Weekly #72: The Year the KINS Thesis Graduated. Plus, the Friction That's Quietly Destroying Your Returns.
Portfolio +6.2% YTD, 2.9x the market since inception. Plus KINS delivered its most profitable year in company history. So why did I lower my price target?
Hello fellow Sharks,
The portfolio took a hit this week alongside the market. The war in Iran did most of the damage. If you want to skip straight to the numbers, jump to the Portfolio Update.
On a completely unrelated note, I made what I can only describe as a textbook avoidable mistake this week. I tried to change the email linked to my Substack account.
Simple enough, right? Wrong.
Instead of updating the email, Substack decided to create an entirely new account, migrate my newsletter and subscriptions over, and leave my +3,000 followers stranded on the old one.
Profile rebuild, support tickets, the works.
And those 3,000 followers are still sitting on the old account while I figure out what to do about it. Genuinely one of the more frustrating Saturdays of 2026. Consider this your public service announcement: do not change your email on Substack. Just don’t.
Anyway. This week, five companies in the portfolio reported earnings, three of which missed EPS consensus estimates. I go deep on KINS, which posted its most profitable year in history and then got sold off because its 2026 catastrophe guidance. I walk through exactly why, and what the numbers actually say when you strip out the weather assumption.
I also continue the Physics of Investing series with Part 2: Understanding Friction.
Enjoy the read, and have a great Sunday.
~George
Table of Contents:
In Case You Missed It
Last week, I published my Q4 2025 earnings review on STRL.
STRL beat on both revenue and EPS by a wide margin, delivered its fifth consecutive year of adjusted EPS growth above 35%, and ended the year with $3.01B of backlog up 78% y/y with total visibility stretching toward $4.5B when you include unsigned awards and future project phases.
The stock sold off anyway.
I walked through exactly why that happened, why none of it breaks the thesis, and why my updated DCF now points to a $600 price target, 44% above current levels.
Earnings Results: 3/5 EPS misses
This week, 3/5 companies missed EPS consensus estimates. Paid subscribers can read the detailed earnings analysis here.
KINS Q4 2025 Earnings: The Year the Thesis Graduated
The most profitable year in Kingstone’s history closed exactly as the thesis demanded. Now the conversation shifts from turnaround to what comes next.
The stock is +41% from the cost basis (originally bought at $10 but have added to the position since then).
KINS printed the most profitable year in its history. Full-year net income more than doubled to $40.8 million. Diluted EPS came in at $2.88, up 95% y/y, and well ahead of the $2.50 midpoint I used to anchor my target.
The Q4 standalone numbers are even harder to dismiss: a 64.2% combined ratio, $1.03 diluted EPS, and a 51.3% annualized ROE. These are not the metrics of a turnaround story. These are the metrics of a company that has completed its turnaround and is now executing from a position of strength.
The Quarter and the Full Year: By the Numbers
Q4 was KINS’ ninth consecutive profitable quarter and the strongest in the company’s history.
Direct premiums written grew 14%. Net premiums earned jumped 37.5%, driven by the continuation of the quota share reduction that has been flowing into earned revenues all year. The underlying loss ratio landed at 34.7%, down over 14 points from Q4 2024. The net expense ratio printed at 27.9%, a record quarterly low.
For the full year, the numbers are equally clean. DPW grew 14.8% to $277.8 million. NPE grew 45.6% to $187.1 million. The net combined ratio hit 75.0%, improving 5 points from 2024. Book value per diluted share increased 75%. Equity grew 84%. The company holds zero debt at the holding company and runs a $440 million catastrophe reinsurance tower with a $5 million first-event retention.
The full-year underlying combined ratio, which strips out catastrophes and prior year development, came in at 74.4%, a 5.1 point improvement from 2024. This is the number that matters most for evaluating the core business. Management introduced it as the primary operating lens going forward, and I think that framing is right. The reported 75% combined ratio looks almost too good, and it partly is, because 2025’s actual catastrophe loss ratio of just 1.2 points sat roughly 6 points below the six-year historical average of 7.1. But strip the weather luck out and the underlying business improved by 5 full points y/y.
The Select Engine: Still Running Hotter
The thesis was always about Select. When I wrote the original deep dive, entering around $10, I identified the Select product as the key to sustainably better loss performance.
Select policies, by design, target lower-risk properties with tighter underwriting standards: better credit profiles, newer roofs, higher deductibles. The result is fewer everyday claims, especially the non-weather water damage events that plague homeowners insurers.
