and tries to regulate or copy, the lead is often already substantial.

3.) Democratic legitimacy lags technological speed.

The decisions that shape the next decade of AI development are being made largely inside private labs and a handful of companies. Governments will react, sometimes effectively, often slowly. The gap between what technology can do and what political systems can govern will remain one of the defining tensions of the 2030s.

Ok… and what does this mean in real life?

For investing, the implication is straightforward. The highest expected returns will sit with the few companies that become the clear category owners in the key layers: foundation models/ infrastructure, enterprise adoption layers, physical AI/ robotics & the supporting energy/ compute stack.

For living, the implication is ownership and optionality. Relying solely on wages from work that can be automated is a weaker position than it was ten years ago. Building or owning something that benefits from the shift is stronger.

I’m not calling for utopia and I’m not calling for collapse either. I’m just laying out the range of outcomes that currently looks most likely given the incentives and where the technology is actually going. The future isn’t “locked in” but the forces already moving look stronger than most of the political and cultural pushback I see right now.

This is the map I’m working with right now & I’ll update it when reality forces the update.

Thanks for reading!

FJ

Subscribe

And here’s how I personally position myself for the decade ahead:

Read more

The optimist thinks everything is already so good that nothing needs to be done.
The pessimist thinks everything is so broken that nothing is worth doing.

Both are useless.

The only useful position is the critical optimist. You see the risks clearly. You don’t pretend the problems don’t exist. But you still put your capital and your attention behind the people and the organizations that are actually building something larger than themselves.

I have zero interest in the permanent short. The one who spends a life explaining why everything will fail and why the future is dark.

What we do here is simpler. We try to identify the small number of organizations that are category-defining. The ones that marry innovation, manufacturing and distribution. Then we own them for a long time.

The decade ahead will be shaped by a handful of these organizations and not by the people who write endless essays about why it can’t work.

We are long the builders and we are long the ones who still believe the future can be better than the present and are willing to do the hard work to make it so.

I call it The Big Long

Subscribe

Read more

The old rules are losing their power. The next decade will not look like the last one & most of the frameworks we grew up with will not be enough.

I grew up as a classic value investor. Ben Graham, Buffett, Munger, Klarman, Greenblatt and Later I moved closer to Peter Lynch and Stanley Druckenmiller. I studied what the best private equity people did. I l…

Read more

Again, I’ll get directly to the point.

Q2 update from an owner’s seat:

Read more

I’ll keep this update short and brief to save your time reading and my time writing. I’ll get directly to the point:

Read more

I’ve been going deep on the AI + biology space for months. After comparing different approaches, teams, data moats, and clinical progress, Recursion, ticker symbol $RXRX stands out as the one I’m most excited to build a significant position in. This is a platform and operating system bet with the potential to become a category-defining company for the next decade and beyond.

From Data Factory to Better Drugs: Inside Recursion's AI-Native Product Engine

Here is my detailed thinking.

The Core Thesis: An Industrial Operating System for Biology

Read more

This AI + biology space is still in the very early innings. Development is moving extremely fast, and I’m fully prepared for some of my bets in this frontier to go to zero. These are VC-like high-conviction bets on the best teams building at the edge of what’s possible — totally different from the more durable setups like Oscar Health or Amazon.

I’ve been thinking a lot about where the real alpha will come from over the next 10–20 years.

The one that creates entirely new capabilities no one thought possible.

We’ve already covered Natera and Caris in depth. Both are excellent in their domains. But after deeper research, my highest-conviction personal pick in the AI + biology intersection is Recursion Pharmaceuticals ($RXRX).

I’ll be transparent: this is the position I’m most excited to build over time. Recursion is building an industrial-scale operating system to decode biology with AI, automated labs, and massive proprietary data. The Exscientia merger strengthened the chemistry side. Recent clinical progress (positive Phase 2 POC in FAP), strong partnerships, and a massive addressable market make this one of the most asymmetric bets in public markets right now.

Portfolio Moves This Period

To keep things clean, simple and high-conviction, I made a few adjustments:

Full details on exact position sizing, average costs, updated portfolio allocation, and my complete reasoning for every move are available to paid subscribers only.

If you’ve been on the fence, now is the time to join.

Read more

These are my current holdings and earlier this year we also closed two positions at a profit before rotating capital into the current portfolio.

Closed positions

Apollo Global (APO), +16.86%

Green Brick Partners (GRBK), +10.49%

Current holdings as of July 2026

Oscar Health (OSCR), avg. entry $13.19, current ~$31.90, +142%

Natera (NTRA), avg. entry $210.00, cu…

Read more

A company that burned through $245 million in a single year just flipped to positive free cash flow. Revenue grew 79% in the most recent quarter. The stock is down 57% from its all-time high. It just launched three new products powered by the same database that took eighteen years to build. And the most sophisticated institutional investors in precision oncology are accumulating.

This is the kind of setup that has made fortunes in healthcare.

The company sits at the intersection of molecular biology, artificial intelligence, and early cancer detection — three of the most consequential forces in medicine over the next two decades. It owns a database that cannot be replicated. Its pricing power is rising every quarter. Its cash flow has inflected. And the market has not yet decided what to do with it.

The window to enter before consensus forms is open. It will not stay open long.

Join FJR now to read the full analysis — including the company name, the ticker, the full business breakdown, the competitive landscape, the risk assessment, and where I stand on valuation.

$49 a year. Yes a year!

Read more