$LULU Lululemon Tape Reports
Per Ticker.id: $LULU Lululemon Tape Reports — 23 podcast mentions across 5 podcasts (30 days), latest 2026-08-15 02:00 UTC.
Well, I was closer to wanting to invest before earnings. I got to say that, but even then, and this sort of goes back to the learnings that we discussed in our biggest loser episodes. Palantir's outcome is almost completely dependent on its top line growth. And one thing that I like to do when I look at companies that are growing rapidly and everything looks great at the surface is that I come up with a scenario in my head, which basically goes like this. So I would assume the next earnings report is coming out and then growth is cut in half from what people are expecting. So let's assume, you know, Karp's outcome, 150% growth. Now suddenly you only get 75%. Would I think I'm confident enough to be able to figure out and explain why the company grew significantly slower than people anticipated. I think, for example, if you would've looked at Lululemon's growth slowing down, it wouldn't have been that difficult to figure out why. In the end, they sell less clothing and you know, the reasons for that are quite straightforward. Either you have customers going to a competitor or there's a recession and every brand has problems selling their clothing. If you think about, you know, payment companies, It's a bit less straightforward. It's also about, you know, competition or macro, but it's not as easy to track which one is actually the answer because getting the data is a bit more difficult, but still you can do it. And then there's a company like The Trade Desk where I have absolutely no clue why the top line growth is declining, and I also have no clue where the bottom would be. And I think if I'm being honest with myself, Palantir has to fall into that category. I think when the business is doing great and it's growing, Everyone has this illusion of knowing and understanding why it's going so great. But if that was suddenly changing, I'm just not sure how many would still claim to understand the business that well. I think the entire story here comes down to, does it make sense for me and do I fully understand the technology behind it? And the honest answer is no. And just to make it clear, I feel like you don't need to understand everything.
Daniel Mahncke — The Investor's Podcast (We Study Billionaires) - The Investor’s Podcast Network · TIP841: Palantir – Palantir is Cheaper than I Thought! w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O’Malley · 2026-08-27And I mean, look, I— he obviously did the work. He's up huge in the stock he was talking about. Like, it's not that it was for nothing, but I was like, you know, the other— probably 2 years ago, he's trying to figure out like Lululemon comps, you know.
Michael Santoli — The Compound and Friends · How to Play the Money Game with Michael Santoli · 2026-08-21Ordinary people, maybe because they want to buy $100 Lululemon pants when they go to their yoga classes, they want more money in their pockets. A tax alpha, that's a strategy used for— usually reserved for the ultra-high net worth and hedge funds, basically. We always think of tax health as maximizing your after-tax returns, not your pre-taxes. If someone tells me they're making $500,000 a year, I'm like, but how much of that am I—
Isabel Lee — Bloomberg Intelligence · Bloomberg Money: 'Gold Has Been in Bull Market for 25 Years' · 2026-08-15Ordinary people, maybe because they want to buy $100 Lululemon pants when they go to their yoga classes, they want more money in their pockets. So tax alpha, that's a strategy used for— usually reserved for the ultra-high net worth and hedge funds. Basically, think of tax alpha as maximizing your after-tax returns, not your pre-taxes. If someone tells me they're making $500,000 a year, I'm like, But how much of that am I charging you with the steam coming out of my ears?
Isabelle Lee — Bloomberg Surveillance · Bloomberg Money: 'Gold Has Been in Bull Market for 25 Years' · 2026-08-14I'm excited already, I got to say. Obviously, it's also my first time in New York City. So, we have a great venue and also a lot of great people that I look forward to seeing again. I would be surprised if there are not a lot of people showing up that we also saw in Omaha earlier this year. But enough of that, I would say we should get into it. And I want to actually start by giving another introduction to how exactly the Intrinsic Value Portfolio works. And I think this will be particularly important today because there will be positions that we discuss which one of us is or was more bullish than the other one. So the basics, basically the Intrinsic Value Portfolio is a shared portfolio that Stig Brodersen, Kyle Bass, and I manage. And the way we handle this is basically by a simple rule. So the portfolio is obviously a paper portfolio since we don't give any financial advice, nor do we actually manage money. However, each of the positions owned in the portfolio has to be in the personal portfolio of at least one of us hosts. Some are obviously in all of our portfolios, but the main rule, one of us has to own the company. So for all the stocks in our intrinsic value portfolio and the ones that we discuss today, you can be sure that we actually lost money on them. Okay, how about we start with the most recent sell in our portfolio, which would be Lululemon. And for context, the stock entered our portfolio at an average price of about $200 and left it at $116 per share.