At the time of the deep dive, Select sat at roughly 34% of policies in force. By end of 2024, it had climbed to 45%. By year-end 2025, it hit 57%. The cumulative claims frequency advantage of Select over the legacy book now stands at approximately 31%.
That gap, running across more than half the book, explains why the underlying loss ratio dropped from 48.2% in 2024 to 44.4% in 2025.
The Select penetration curve still has runway. As legacy policies renew and flip over to Select, the mix continues to improve. Management has already adapted the product architecture for California. The same firm that designed New York’s Select will build the California version.
The Quota Share Lever: One More Year of Tailwind
One of the cleaner mechanics of this story is the quota share cession schedule. In 2025, KINS reduced its quota share from 27% to 16%. That kept more premium on the net earned line, contributing roughly $0.25 to full-year EPS.
For 2026, the quota share drops again from 16% to 5%, adding another estimated $0.20 to EPS before any underlying business movement. The 30% quota share on California business is a deliberate offset to the CA risk as the company starts small there.
To be direct: the 46% growth in net premiums earned in 2025 was not all organic growth. A large portion reflects the quota share mechanics and the late-2024 new business surge earnings through. Both of those tailwinds continue into 2026, though they become smaller contributors as the base grows. The point is that the net premium growth story has a few more quarters of mechanical support before it reverts to a more moderate pace closer to the raw DPW growth rate.
The 2026 Guidance: Read It Right
The headline guidance looks like a step back. Diluted EPS guided at $2.20 to $2.90, midpoint $2.55, versus $2.88 in 2025. ROE guided at 24% to 30%, against 43% last year.
Management built in a catastrophe loss assumption of 7 to 10 points for 2026, which is at or above the six-year historical average of 7.1 points. This is cat normalization. Crucially, Q1 2026 has already been active: seven catastrophe events have been declared since January 23. That front-loaded the year’s cat budget meaningfully. If the rest of 2026 is quiet, the actual cat load may land near the lower end of the range. If it isn’t, the company’s $5 million first-event retention caps the damage on each storm.
Each 1 point of cat loss ratio costs approximately $0.13 per diluted share after tax. Take 2026 guidance at the midpoint ($2.55) and add back the cat normalization versus 2025 actual (roughly 6-8 points at $0.13 each), and illustrative EPS at 2025 cat levels would be approximately $3.53. That is the underlying earnings power of the business growing through a normalized cat environment.
The underlying combined ratio guidance of 74% to 76% is almost identical to the 2025 actual of 74.4%. The controllable business is flat to slightly better. The headline looks softer only because management correctly assumed a harder weather year. I respect that intellectual honesty.
The Q&A: What Matters
Three threads from the call deserve attention.
Thread #1. California.
This was the dominant Q&A topic, and justifiably so. The company commissioned an outside actuarial firm to evaluate all catastrophe-exposed markets for expansion. California ranked first: it is the largest homeowners’ E&S market in the country, growing faster than anywhere else, and it is structurally dislocated. The regulatory environment in California prevents admitted carriers from charging adequate prices for wildfire risk. E&S writers are exempt from that. KINS enters as an E&S carrier, giving it pricing flexibility and underwriting discretion that admitted carriers lack.
The plan: write statewide to manage wildfire concentration, focus on low-to-moderate risk properties, start with a maximum coverage A of somewhat below $5 million (raising it later as confidence builds), run under a 30% quota share initially, and limit California to less than 5% of 2026 premium.
This is a deliberate probe of a large, structurally mispriced market using the same product architecture that has worked in New York. The California E&S homeowners market is, by management’s account, the fastest-growing segment in US property insurance right now. Getting in early with sophisticated pricing models and disciplined underwriting is the smart move.
Thread #2. Expense ratio sustainability.
Management guided to 29% to 30% as the equilibrium range, with perhaps half a point to a full point of additional room as scale grows. The California build has been mostly expensed already in product development. Incremental staff additions will be modest. The platform is scalable in a way that the old Kingstone never was. I take the 29-30% range at face value.
Thread #3. New York competition.
This is the perpetual question. The CEO acknowledged that some competitors are signalling intent to re-enter New York. It has happened before, and KINS executed through it.
The Select product, deep producer relationships, a lean expense structure, and superior claims execution create a set of advantages that are not quickly replicated. A carrier walking back into New York tomorrow would need years to build the data, agent trust, and risk segmentation that Kingstone has assembled. The competitive moat is not invincible, but it is real and it takes time to erode.
