Hey this is tom. Welcome back as always. Don't click, nothing, don't smash. Nothing don't buy nothing.

Today, we're actually reacting to a very interesting two-minute clip by meet kevin. He interviewed the head of research for kathy woods, arkhanvest and basically asked them a question. Why did you guys completely liquidate your palantir stock position completely to zero? What happened now, i'm going to warn you that this is kind of a breakup conversation. You know when, if you ever had a breakup conversation after you broke up, it never goes well.

I mean i've been on the receiving end. I've been on the giving end whenever you have a conversation when one you know the dumped party is saying well, why did you leave me? Why is it not enough for you you're, never going to get a good answer? It's it's just. It doesn't exist and i've i've. You know i've been on both ends.

It is what it is. So don't expect to have a fuzzy, warm feeling kathy dumped us, and it is what it is now. I am curious academically what happened, because nothing in my analytical side that has no emotions, the explanations that they gave so far, don't really add up with what are supposed to be and the way they're behaving just it kind of doesn't add up for me. For some reason, i'm actually looking forward to hearing what brett has to say because obviously he's a smart guy to get some more insight into the thought process of what made them sell palantir, because maybe we should be concerned as well.

You know, maybe the bull case is now not as strong. Let's see what he has to say, i'm honestly completely open to hearing what he has to say about it. You know this one's common talent here what happened sure i mean like i described as we're in risk-off periods, we tend to consolidate the portfolios and so um. You know we had some concerns about their competitive positioning within the government space and thought we had better risk money, elsewhere, uh, and so it's not you know they're when you're making a decision to like consolidate a portfolio.

It's not like those are easy decisions, but you look at kind of like the risk return profile for all of your positions and say: what's lowest on the staff rank relative to something else that we think has comparable upside. That makes sense so so in risk off periods to make the simple. Basically when prices are going down narrow into the ones. Maybe you have the most conviction in.

Is that that's what you're saying exactly yeah yeah if we have a better edge somewhere else, then then we'll operate somewhere else? So i want you to pay attention here, he's saying um our level of conviction. I love that face by kevin. It could be a great thumbnail in times kevin if you're watching this, i you should screen this. This is this: is the best thumbnail face ever uh, so he's basically saying hey, we don't have as much conviction in palantir as we have in our other stocks.

In our portfolio, fair, no problem there, i completely understand now i'm curious about the second part is what kevin is alluding to is why what leads you to having less conviction volunteer versus when you bought it at mid-20s? That's the part, i'm curious about what what did you think about their idea of investing into specs to uh the talent here to to basically try to vc partner with them and then get that software contract is this? Was this a little bit of a gimmick? Was that strategic, you know or is the bigger focus on government and maybe their government activity not growing, because that is something that stayed stagnant yeah. I think for us, it's more um kind of. I think that they had a really differentiated product in government. A few years ago, and then their competitive positioning has diminished and then the government has those government contracts.

I think that they've shown a higher interest in multi-sourcing. So so you know it's an interesting company. I think that the you know the technology is super interesting. We're very bullish on ai generally, i think that the um marginal competitive weakness on the government side just left us with you know other places to go.

That's fine! Okay! I would if i was kevin. I would push back here a little bit because, basically he's saying well, listen. I love you, you have a great character. I love what you do.

I love you as a person, but i'm not in love with you. This is what he's saying to valentin pretty much. Now, what he's actually saying here on the serious note - and i want to be serious here - a little bit - is basically hey. Listen, um! We don't mind about the specs, which would have been a valid argument.

A lot of wall street investors, don't like companies who basically function both as a as an innovator but also kind of as a vc holding company. It's a very strange mix and it's a very hard show to pull off he's not going. There he's not saying he's saying i have no problem with the specs he's saying that we're we're seeing a decline in their government business and that's why we don't feel as confident about it or not. Now again, i want to see if he has anything more to say about palantir and if not i'll, break down what he just said, because it's a really problematic statement hold on a second all right.

Let's move on from that one! Let's go to okay, so he's going to a different stock. So basically, here's the deal - and this is the part where it never added up for me, because if kathy wood is calling herself, innovation in fact, she's saying that if you buy a sark, the the the inverse arc, you're betting against us innovation. Okay. So if your innovation - and if you keep preaching about a five-year horizon, i would argue that palletier is probably a top three of the innovative companies.

You have in your portfolios across the board so except from tesla, and i can think of one more. But let's say palantir is a top three innovative company in your stable and uh. If you talk about a five-year horizon, would it be more probable than not they're gon na be extremely dominant in in the commercial sector? Yes, in fact, i would also argue that most of us, long-term palantir, bowls honestly, don't really care so much about the government side. It's all the commercial side is where we see the massive growth of the company, so the government side is kind of the legacy side and if you look at the palantir, slides they'll show you it's stagnating, so this is nothing new.

The government side has been exhausted. It's been fully utilized, i mean there's only so much governmental agencies that need this sort of gotham products. I mean: there's not a lot more of market share to explore there uh, unlike the commercial side, which is wide open for an enormous amount of time. So again, even if you think that - and that's fine, if you do, if you think hey you, don't have enough government business, that's something! That's been known for a long time.

Nobody was claiming here that palantir has a massive upside because of the government business. Everybody was buying into the commercial side of things, which is a kind of a self-contradicting statement, if you're an innovative five-year horizon fund. Why would you sell an extremely innovative company? That's now trading at half of what you paid because their legacy government business? Sorry about that is basically my software is out of date because essentially the government business is dropping. So hey, listen, i'm not really angry at brent here or kathy or arc.

It's just. This answer leaves me confused. Let's be honest, it's very clunky. It's it's! A very shaky answer because it's basically makes me kind of lose faith a little bit in arc.

It contradicts by definition it's okay, for if he would have just said, hey we don't like palleting anymore. We don't think they're as innovative. We don't whatever like look at these guys. They just keep badging you with uh to buy their software um, but basically, if you would have just said that in itself that would have been enough, but him focusing on the government side.

This kind of exposes arc for what it really is, is basically not really a five-year horizon innovation - investment, because you either that or you care about the government business. You can't do both. So i'm a little bit confused about the answer. It's very shaky, but then again i mean, let's be honest: it's arc, it's it's their prerogative, they can do whatever they want.

It just seems to me that kind of it proves to a lot of us that arc is mainly a marketing machine and the whole innovation. Five-Year thing is just a slogan. I said it before. I said this market is going to expire, as you know, expose a lot of long-term investors, as you know, as speculators, and i think that proves that a little bit um.

It is what it is. Listen, i'm not any less bullish on palantir. In fact, i've released a whole video today earlier today explaining why i'm more bullish than ever in palette because of what just went on for the past four days over there in europe and russia and ukraine. If you want to watch this video, i'm going to put right here an end screen with the link to the video go watch.

It i break down in about eight and a half minutes why i think planetary just doubled their total adjustable market on the government and the commercial side watch the video. Let me know what you think i'll see you next video.