Navigating the “SaaS-pocalypse” and the Great Rotation
Takeaways from Our Latest Member Call
Yesterday, I hosted an open-forum MOI Global member call, and I was thrilled by the depth of the conversation. Echoing the lively debates we recently had at our Ideaweek event in St. Moritz, much of the discussion centered around the impact of AI on our investment processes, and the capital rotation toward real-life, physical assets.
For those who couldn’t join us, here is a synthesis of the key insights and specific investment theses shared by our community of intelligent capital allocators. (Note: I have intentionally omitted most participant names in order to preserve their privacy.)
Real Assets and the Energy Opportunity
We kicked off the discussion with Will Thompson, a skilled real asset investor and manager at Massif Capital, whom I proudly back because I believe deeply in his process.
Will currently holds about 60% of his portfolio in mining but is actively recycling capital into energy. While noting that finding interesting opportunities in gold is exceptionally difficult right now, he views oil and natural gas as compelling — resembling the hated, multi-bagger setup we saw in metals and mining a couple of years ago.
Regarding metals, Will pointed out that while copper has run hard, a price of $5.80 per pound is essentially just the incentive price required to finance a new mine, meaning the commodity likely still has room to run.
Will is particularly bullish on European oil and gas operators, highlighting names like Harbour Energy, Aker BP, Equinor, and Var Energi. His thesis rests on three pillars:
They possess the best balance sheets in the industry.
They offer high single or double-digit dividend yields combined with sensible share buybacks.
Unlike US fracking names that rely purely on higher oil prices, European operators are actively growing their production bases and reducing costs, driving bottom-line free cash flow.
For investors looking at the complex uranium macro story, Will mentioned Global Atomic, a company he recently presented in-depth for MOI Global, as an attractive, albeit somewhat politically risky, way to express a positive company view.
Surviving the “SaaS-pocalypse”
The conversation transitioned into the recent software drawdowns, or what we’ve been calling the “SaaS-pocalypse”. AI is shifting the ground under the foundational layers of the software world, radically changing our own analytical workflows through tools like Gemini and Claude.
A member based in Texas noted that holding Adobe currently feels like standing on “shifting sand,” as large language models increasingly replicate creative tasks. Another fund manager warned of the shift from seat-based to consumption-based models, raising questions about how much tech spend will be siphoned off by foundational AI models like Anthropic.
However, the consensus was clear: Moats survive where proprietary data and strict privacy walls exist.
Vulnerable: Traditional intermediaries and workflow tools lacking proprietary data (e.g., Monday.com) face high substitution risks.
Defensible: Companies entrenched in secure, highly regulated silos, such as Paycom and Intuit (payroll and tax data) or SS&C (specifically its Intralinks virtual data rooms for private equity, are unlikely to be disrupted by open-source AI tools.
Data Monopolies: Information services like S&P Global and Moody’s remain attractive, as financial markets demand tried-and-true, heavily regulated benchmarks that a generative AI bot cannot replicate.
The 3D Economy and “National Champions”
As a direct hedge against digital disruption, Pedro Zuloaga advocated for “3D economy” companies, i.e., businesses operating in the physical world.
Following the pattern of Buffett’s acquisitions, Pedro looks for “national champions” or oligopolies occupying disciplined niches. Examples include Owens Corning and chemical producer Olin. Because these companies own their factories and tightly control supply, they can survive brutal demand fluctuations and geopolitical shocks (like the tariffs of 2025 and 2026) while keeping their earnings surprisingly stable. I agree: chemical cyclicals offer a great way to hide from the carnage seen in other sectors.
Specific Idea Updates
Participants also shared brief updates on several specific watchlist ideas:
ASML: An asset manager running a long-term compounder strategy noted that while ASML’s intrinsic value has grown to roughly 950 euros per share, the stock is trading at 45 times earnings with a 2% FCF yield. He advises a healthy trimming for portfolio management purposes, as recent price action has been driven more by multiple expansion than fundamental value.
Fiserv: At roughly $60 a share and guiding for $8+ EPS, Fiserv sparked debate. One participant is content holding the stock at a perceived 60% discount to intrinsic value, citing its massive, highly regulated distribution moat with global banks. Conversely, another manager cautioned about execution risks and stagnant growth following the departure of the former CEO.
London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG): A seasoned value investor recently initiated a position here to take advantage of the SaaS sell-off, attracted by the secure paywall protecting its Russell benchmarks and its 50% ownership in Tradeweb.
SFS Group: A participant focusing on European equities highlighted this Swiss-listed machinery company. It has faced heavy headwinds from German deindustrialization, tariffs, and a strong Swiss franc, but remains a high-quality play poised to benefit from a recovery in the chemicals market and increased customer certainty in Germany.
I found this call incredibly valuable, and I hope this summary provides you with a few actionable insights for your own capital allocation process. We plan to hold these open forums on a regular basis going forward.
Our next live call will be on April 14 at 2:00 pm ET. No formal registration is needed; you can simply click the following link at the scheduled time to join the conversation.