Thesis Contrast: Where We Came From and Where We Sit
When I entered around $10 and published the deep dive at $18, I framed it as a “Hold” with 20-30% upside to approximately $23. The stock then did the opposite of what I expected: it fell to $14-15 by the time I updated after Q3, even as the company raised guidance twice and delivered record results.
That pricing gap between fundamentals and stock price has been the consistent frustration of this story. The business kept compounding. The stock did not follow in lockstep.
Now the Q4 full-year delivery makes the disconnect harder to justify. The company printed $2.88 in FY25 EPS, ahead of the $2.50 midpoint I used to set my Q3 target of $25. Book value per share is $8.28, up 75% in a year. The dividend is reinstated. The balance sheet carries no holding company debt. A new market adds a growth avenue that did not exist in any prior model. The five-year roadmap to $500 million in DPW by 2029 means roughly doubling the business from here at disciplined underwriting margins.
Despite all of that, I am lowering my price target from $25 to $21.
The reason is simple: I am bringing my catastrophe assumptions closer to management’s own guidance. The 2025 cat load of 1.2 points was a gift. Two consecutive mild years are not a plan. Pricing in a normalized cat year of 7 to 10 points, as management does, produces a 2026 EPS closer to the $2.55 midpoint, and at 8x to 9x earnings that yields a fair value around $20 to $23. I land at $21 as my base case.
The bull scenario still exists. If 2026 weather tracks close to 2025, EPS could approach $3.50, and at 9x that produces a stock range from $27 to $31. That upside is real, but weather is not an investment thesis. Betting on a third consecutive benign year in the Northeast, particularly after seven declared catastrophe events already in Q1 2026, is not a bet I want to make in my base case.
At $21, the risk-reward profile has narrowed. The business is excellent. The management team has earned credibility. But with the stock currently trading 24% below my target price, and with meaningful cat exposure already loading the year, KINS moves to the top of my watch list as a trim candidate if i need capital for a new position with a more compelling setup.
Thought Of The Week: The Physics of Investing (Part 2), Understanding Friction
As I mentioned two weeks ago, whenever I have time, I will be posting my physics series on investing.
So while everyone is busy posting about the Iran war, I will post part 2 of the series :)
Let me start with something that will sound counterintuitive.
Friction is not your enemy.
We spend so much time in life trying to eliminate friction, to make things faster, smoother, easier. And in some cases, that is absolutely the right move. But the real lesson, the one that applies to physics, to life, and deeply to investing, is that:
Friction is not something to eliminate. It is something to understand.
Because without friction, nothing works. Not a car, not a brain, not a portfolio.
What Physics Actually Says About Friction
In classical mechanics, friction is defined as the resistive force that acts between two surfaces in contact when one moves relative to the other. It is caused at the molecular level by tiny surface imperfections that grip and pull against each other.
There are two main types you need to know. Static friction is the force that keeps an object at rest from moving. Kinetic friction is the force that acts on an object already in motion, resisting its movement.
Now here is where it gets interesting.
If the friction is too high, nothing moves. Imagine trying to slide a refrigerator across a floor coated in rubber. The static friction coefficient is so high that no matter how hard you push, the thing does not budge. In physics, the object stays in a state of rest because the applied force never exceeds the maximum static friction force. In equations, that is written as F < μsN, where μs is the static friction coefficient and N is the normal force. Too much friction, and everything freezes.
But here is the part people always forget: without enough friction, things fall apart too.
A car moves forward because of friction. Specifically, the friction between the tire and the road surface. The engine rotates the wheel, the tire pushes backward against the road, and the road pushes back forward on the tire. That is Newton’s Third Law meeting friction. No friction, and the tire just spins in place. You have seen this on an icy road. The engine revs, the wheel spins, and the car goes nowhere. Try to steer on ice, and you discover that steering also requires friction between rubber and asphalt. Braking? That is entirely friction. Airbags deploy, your seatbelt holds, but it is the friction with the road that actually slows the car down.
So here is the physical truth: too much friction, and nothing starts. Too little friction, and nothing works properly.
The goal is never to eliminate friction. The goal is to manage it.
Friction Is Everywhere Around You
Once you start seeing friction this way, you realize it is literally everywhere. Not just in physics textbooks, but in every single transaction, interaction, and decision you make each day.
