0:00 This video is going to get me in trouble. I just obsessed over the investments from Alex Hormozzi, Cody Sanchez, Iman Ghazi, and more. I'm David. I'm the CEO of FilterBuy, an air filter manufacturer that makes $22 million a month. To expand my empire, I've spent over $10 million buying businesses, and every day I have to rate if a business is actually worth my time. This is my ranking for some of your favorite YouTubers' investments. At the end of the video, I'll share my biggest lesson on buying businesses. Alex Ormosi looks like he's cracked the code with 16 companies, but the deeper question is whether anyone, no matter how talented, can really scale across that many different industries. Everyone wants to copy Alex Ormosi, but I see a problem nobody is talking about. Alex Hormozzi runs acquisition.com with 16 companies across software,
0:50 services, e-commerce, and brick and mortar. He typically buys 20 to 40% equity and funnels deal flow through his content and info products, which brings in 10 to $20 million of cash flow annually. He's been called the king of info products. Much of his empire is built on selling systems and knowledge. but his model is hands-on and sales-driven, not Buffett's buy and hold approach. The execution risk is massive. Bills and gems or sales don't transfer cleanly to SaaS or e-commerce. That being said, Alex proved himself pre-social media, selling gem lots for about $50 million, and I'd actually bet he pulls it off because his personal brand gives him an unfair deal flow others can't replicate. Alex's info product funnel changes everything. Most holding companies rely on bankers,
1:41 brokers, or cold outreach for deal flow. Alex built a machine where entrepreneurs come to him because they've consumed his content or bought his courses, or maybe one of his books. That means two things. First, he gets to cherry pick from a huge inbound funnel. which lowers his customer acquisition costs for deals almost to zero. That's an advantage that 99% of business buyers don't have. Second, it ties the whole empire to his personal brand. If Alex is pumping out content, the machine works, but if he ever decides to slow down or the audience shifts, the deal flow could shrink. Now, I've seen places where Alex often compares himself to Warren Buffett, but here's the difference. Buffett typically buys majority stakes in private businesses or minority stakes in public companies, and
2:27 then he stays famously hands-off. He wants strong managers in place and doesn't want to run the day-to-day. Remember Warren's philosophy is he want businesses that could be run by an idiot because he says one day it will be. And that's just the truth. The big lessons for entrepreneurs is this, don't copy Hormozzi's model blindly. You probably can't replicate his deal flow without his brand. And you probably can't scale across 16 different industries without stretching yourself too thin. But what you can take away from him is the idea of distribution first, acquisition second, build an audience, build trust, and you'll never run out of opportunity. And if you're not a content first person, the lesson is the same. Find your version of distribution, just like I did for the first 12 years of filter by. It could be an email list, a local network,
3:13 or a trade association, but build a pipeline that brings deals or customers to you. So if I had to grade Alex's investments, I'd give him a solid B plus. The upside is massive. His personal unfair advantage is real. and he's one of the few who might actually pull it off. But his model is heavily personality-driven, and the execution risk, more importantly, in my opinion, is high. So if you're looking for a hater, you can leave now. I've got absolutely nothing but respect for people who step into the arena. Cody Sanchez makes owning multiple small businesses look like the ultimate path to freedom, but the reality behind the dream is way more fragile than it appears. If you love Cody Sanchez and you're chasing passive income, you need to see this. Cody champions laundromats, vending machines, and car washes as cash flow plays. She calls it
4:04 a portfolio of contrarian businesses. But $10 million businesses are still fragile. One misstep can sink them. She packages small capital intensive plays like Airbnbs and Joshua Tree as simple, all you gotta do is opportunity. In reality, businesses like car washes demand constant reinvestment. Personally, I don't believe in passive income at all. Even dividends require decisions and capital. Passive cash flow simply does not exist. I also disagree with her dismissal of stocks. At scale, reinvesting profits into equities is smarter than chasing 10 fragile small ventures. The test I like to use is this. If I disappeared for a year, what would happen? Would the business
4:50 keep running? or would it collapse without me? A real business has systems and people in place that keep the engine running. Many small businesses fail that test, and that's why they end up fragile instead of scalable. So what grade would I give Cody's portfolio? I'd give it a B minus. She's an incredible storyteller, and she's done more than almost anyone to make people look at small business acquisitions as a path to wealth. That deserves credit. But the reality is, many of these plays are fragile. Car washes, laundromats, vending machines, RV, Airbnbs, and Joshua Tree. They're capital intensive, they demand constant reinvestment, and they often end up as jobs in disguise. And on top of that, a lot of these spaces are now oversaturated. Thousands of people are chasing the exact same contrarian ideas, which makes them less contrarian every day. That's why I'm a
5:40 much bigger proponent of building skills and deep industry knowledge. When you really understand an industry, you can create your own competitive boat instead of fighting over the same crowded that plays that everybody else is. Iman Ghazi is selling a dream that you should probably wake up from. Iman made his name selling agency courses and online income blueprints. But much of what I see feels closer to schemes, things like I've tried before of affiliate websites or casino bonuses, blackjack arbitrage, all business ideas or all schemes that I've done. What he sells feels closer to that than durable businesses. He built a strong personal brand, but I wouldn't trust him to operate my air filter company for a year. Compared to Alex and Cody, Iman's model feels the least replicable without his personal brand. Yes, he's undeniably successful, but I suspect
6:30 more from selling the dream than scaling real businesses. If you take away the brand, the operational foundation looks thin, at least from what I can see. Earlier in this video, I shared a simple test. What happens if you walk away for a year? That's my heuristic. In Iman's case, the better version of that test is what happens if you lose your influence? And if the brand disappears, I think the answer is pretty tricky. That's why I'm such a believer in building systems and frameworks that can operate without you and without your face. It's harder. It usually takes longer, but it is far more durable. So here are the filters, no pun intended, that I like to use when I'm evaluating a business. First, does it solve a problem that will still matter 10 or 20 years from now? Second, can it keep running if I'm
