Michael Burry compares valuations of Apple and Lulu, arguing Lululemon looks “screaming cheap” while Apple is “permacostly”

Michael Burry, the investor known for high-profile bearish calls, has resurfaced in market chatter with a valuation comparison between Apple and Lulu. In a post carried by Yahoo Finance, Burry said Lululemon’s stock is “screaming cheap,” while Apple shares are “permacostly,” invoking Costco as the analogy for a steadier, premium-priced retail business model.

The specific catalyst cited in the post is Lulu’s performance this year. The coverage notes that Lululemon shares have fallen more than 40% in 2026, leaving the stock well below its recent highs. That drawdown, the commentary implies, has pulled the market away from earlier expectations.

Burry’s Apple framing, in contrast, targets the idea that some companies can become “permanently expensive” if investors keep paying for quality, brand strength, and recurring demand even as growth normalizes. While the post does not lay out a full model or valuation math in the portion available for review, it presents Apple as the example of a mega-cap that may be protected from large downside only by sustained optimism.

The comparison lands in a broader context where investors increasingly debate what “premium” actually means. For companies like Apple, the question is whether market pricing still reflects durable earnings power, continued services growth, and hardware cycle resilience, or whether it embeds too much certainty. For consumer brands like Lulu, the debate often centers on whether demand durability and pricing power can offset inventory dynamics, promotional pressure, and changes in consumer discretionary spending.

Apple is generally followed as a large technology platform with a hardware ecosystem and a growing services layer, while Lulu is followed as an apparel brand with a premium positioning in athletic wear. The tension in Burry’s remarks is that one premium stock may remain priced for permanence, while a different premium brand could be repriced after a large decline.

Still, investors should be careful about reading too much into a single headline-style comparison. The post as described does not provide the underlying valuation framework, the specific assumptions, or whether Burry’s view is tied to particular catalysts such as earnings timing, product cycles, guidance, or margins. Without those details, the remarks are best treated as an opinion on relative valuation rather than a quantified thesis with a defined entry point.

Beyond the commentary itself, Burry’s appearance in market conversation underscores how quickly “cheap” and “expensive” narratives can shift when a stock moves sharply. Lulu’s more than 40% drop noted in the coverage is the anchor for the “cheap” argument. Apple’s “permacostly” label, meanwhile, suggests the opposite risk, namely that the stock’s valuation premium may be more persistent than fundamentals justify.

What to watch next is whether either company’s upcoming results or guidance add substance to those broad valuation claims. For Apple, investors will likely focus on indicators of services momentum and any sign that hardware growth is re-accelerating or merely stabilizing. For Lulu, market attention will typically center on demand trends, inventory and promotional posture, and management’s outlook for the pace of recovery from earlier weakness.