Think about cutting a cake.
You take a knife, you press down, and you cut it into slices. Simple enough. But if you were to take all those slices and try to put them back together, you would notice something: the rejoined cake weighs slightly less than the original. Where did that mass go? The knife removed tiny crumbs through friction. The blade’s contact with the cake created heat, compressed molecules, and carried away material. The whole is literally greater than the sum of its cut parts.
In thermodynamics, every real process involves some energy dissipation due to friction. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that no real system is perfectly efficient. Energy is always lost to heat. Friction is the agent of that loss.
And this extends far beyond the kitchen.
Think about the last time you used your credit card. That transaction feels frictionless, even elegant. Tap and go. But what actually happened behind the scenes is anything but frictionless. The merchant who accepted your card paid a processing fee (2% - 3% of the transaction). In 2024, credit card companies in the US earned a record $148.5 billion from processing fees charged to merchants. It was estimated that American families paid an average of close to $1,200 in swipe fees in 2024, either through higher retail prices or surcharges.
Here is the thing that most people miss: even when you pay cash, friction does not disappear. It just changes form. A merchant who accepts only cash has to count it, store it securely, and then physically walk to the bank to deposit it. That is time, which is money. The friction is not gone; it just takes a different shape.
And here is the deeper insight: because the majority of consumers use credit cards, merchants who want to compete cannot simply opt out of accepting them. They are essentially forced to absorb the friction cost and pass it along to everyone, including the people paying cash. The cash customer is subsidizing the credit card customer’s rewards points. Even if you have never touched a credit card in your life, you are paying for this friction.
This is what I mean when I say friction is everywhere. You just have to learn to see it.
When Removing Friction Makes You Weaker
Now I want to talk about a different kind of friction: the friction of thinking.
There is now research suggesting that using AI tools like ChatGPT is already affecting our cognitive capacity, and not in a good way.
Researchers split 54 participants into three groups: one used ChatGPT, one used a search engine, and one used only their brains. They measured brain activity using EEG over multiple sessions. The ChatGPT group showed the weakest neural connectivity of the three groups, particularly in brain areas involved in decision-making and long-term memory. The brain-only group lit up the strongest, showing the deepest cognitive engagement. The search engine group sat somewhere in the middle.
But the most alarming part came in the fourth session. When the ChatGPT group was asked to complete the task without AI assistance, their performance dropped even further. Their brains were showing signs of cognitive fatigue in a task they had done multiple times. They had literally less recall of work they had “produced” themselves because they had not actually done the thinking. The researchers coined this “cognitive debt.” So the task was executed efficiently, but “you basically didn’t integrate any of it into your memory networks.”
Now think about what is happening here through the lens of friction.
When you struggle with a problem, when you get stuck, when you wrestle with an idea and cannot find the right words, that is cognitive friction. It feels uncomfortable. It is slow. It is inefficient. And it is also exactly how learning works.
The friction of not knowing forces your brain to build new pathways. It forces you to connect concepts, question assumptions, and synthesize information in a way that becomes yours. When you remove that friction entirely by outsourcing the thinking to an AI, you get a clean output, but you own nothing. No understanding, no skill development, no durable knowledge.
This is the exact parallel to the car on ice. Remove friction entirely, and you lose traction. You lose the ability to move in the direction you actually want to go.
When calculators entered classrooms in the 1970s, there was a similar panic. Are we making students dumber? The answer was: only if we let them. Educators eventually raised the bar, expecting students to tackle more complex problems because the calculator handled arithmetic. The cognitive effort did not disappear, it was redirected.
The challenge with AI is that nobody has raised the bar yet. The friction has been removed, but the cognitive task has not been elevated to compensate. So for now, in most cases, the result is just less thinking.
Sharks use AI. But Sharks do not let AI replace their thinking. They use it to go faster on tasks that do not require depth. They do not outsource the judgment.
A couple of days ago, I read this piece by Noah Smith.
This piece resonated so much that I posted the below.
So yes, AI helped me eliminate the friction of debugging. I will not get any better at it as a result. That is a trade-off I am fine with. My goal was never to become a great coder. 😉
It is about understanding friction.
Now Let’s Talk About Investing
Everything I have described above shows up in investing too, and in ways most people ignore.
The goal in investing, like in physics, is not to eliminate friction. It is to understand every source of it, quantify it, and minimize the friction that destroys value while keeping the friction that protects it.
Let me walk you through the major sources of friction in investing.