7:16 not in the room? And third, does it create an asset that compounds in value instead of just being a story that fades when attention moves on? That's the difference between building on sand and building on bedrock. It's exactly why I built a company that sells air filters. Is it boring? Maybe, but it works whether I'm here or not. So what grade would I give Ima's portfolio? Honestly, I'd give it a C minus and the reason is simple. I see it less as an investment portfolio and more as an extension of his personal brand. Me, Kevin, and Graham Stephan made their money with millions of dollars in real estate, but could you copy them? If you're still watching real estate YouTubers, you might be in real danger. Kevin and Graham built
8:02 wealth during an era of ultra low interest rates. Cheap debt amplified their returns, conditions that don't exist anymore. Higher rates today mean tighter cash flow and more leverage risk. For newcomers, real estate looks like a ticket to wealth, but often delivers middle class returns with high work and risk. Even on a middle class scale, investing $100,000 into a mortgage with a 7% rate where you're paying somewhere between $4,000 to $5,000 a month to keep up with debt just isn't an appealing investment. Real estate made sense when debt was cheap, but today, The smarter path for building life-changing cash flow is to grow a small business because that's leverage that you can actually control. Now, if you're asking me what grade I'd give me, Kevin, and Graham Stephan's
8:49 playbook, my honest answer is I can't. I'm biased. I'm just not a big fan of real estate. Don't get me wrong. It's worked incredibly well for 30 years and there are tax advantages, but I think people have recency bias. They've only seen real estate in a falling rate world and the higher debt costs fundamentally changed the game. Even Ray Dalio recently said buying and holding real estate isn't an effective investment strategy right now. He manages over a hundred billion dollars. I'd probably listen to him. It's too interest rate sensitive, too easy to tax and too nailed down to be flexible. That's Dalio's view in a nutshell and honestly, I agree. For me, the better play is simple. Build a business, reinvest the profits, and put that cash into liquid assets like equities or Bitcoin where you have flexibility. That's how you create durability and compounding
9:38 wealth. Stephen Bartlett is the host and CEO of the Diary of a CEO podcast, and he has a multi-million dollar venture capital portfolio. How smart is that? Let's look at Stephen Bartlett's multi-million dollar investment. Stephen Bartlett has become one of the most visible VCs in Europe, building his portfolio off the back of his podcast and media brand. He's made at least 22 angel investments across health, wellness, consumer products, software, and even Web 3.0. But here's the catch. Those deals flow to him because of his influence, not because the average entrepreneur can replicate his VC strategy. It's a model built on visibility, networks, and brand power. Stephen Bartlett is one of the most upfront about what he's doing. He's not pretending he's operating all these companies. He's building his
10:25 personal brand, his network, and his connectivity. And then he's using that platform to get a first look at venture deals. That's actually a proven model. Jason Calacanis from the All In podcast did the same thing, or does the same thing. He built influence and community, and that gives him proprietary deal flow. And this matters because in venture capital, strategy alone doesn't win. Everybody has money. Everybody has a fund. What matters is whether the best founders want you on their cap table. And that comes down to influence, relationships, and trust. Steven built that through his podcast and media brand. Now the key here is not to confuse Steven's model with something that you can copy paste. For most people, building a giant podcast or becoming a European VC simply isn't realistic. But the principle is replicatable. Build your own unique podcast.
11:15 competitive advantage. Steven's advantage is visibility. Yours might be something totally different. Industry expertise, a distribution channel, or a skill that founders and customers desperately need. The lesson is, don't just play the same game as everyone else. Build the edge that only you can bring. And that's what we talk about on this channel. And here's the part that ties it back to what I said in my last video. Your curiosity is your biggest advantage. We live in a time where information is free and abundant. If you can follow your curiosity and go deep, you can learn more in six months on YouTube or podcasts than most people learn in four years of school. But the key is to combine that curiosity with commercial skills, things like sales, marketing, or operations. That's how you turn a rabbit hole into a moat. And that's why I
12:02 actually give Stephen Bartlett's model an A. He's focused. He's not pretending to be an operator. He's building his craft, which is brand building and connectivity and using that to create proprietary deal flow. So here's my challenge to you. What's your edge? What's the thing you get obsessed with? Go deep on and then stack with sales or marketing skills until it becomes commercially powerful. But a lot of people think they're building a diversified portfolio similar to Warren Buffett's strategy when they're not. Buffett's real strategy is different. Hands off, majority ownership, and focused on durable businesses. not small equity stakes with heavy sales put. Andrew Wilkinson's Tiny and Monice Pabrai are closer to the Buffett model. Most YouTubers aren't. Everyone loves to say diversification reduces risk,
12:49 but in small business, diversification can actually increase risk because now you're spreading yourself across multiple operators, multiple industries, multiple fires to put out. As Stan Truncomiller once said, I like to put all my eggs in one basket and watch that basket closely. And in my experience, that's usually the smarter move. I spent over a decade focused on air filter. From that relentless focus, I was able to expand the vision to building the world's leading indoor air quality company. And it's a mission I can work on for the rest of my life. But it all started with a single focused foundation. So here's my challenge to you. What's the basket you're willing to watch closely for the next 20 years? Because that's where real wealth and real durability gets built. If you want to take your business to the next level, I want to
13:37 learn more. In 2026, I'll be visiting and maybe even investing in some of my favorite boring businesses in the world. Send an email to the email on the screen now. Tell me a bit about your business, where you're located, and what you're hoping to do next. Hopefully, I'll see you soon.
