Travis Hoium

2025 is in the books, and it was both outstanding and unsatisfying. If you had told me at the beginning of the year, the Asymmetric Portfolio would more than double the market's performance, I would have taken it. But after being up 53% early in October, the final results feel unsatisfying. The good news is, this is a long game. I'm happy to buy some of my favorite stocks 30-50% off their highs, and long-term, these compounding businesses will become compounding stocks. Thank you to everyone who subscribes, and if you want to see the portfolio's performance, the linked article is free to view. Bring on 2026! asymmetric-investing.beehiiv.com/p/asymmetric-p…

If you like this tweet, you will love my exclusive emails for my subscribers. Join here: asymmetric-investing.beehiiv.com/subscribe

$DUOL Q1 is out. Shares are down 10% but I like what I see so far! ✅ Daily Active Users UP 3.9 MILLION! ⁉️ Revenue growth was 3.2% sequentially 💰 P/FCF is still just 14x and FCF was up almost 50% Y/Y What did you think of the quarter?

@Couch_Investor Do you mean daily to monthly?

On the flip side, MAU to DAU ratio continues to increase for $DUOL

@Brian_Stoffel_ At this stage in their strategic shift and considering the valuation, I’m focusing on very high level. More users Crazy pace of content deployment IMO, that’s all that will matter long-term.

@TravisHoium Missing bookings guide doesn't have me too excited

IMO, portfolio diversification is more about psychology than math. If you own <5 stocks, it's easy to be emotionally attached to them, which clouds your judgment. If you own 20-30 stocks, it reduces emotional dependence and gives a wider view of the investing world.

When you see a person/group very bullish on a stock, it's easy to brush it off as a "meme" or "crazy". It's more profitable to ask yourself why they might be right. The best investments often start with the "crazies" and "true believers". $AAPL $AMZN $HOOD $HIMS $PLTR

@himshouse I like the color!

BREAKING: $HIMS LAUNCHES APP IN CANADA 🇨🇦

Number of Years to Double Your Money @ Different Growth Rates 1%: 69.7 Years 5%: 14.2 Years 10%: 7.3 Years 20%: 3.8 Years 30%: 2.6 Years 50%: 1.7 Years 100%: 1 Years

No matter how much work you do on a stock, there's a hard lesson we all learn, eventually: You might be wrong. Admitting that upfront and if frees you to make mistakes, which will happen anyway.

The best way to beat the market is to buy companies playing offense and sell companies playing defense. No big winner is ever playing from their back foot.

On the internet, the power goes to the company people CHOOSE to interact with every day. $NFLX in streaming $GOOG in search/mail $AAPL in hardware $UBER in ride-sharing $AMZN in retail $INTU for taxes Moats don't look like they did in the 80s and 90s.

Maximum Possible Loss on a Stock: -100% Maximum Potential Gain on a Stock: Infinite This is why Asymmetric Investing works.

There are already financing and operating partners like the deal with Hertz or Lyft’s deal with Marubeni. There will be at least a half dozen approved autonomy companies and they’ll all need to focus on tech and operations (teleoperators for emergencies for example) and Uber and Lyft will provide the demand. I think it’s clear how this plays out but the market seems obsessed with Tesla somehow getting into the game or something.

