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
Oracle
71% similar
fwd P/E pending
GOOGL
Alphabet Class A
64% similar
fwd P/E pending
MSFT
Microsoft
64% similar
fwd P/E pending
Strategic competitors
never averaged
Competing for the same customers or budget, but too different financially for their multiple to say much about this holding.
NBIS
Nebius Group
49% similar
fwd P/E pending
Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile
CRWV
CoreWeave
48% similar
fwd P/E pending
Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile
IREN
IREN Limited
43% similar
fwd P/E pending
Excluded from peer average: competes for the same demand, but a different financial profile
APLD
Applied Digital
42% similar
fwd P/E pending
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.