Daniel Mahncke — The Investor's Podcast (We Study Billionaires) - The Investor’s Podcast Network · TIP837: Adobe, Lululemon, PayPal – Are our Biggest Losers a Buy Now? w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O’Malley · 2026-08-13I should probably be the one to take the lead on this one since it was my pitch. And I should say, I still haven't fully given up on the idea that Lulu will turn around. I think there's a good chance that looking back 5 years from now, especially at the current valuation, it will have looked like a pretty good entry point and will probably have been peak pessimism, but there is definitely an opportunity cost of holding a stock in your portfolio that is already down more than 40%. And that played into our rationale for why we decided to remove it from the portfolio. And so just for context, the thesis was that you could buy this really high-quality retail brand with industry-leading margins, 35% returns on invested capital, 20% CAGR on historical growth, and a very, very strong athleisure brand, really the pioneer of athleisure, all for what seemed to me like a very reasonable price of 15 times earnings while they were buying back stock massively and all those sorts of things. And obviously you don't want to pay a premium for those historical growth rates, right? Just because a business has done well previously doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to continue to do well. But I believed, and to some extent still do, that Lululemon is not a brand that's just going to come and go. And if anything, it's a brand that can continue to thrive while being mainstream. And so like I said, it basically invented the athleisure style, and I thought that that might help them more than it seems to have, at least when you look at what's happened to the business in the last year.
Shawn O'Malley — The Investor's Podcast (We Study Billionaires) - The Investor’s Podcast Network · TIP837: Adobe, Lululemon, PayPal – Are our Biggest Losers a Buy Now? w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O’Malley · 2026-08-13Tobias Carlisle I got to say, I probably have the same sort of hesitations toward fashion retail companies that you have towards payments companies. I think it's also fair to say that we both have been proven right. I mean, we will speak today also about a company that's called PayPal and that didn't do too well for us. But generally, I agree with you that Lulu might be trading higher 5 years from now, although I probably have lower conviction on that than, you know, you have. But I think when you say that Lulu survives the mainstream, that certainly means that, you know, they're staying cool while being worn and seen all the time, right? That's what, you know, a retail brand like Lululemon wants to achieve. And it's basically what brands like Nike and Adidas have already achieved. And they are, you know, the exception, not the rule, I should say that. And most retail brands experience these short hypes with exceptional economics when they are still pretty niche and in the growth phase. And when they do reach the mainstream, the business looks more successful and more profitable than ever. But in reality, the trendsetters used to wear it when it was still small, they stop wearing it, and the mainstream only takes over for so long because They go on to the next big brand when it's hype surrounding that brand. There's a hotter brand outside, right? There's not a lot of loyalty in this business. You find that out sooner or later. That could be 2 years, it could be 3 years, it could also be 10 years. That's sort of what you never know. I mean, we looked at Crocs, and Crocs is a business where that seems very likely to me that at some point this hype is sort of dying. Funnily enough though, it was so incredibly cheap last year that I, the guy who doesn't like fashion retail, still pitched it to you and I should say that we only had a small position and we made a pretty good profit, although we might have sold too early because if you look at the price now, it is almost doubled from our price. And I think we sold it for like a 50% profit.
Daniel Mahncke — The Investor's Podcast (We Study Billionaires) - The Investor’s Podcast Network · TIP837: Adobe, Lululemon, PayPal – Are our Biggest Losers a Buy Now? w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O’Malley · 2026-08-13There are many brands that, you know, go out of style for a while and then they come back many years later. And I guess the problem for me is that I just have a hard time seeing that turn into a compounder at any point. And I have an even harder time sort of anticipating when to jump on and off the bandwagon. And the idea with Lulu has been to buy a company that doesn't have these typical fashion cycles, and it's just a tough game to play. I think the time to make money on these companies is just very early on in their life cycle. I mean, our co-host Kyle has had a phenomenal run Aritzia, for example. But you know, this was, or perhaps is still the expansion phase. I guess if you were to ask Kyle Woodsell, they still have a long runway left. And as soon as these brands enter the mainstream, it's just a constant game of getting in and getting out of style. And it's not so much about how old the company is, but more about how big it is. I mean, Aritzia, for example, was founded in 1984, but as far as I know, it only started really pushing internationally in the last decade. So I assume that at some point it'll hit a similar roadblock to what, you know, Lululemon is currently seeing. And apart from luxury companies, there's just very few brands that can escape that cycle for good.
Daniel Mahncke — The Investor's Podcast (We Study Billionaires) - The Investor’s Podcast Network · TIP837: Adobe, Lululemon, PayPal – Are our Biggest Losers a Buy Now? w/ Daniel Mahncke & Shawn O’Malley · 2026-08-13