usdaed

Since that initial flourish, the shares have embarked upon a journey decidedly southward, a spectacle most disheartening to those who believed themselves poised to reap a golden harvest. The question, then, is not merely why this decline, but how swiftly illusion has yielded to reality.

I embark upon this examination of IHG as one might begin a well-crafted play, in three acts, if you will. The first, as it were, concerns the history – the stage upon which this company has strutted and fretted. I have been assembling a portfolio, a ‘Voyager Portfolio’ as I’ve dubbed it, seeking those companies overlooked, underestimated, and, dare I say, a little bit amusing in their persistence. IHG fits the bill admirably. It is a business that has, with remarkable dexterity, managed to remain relevant in an industry renowned for its fleeting trends and the insatiable demands of its clientele.

The figures themselves, viewed in isolation, were not, strictly speaking, unfavorable. Revenue reached $81.3 billion – a 17% increase, year over year. Earnings per share adjusted to $4.14, a 24% increase. These numbers, however, seem to operate within a separate reality from the expectations of those who observe them. The market, a nebulous entity with demands that shift like desert sands, desired… more. A craving, it seems, that can never truly be satisfied.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway had a fondness for restaurants, notably Restaurant Brands International. But Chipotle, while a rather more energetic affair, never quite made it onto the Berkshire shopping list. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a bit of a puzzle. Let’s consider why. It’s not about predicting the future, you understand, but about identifying the qualities that Buffett consistently admired. And those qualities, as it happens, are rather neatly bundled up in this Tex-Mex operation.

Nvidia popped a respectable 39% in 2025. Good job, Nvidia. Meta managed 13%. Which, in a normal year, would be fine. But last year, the S&P 500 decided to have a rave and climbed over 16%. So, Meta was… lagging. Still, I’m sticking with my picks. Think of it as a long-term commitment. Like a bad marriage, but with potentially better returns.

The scholar Alistair Finch, in his apocryphal treatise, “The Geometry of Loss,” posited that all investment is merely a deferral of inevitable entropy. These ETFs, therefore, are not exceptions, but rather sophisticated algorithms for managing that decay. VCSH, favoring the credit of corporations, attempts to extract value from the temporal realm of enterprise. SMB, conversely, seeks refuge in the tax-exempt obligations of municipalities – a curious attempt to evade the universal laws of fiscal gravity. Both, however, are bound by the principle of limited duration, a constraint that introduces a fascinating element of fragility.

The real winners? The multi-state operators. Those are the guys actually sellin’ the stuff. And Green Thumb? They’re lookin’ particularly… robust. I mean, this isn’t your grandmother’s garden club, although, frankly, some grandmothers are probably pretty enthusiastic customers. Let’s dig in, shall we?

It delivered a return of 13%— perfectly respectable, of course—but didn’t quite manage to outshine the S&P 500, which, fuelled by this relentless enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, bounded ahead with an 18% gain. One can’t win them all, though frankly, one rarely bothers to keep score. It’s the principle of the thing, don’t you know?

The idea, as I understand it, is to hand the government’s checkbook over to these private ventures and let ’em handle the heavy liftin’. Instead of ownin’ satellites, they’ll just pay for the data. Instead of buildin’ reactors, they’ll pay for the power. It’s a right clever scheme, really. Predictable income for the companies, and a whole lot of paperwork for the taxpayers. They call it innovation; I call it a shift in where the money disappears to. But hey, who am I to judge? I’ve seen enough schemes to fill a library.