Investment thesisEquityCloud & Compute
Amazon.com logo

AMZN

Amazon.com

Owned for AWS; the retail and logistics businesses are the ballast.

Portfolio weight

10.31%

As of August 20, 2026

AWS is the position

The central thesis is AWS. Cloud and compute demand should continue compounding, and AWS is one of the largest and highest-quality infrastructure businesses in the world. It sells capacity on a consumption basis to a customer base that spans startups through governments, which makes its revenue both recurring in practice and expandable as workloads grow.

The reason this matters more now than it did three years ago is that AI workloads are additive to existing cloud migration rather than a substitute for it. Training consumes capacity in large contracted blocks; inference consumes it continuously once a model is deployed. Both land on the same infrastructure Amazon already operates at scale.

Retail, logistics and the optionality underneath

Beyond AWS, Amazon holds a dominant e-commerce position and logistics scale that few competitors can replicate. Robotics and longer-term automation are optionality. Neither is required for the thesis to work.

Consolidated margins are the honest place to look for whether this is working. Retail is structurally lower-margin than cloud, so blended operating margin understates AWS while the capital spending for AI capacity runs through the same statements. Comparing Amazon's margin profile to a pure-play software business compares two different objects.

Entry and what would change the view

I initiated the position on a pullback rather than earlier. That framing carries an obvious risk: buying a large-cap on weakness only works if the weakness was about price rather than about the business. The combination that would falsify it is AWS growth decelerating while capital spending stays elevated, which would mean the company is building into demand that is not arriving. Sizing has to account for what else the book already owns. AWS, Google Cloud and Meta's data-center build are all funded out of the same AI capital-spending cycle, so the correlation between these holdings is higher than their different end markets suggest.

Reported financials

Financial data through Q2 2026

Revenue

SEC XBRL

Financial data through Q2 2026 · SEC XBRL: RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax. Q4 derived as the fiscal-year total less the other three quarters, since XBRL has no standalone Q4 duration.

Revenue growth (YoY)

SEC XBRL

Financial data through Q2 2026 · Year-over-year change, same quarter prior year, from SEC-reported figures.

Operating margin

SEC XBRL

Financial data through Q2 2026 · Computed from SEC-reported operatingIncome ÷ revenue.

Operating cash flow

SEC XBRL

Financial data through Q2 2026 · SEC XBRL: NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities. Q4 derived as the fiscal-year total less the other three quarters, since XBRL has no standalone Q4 duration.

Relative valuation

Valuation updated August 2026

Forward P/E

Valuation data pending

Direct-peer average

Pending

Versus its own history

Historical forward-P/E series pending. Maintained by hand in data/fundamentals/manual.ts. No free, reliable source exists for consensus estimates, so nothing is inferred here.

Direct peers

used in the average

Similar enough that comparing multiples is meaningful.

ORCL

ORCL

Oracle

71% similar

fwd P/E pending

same business modelsame revenue modelsimilar capital intensity
Alphabet Class A logo

GOOGL

Alphabet Class A

64% similar

fwd P/E pending

same business modelsame customer typesimilar capital intensity
MSFT

MSFT

Microsoft

64% similar

fwd P/E pending

same business modelsame customer typesimilar capital intensity

Strategic competitors

never averaged

Competing for the same customers or budget, but too different financially for their multiple to say much about this holding.

Nebius Group logo

NBIS

Nebius Group

49% similar

fwd P/E pending

same revenue modelsimilar capital intensitysame end markets

Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile

CRWV

CRWV

CoreWeave

48% similar

fwd P/E pending

same revenue modelsimilar capital intensitysame end markets

Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile

IREN Limited logo

IREN

IREN Limited

43% similar

fwd P/E pending

same revenue modelsimilar capital intensitysimilar margin profile

Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile

APLD

APLD

Applied Digital

42% similar

fwd P/E pending

same revenue modelsimilar capital intensitysimilar margin profile

Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile

Selected by weighted similarity across business model, revenue model, products, end markets, customer type, capital intensity, growth, margins and geography. Direct peers score ≥55% and sit within 2 diversification steps; only they feed the peer average.