Trading Commissions
This is the most visible form of friction. Every time you buy or sell a security, there is a cost attached to the transaction.
In 2026, there is still a wide range. Some brokers charge $9.95 per trade. Interactive Brokers (my main broker) charges roughly $1. Then there are platforms marketed as completely free: for example, Robinhood in the United States and Wealthsimple in Canada.
But here is what “free” actually means in practice.
Nothing is free. The friction just moves somewhere less visible.
Robinhood and similar platforms generate a large portion of their revenue through a practice called payment for order flow, or PFOF. When you hit “buy” on Robinhood, your order does not go directly to the exchange. It gets sold to a market maker, typically a high-frequency trading firm, who pays Robinhood for the privilege of executing your trade. That market maker profits from the spread between the bid and ask price. In 2020, the SEC charged Robinhood with misleading customers about this practice, noting that customers came out worse after factoring in execution quality. Robinhood settled for $65 million.
You are not paying a commission. But you are paying through slightly worse execution on every single trade.
Wealthsimple in Canada cannot use PFOF because it is prohibited by law. So it earns money differently. It charges a 1.5% currency conversion fee when Canadians buy US-listed stocks. That means every round trip on a US stock costs you 3% just in currency conversion, before you have made a single dollar of return. For a long-term investor who holds for years, that might be tolerable. For someone trading frequently across currencies, it is a tax on every move.
There is also the settlement friction. Both Robinhood and Wealthsimple offer a limited amount of instant access to deposited funds, but larger deposits take two to three business days to fully settle. During that period, your money is sitting in their system earning them interest, not you.
And this brings up a point worth sitting with: the race to “zero commission” was never actually about making investing free. It was about making the friction invisible. When Robinhood launched in 2013, traditional brokers panicked and cut their commissions to zero almost overnight. But the friction did not disappear; it just became harder to see. Visible friction at least lets you make informed decisions. Invisible friction is far more dangerous because you do not even know you are paying it. So I am more than happy paying the commissions at Interactive Brokers and knowing I am getting the best execution for my trades.
The Bid Ask Spread
This one is less visible, but it is always there.
When you look at a stock quoted at $10, you are seeing the last traded price, or sometimes the midpoint. In reality, if you want to buy that stock right then, you pay the ask price, which might be $10.01. If you want to sell, you receive the bid price, which might be $9.99. The difference, two cents in this example, is the spread. That is the friction of liquidity.
For large, heavily traded stocks like Apple or Microsoft, the spread is tiny. Often a penny. But for smaller, less liquid stocks, the spread can be wide. For a microcap stock trading at $10, the bid might be $9.50 and the ask might be $10.50. That means you lose 10% just by entering and exiting the position, before the stock has moved at all. You need the stock to rise 10.5% just to break even.
This is a form of friction that is invisible to most retail investors because it never shows up on a statement. There is no line item that says “bid ask spread cost: $X.” It just shows up as slightly worse performance, every time, compounding quietly over the years.
Institutional traders will break up large orders across hours or days specifically to avoid moving the market against themselves. They trade in ways designed to minimize the friction of the spread.
Management Fees and Fund Costs
If you invest through mutual funds or ETFs, the friction is built into the product in the form of the management expense ratio, or MER.
Actively managed mutual funds in Canada often charge 2% to 2.5% per year. An ETF tracking the same index might charge 0.05% to 0.20%.
That difference of 2% per year sounds small. But over 30 years, on a $100,000 portfolio earning 7% annually before fees, the difference between a 2% fee fund and a 0.1% fee fund is over $300,000 and reduces your final wealth by 42%! That is friction that compounds in the wrong direction.
The fee is the friction coefficient. The lower it is, the more momentum your money maintains over time.
Taxes as Friction
Tax is perhaps the largest and most underappreciated friction in investing.
Every time you realize a gain by selling a position, in most jurisdictions, you owe tax. That tax is friction on your returns. The government is extracting value from every transaction.
The implication is important: unnecessary trading is literally burning money. Every trade that does not need to happen is generating a friction event that costs you taxes.
This is one of the core arguments for buy-and-hold investing. Because every exit and re-entry has a friction cost attached to it. The longer you hold, the more you defer that friction, the more the compounding works in your favour.
Warren Buffett has spoken about this concept in his annual letters. He refers to it as the hyperactive investor paying far more in friction costs than the patient one. The patient investor lets compounding work. The hyperactive investor lets friction work.
