📈 $94,000 Portfolio: Why I Believe It Can Beat the Market Long-Term

Today I took a closer look at my portfolio.

Current value is approximately $94,000 and the more I look at its composition, the more satisfied I am with where my investment strategy has gradually shifted.

I used to focus far more on tickers and simple valuations.

Today my strategy is much simpler:

👉 I want to buy quality compounders and not overpay for them.

That's it.

I don't want the automatically cheapest stocks in the market.

I don't want a company just because it has a 10× P/E.

And at the same time, I don't want to pay any price just because it's a fantastic business.

I look for a combination of:

🏰 strong moat 💰 pricing power 📈 long-term revenue and profit growth 💵 FCF per share growth ♻️ ability to reinvest capital 📊 high return on capital 🧠 a business I understand ⚖️ and a valuation that still makes sense given the quality

💼 What does my portfolio look like today?

My largest company exposures are approximately:

Alphabet – 14.5% Amazon – 13.1% Microsoft – 12.9% Meta – 11.0% ASML – 9.2%

These companies alone make up about 60% of the portfolio.

And that's intentional.

I don't want to have 50 positions just to be diversified at all costs.

If I know the business, understand its economics, and the thesis is strong, I'm willing to hold a larger position.

📈 Growth of my companies vs. the market

This was probably the most interesting comparison today.

When I took the current portfolio weights and the revenue growth of individual companies, I got approximately:

My portfolio: ~25% YoY revenue growth

For comparison, approximately:

Nasdaq-100: ~19%

S&P 500: ~12–15%

Of course, it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison and individual companies report slightly different periods.

But the point seems clear to me.

The companies I own, as a whole, are currently growing significantly faster than the market average.

And it's not built only on Nvidia.

We have, for example:

NVDA: +106% revenue MELI: +50% SOFI: +43% NU: +39% TSM: +36% META: +28% ASML: +21% MSFT: +18%

So the growth comes from multiple parts of the portfolio.

💰 But am I not overpaying for this growth?

This is an even more important question, in my opinion.

Because a fast-growing company can be a disastrous investment if you pay an absurd price for it.

In a very rough comparison of forward valuations, I got approximately:

S&P 500: ~20× forward P/E

Nasdaq-100: ~22×

My portfolio: ~23–24×

And against that:

S&P 500: ~12–15% revenue growth Nasdaq-100: ~19% My portfolio: ~25%

So for significantly higher growth, I'm not currently paying a multiple higher valuation.

And that's exactly what I aim for.

⚠️ Higher P/E doesn't automatically mean an expensive company

This is something investors often oversimplify, in my opinion.

A company with a 30× P/E can be cheaper than a company with a 15× P/E.

It depends on:

how long it can grow, its ROIC, how much capital it can reinvest, its margins, how strong the moat is, its pricing power, and what its FCF will look like in 5–10 years.

That's why I'm willing to pay a higher multiple, for example, for a business like Mastercard, MSCI, or S&P Global.

If I have a company that can raise prices over the long term, doesn't need much capital, has high margins, and a very strong competitive position, a higher multiple may be completely justified.

A great business can be undervalued even at a higher P/E.

🧠 So my strategy can be summarized very simply

I don't want the cheapest companies.

I want the best companies that are not yet too expensive.

If I own companies long-term that:

grow faster than the market average, have better economics than the average company, can reinvest capital at high returns and I don't buy them at absurd valuations,

then I think I have a real chance to beat the index long-term.

Of course, nothing is guaranteed.

I may have years when I significantly underperform the S&P 500.

Semiconductors could take a cyclical hit.

Some valuations may compress.

Some of my theses may turn out to be wrong.

But with the portfolio as a whole, I'm very satisfied today.

Not because it went up.

But because I know why I own each of these companies.

And that, in my opinion, is far more important.

How about you?

Would you rather buy an average business at 12× P/E, or an exceptional compounder at 25–30×, if the long-term math still makes sense to you?

And do you think a concentrated portfolio of quality compounders has a real chance to outperform the S&P 500 long-term?