$APPL

Does he own it?

No first-person position statement about Apple anywhere. It only appears as a comparison benchmark, a supply-chain customer, and an investor in another firm. His explicit "I own" disclosure attaches to a Japanese glass maker, not Apple. He even argues Apple is too big to move on certain catalysts.

His thesis

Apple is never the subject of analysis. It serves as a reference point in his broader theses: a profitability yardstick that South Korean memory names (Samsung, SK Hynix) are projected to surpass by 2027; a customer competing for scarce AI-grade glass and chips; a mega-cap whose size means product-hoarding catalysts barely register versus smaller names. He uses Apple mainly to make rival ideas look cheaper or more asymmetric.

How his view evolved

Consistent throughout: Apple stays a passing comparison/context item, never a focus. Early mentions frame it as a supply-chain and profitability benchmark; later it is contrasted as too large to benefit from niche catalysts.

Key points

• Apple cited only as a comparison or supply-chain customer, never analyzed directly
• His sole explicit ownership statement is for a Japanese glass maker, not Apple
• Apple's mega-cap size is used to argue smaller names offer more upside

Derived from a holistic read of his public posts — paraphrased, never quoted. See his actual posts about $APPL on X ↗