Inflation as Friction
Inflation is a form of friction that acts on your purchasing power rather than your account balance.
If your portfolio returns 7% in a year and inflation runs at 4%, your real return is 3%. Inflation is quietly extracting value from your wealth the entire time. It is the most democratic friction: it does not care whether you trade frequently or not, whether you use a broker or not. It is always there, always working.
This is why cash is not a safe haven. It feels frictionless because the number on that $100 bill does not change. But inflation is grinding away at its purchasing power every single day. A dollar in 2000 buys about 52 cents1 worth of goods today in the US, adjusting for cumulative inflation.
Behavioral Friction
The last category is the one that gets the least attention and causes the most damage: the friction inside your own head.
I have talked about this in the context of poker before.
Emotional decision-making is an internal friction force that acts against your rational investment strategy.
It causes you to sell when markets are down and buy when they are overheated. It causes you to hold onto a losing position too long because of sunk cost thinking. It causes you to buy a stock you saw on social media without doing any research, which is the investing equivalent of driving on ice.
The bid-ask spread costs you a few basis points. Behavioural friction can cost you your entire return.
Studies consistently show that the average investor underperforms the average fund, even when investing in those same funds, because of poorly timed entries and exits. Morningstar publishes this gap regularly under their “Mind the Gap” series. The gap between fund returns and investor returns is driven almost entirely by behavioural friction.
And here is how it connects back to the AI and cognitive friction point I made earlier. When you remove the friction of thinking by outsourcing your investment decisions to a hot tip, a trending Reddit thread, or an AI-generated analysis you did not actually process yourself, you are not making smarter decisions. You are making faster ones. Speed without understanding is not an advantage in investing. It is a liability.
The best investors I have observed share one trait: they are comfortable with the friction of uncertainty. They sit with a problem. They think about it for days. They let the discomfort of not knowing push them to do more work. That friction of not yet having an answer is what produces real conviction, and conviction is what allows you to hold through volatility instead of selling at the worst possible time.
Remove the friction of the thinking process, and you get weak conviction. Weak conviction breaks at the first sign of turbulence.
The Point Is Not to Eliminate Friction
I want to be clear about what I am arguing here, because it matters.
The goal is never to eliminate friction. That is physically impossible. There is no such thing as a frictionless system in the real universe. Even in superconductors, which show zero electrical resistance, there are other physical limitations at work. In investing, even the most passive, low-cost, long-term strategy has some friction. Management fees, inflation, spreads. They are all there.
Physics taught us that friction is what makes movement possible. Tires grip the road. Brakes slow the car. Shoes push off the ground. The right amount of friction in the right place is what allows forward motion.
Investing is no different.
The Sharks who win in the long run are not the ones who trade the most. They are not the ones chasing every opportunity or reacting to every piece of news. They are the ones who understand where friction is destroying value, eliminate what they can, manage what they cannot, and use patience as their engine.
Friction is not the enemy. Ignorance of friction is.
Portfolio Update
The war in Iran hit the market and the portfolio this week.
Portfolio Return
Month-to-date: -6.0% vs. the S&P 500’s -2.0%.
Year-to-date: +6.2% vs. the S&P 500’s -1.5%. That is a gap of 776 points.
Since inception: +49.9% vs. the S&P 500’s +17.2%. That’s 2.9x the market.
Contribution by Sector
Tech and industrials led the losses, partially offset by Energy.
Contribution by Position
(For the full breakdown plus commentary on earnings results and the big movers, see Weekly Stock Performance Tracker)
+3 bps LRN 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-2 bps OPFI 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-6 bps KINS 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-9 bps DXPE 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-36 bps POWL 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-39 bps STRL 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-63 bps TSM 0.00%↑ (Thesis)
-104 bps CLS 0.00%↑ (TSX: CLS) (Thesis)
That’s it for this week.
Stay calm. Stay focused. And remember to stay sharp, fellow Sharks!
Further Sunday reading to help your investment process:
Never Stop Asking Why, Using the “5 Whys” to Solve Problems and Pick Stocks
The Rise and Fall of Moats: When Walls Built to Protect Become Traps
How I Earn $3,000-$7,000 a Month While Waiting to Buy Great Stocks Cheaper
CPI Jan 2000 = 59.2
CPI Jan 2026 = 30.7
So in Jan 2026, we could buy 0.519 of the basket from Jan 2000 (30.7/59.2)