Consensus estimates project fourth-quarter earnings per share of approximately $1.35 on revenue of $2.87 billion, figures aligning with prior management guidance. While these metrics suggest modest, single-digit growth in both revenue and gross merchandise volume (GMV), they demonstrate continued operational momentum, even amidst macroeconomic uncertainties.
Both charge a perfectly reasonable, if ultimately futile, fee. The one-year performance is, shall we say, disheartening. HODL’s smaller size might be a consideration for those who prefer a more… intimate relationship with their losses.
The past three years, of course, have been… generous to those who held faith in the company. A surge, a veritable flood of capital, poured into the building of data centers, vast cathedrals dedicated to the worship of artificial intelligence. The processors, the very heart of these digital deities, sold like blessings in a time of drought. Sevenfold returns, they say, though Mateo always suspected the true measure of wealth wasn’t in the numbers themselves, but in the stories they concealed.
A snapshot, if you will, of their comparative virtues and, shall we say, limitations:
Now, some folks are saying this is a disaster. They’re wringing their hands and predicting doom. To them, I say: relax! Have a pastrami on rye! This isn’t the end of the world; it’s a temporary hiccup. A little indigestion for a company with a seriously healthy appetite for growth. It’s like worrying about a hangnail when you’re about to win the lottery.
I’m talking about Dutch Bros (BROS +4.68%) and On Holding (ONON +2.16%). Both have taken a bit of a beating lately, which, as any seasoned investor (or anxious relative) knows, is often when the interesting things happen.
Both ETFs nibble at your returns with a 0.50% annual fee – a small price to pay for the privilege of participating in a market driven by irrational exuberance and occasional panic. The ‘Beta’ figure, which measures volatility relative to the S&P 500, is a bit like trying to measure the speed of a thought – interesting in theory, but ultimately unhelpful. (It’s calculated from five-year weekly returns, which, given the inherent chaos of the universe, is roughly equivalent to predicting the weather on Jupiter.) SLV, with its considerably larger ‘AUM’ (Assets Under Management), has been around longer. Which, in market terms, is like saying it’s had more time to accumulate dust…and investors.
VXUS is the “broad brush” approach. Stocks from everywhere outside the US. Developed, emerging, whatever. It’s like they’re afraid to commit. EEM, on the other hand, says, “No, I’m going all in on emerging markets.” Which is fine, if you like risk. Personally, I prefer things a little less… dramatic. It’s just a matter of temperament, I suppose. Though, honestly, what does “emerging” even mean anymore? It feels… condescending.
Observe, if you will, the disparity in cost. AAAU, the more frugal of the two, demands a mere pittance in annual fees – less than half that of its rival. One might expect prudence to be rewarded, yet SGDM, with a boldness that borders on recklessness, has yielded a return more than double that of AAAU. A most perplexing paradox, wouldn’t you agree?
A simple accounting reveals much. The expense ratios, those seemingly minor levies upon one’s capital, are nearly identical for both. Yet, to focus solely on such details is to mistake the map for the territory. GLD, with its vast holdings – a sum exceeding one hundred and seventy-five billion dollars – possesses a stability born of sheer scale. It moves with the deliberate pace of a great ship, while SLVP, a more nimble vessel, is subject to the whims of the silver mining companies, their fortunes tied to the unpredictable geology and the ever-shifting demands of industry. The beta, a measure of volatility, speaks to this difference: a mere 0.14 for GLD, suggesting a placid response to the broader market’s turbulence, and 0.79 for SLVP, indicating a more spirited, and therefore riskier, dance.