Let's talk about $UBER because it's been on my mind alot recently... I'm assuming others are also debating these questions in their spare time 😏 Last weekend I took a Waymo and it was a wonderful experience so it's fair to say I'm a big believer in robotaxis as the future of ridesharing. Right now it feels like Waymo is the leader in robotaxis but they only have ~3,000 cars (ie AVs) on the road doing ~500,000 rides per week. Tesla might be next but they have less than 150 cars (ie cybercabs) on the road doing less than 1,500 rides per week. $UBER currently has 1.5M human drivers (just in the US) but nothing in terms of robotaxis other than partnerships with Waymo and AVride (owned by $NBIS) however both options are very limited... Austin & Atlanta for Waymo... and Dallas for AVride. I do think it's possible that Waymo dumps $UBER in the future and just uses their own app in every market... however I could be wrong and maybe it goes the other way because $UBER does have 200M global customers which is massive distribution for any AV ridesharing service that wants scale. fwiw, $UBER currently does 200-250M rides per week which is 400-500x more than Waymo... however Waymo just raised capital at $126B valuation while $UBER currently trades at $153B valuation. I know some people think Waymo will be the winner but kind of crazy it's already worth 80% of $UBER with just 3,000 cars on the road vs $UBER with 1.5M US drivers and another 4M+ drivers outside the US. Over the past ~12 months $UBER has announced 15+ partnerships with different brands and OEMs including Lucid, Rivian, Nissan, Pony, Zoox, Nuro, Oro, WeRide, Baidu, Wayve, Volkswagon, May Mobility, Momenta, Mercedes and probably a few more that I'm forgetting about. I don't think we need to debate that $UBER already has massive distribution but my question is around these 15+ partnerships. Sure it's lots of constant PR which might sound good but we have very limited details... which of these AV companies has technology that is good enough to compete and scale? Putting tens or hundreds of thousands of AVs on the road in the coming years will be extremely expensive and capital intensive. I'm sure Baidu and Mercedes could handle the upfront capex but I don't know about these other brands. So who is covering the capex? the brand? uber? or do they split it? With the capex in mind, what does the rev share look like for these partnerships? Will it be the same across the board or does every partnership have different economics? For instance, let's say Pony.ai can't afford the upfront capex themselves, do they split it with $UBER? or does $UBER cover 2/3 of the capex but then they own 80% of the rev share? Let's say Baidu and Mercedes can afford the capex themselves and they want to go that route... does that mean $UBER just handles distribution & logistics but only gets to keep 1/3 of the rev share? Obviously I'm just making up numbers and scenarios because we don't have much else to go on. Would you prefer $UBER stay asset light and just collect a 1/3 toll like they do now? or do you want $UBER to leverage up the balance sheet to become asset heavy in order to get a bigger rev share % ? and here comes the monkey wrench in all of this... what if $UBER enables anyone with an AV (similar to what $TSLA might do)... to put their car onto the $UBER network in order to generate some extra income while they're working, sleeping or just not using the car? This would allow $UBER to stay asset light and maybe collect a higher % of the rev share since the car owner might be very happy just collecting 40% of the revenues since it's extra income for them not including the accelerated depreciation. I'd love to know how others are thinking about this... especially $UBER shareholders... what do you think is the right business/economics model going forward? and do you want them in the capex business in order to get a bigger rev share? I am very curious to see how this all plays out in the coming years. NFA. DYOR. **We have a tiny $UBER position at @FirstWaveFund because I think the valuation is attractive when you consider 200M customers with the potential to be the robotaxi leader... but I still have lots of concerns about what their strategy looks like going forward and what % of the ridesharing market they lose to Waymo and Tesla and if the TAM can grow big enough for all three companies to be winners? Best case for $UBER is the TAM keeps growing and even as they lose market share the economics for robotaxis are meaningfullly better than a human focused ridesharing network.

"My biggest wins have been unexpected. This is intentional, but not predictable." - me, Jan 13, 2024

Check out my investment portfolio on @SavvyTrader savvytrader.com/TravisHoium/as…

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." - Keynes

In other words, Rivian has very little demand for R1 vehicles. But I’m sure R2 demand will be 100x higher…. 🤪

@gorsk4023 @PDWolves No Slomo

@PDWolves 48 minutes from Rudy, Jaden, Clark and Slomo. Try to win 80-78

Trying to think of a way we could win without Ant, Donte, AND Ayo. Haven’t come up with it yet, but still a lot of time before the game starts.

@RivianUpdates The “North Star” is just full utilization of the plant? They need to sell 10,000 a week when Georgia is up and running. I hope they think demand is higher than that.

Rivian CFO says Rivian's "north star target" is 4,000 vehicles delivered per week once production is fully ramped and all shifts are running. That represents Rivian’s long term production goal across Rivian R1T, Rivian R1S, RCV/EDV and Rivian R2.