Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Latest News

Market cap$2B–$100B
All Over $50MOver $300MOver $2BOver $10B
All Under $1BUnder $10BUnder $100BUnder $500B
SectorsAll
Filter by sector
Friday, October 16, 2026· 4827 stock ideas· 217 writers·
16,742 views· 7,750 clicks

Is The Market Turning The Page?

CoreWeave’s debt and equity price action is framed as a wake-up call for investors amid a broader market discussion.

CRWV $43B
WHAT ARE WE DOING? “Contrarians At The Gate” 33 clicks

From X

@convequity

Convequity on X

We think $MNDY needs to make its platform verifiable to lead work management. MNDY has not disclosed its AI ARR in dollars. Our recent SaaS Survival Scorecard report estimates it at about $20 to $30 million as of the end of Q2 2026. Leading AI-native startups in other fields are far larger. In coding, Cognition reported crossing $1 billion in annualized revenue run rate on 25 September 2026, company-wide across Devin and Windsurf. In legal work, Harvey reported on 1 October 2026 that it crossed $400 million in ARR during Q3 2026. We think MNDY has long been highly adaptive, with great leadership and a strong recent cadence of features and products. But revenue growth has slowed, and in our view it has gained little from AI so far, because work management is a hard area for AI. In our view, coding agents suddenly became highly effective around early 2026, and work management has not yet had its own coding moment. Verifiability is the key difference: code can be tested, while most work management outcomes are hard to check. Rather than wait for that moment, how can MNDY make work management more verifiable? It could track and measure the actions taken on its platform and their outcomes, so that everything that happens there is verifiable. MNDY can learn from Palantir. Palantir launched AIP in 2023, its AI platform built on its ontology, and we think that ontology helped Palantir succeed with models much weaker than today's. Could MNDY build a similar substrate or ontology for work management in order to make the work done on its platform more verifiable? We do not claim to have the answer. Our view is that to thrive, and not only survive, MNDY needs to lead work management by making its platform verifiable, however it chooses to do that.
@kevin__mak

Kevin Mak on X

$ASTS So many questions about ASTS (please don't reply to unrelated threads to get my attention, just DM me). I have no position in the company. My comments from 3+ quarters ago is that I wanted to see "more metal in space". My concern from 5+ quarters ago was "how do they go from producing 1 satellite in 6 months, to 6 satellites per month, that's a really hard scaling problem". I think Starlink screwed up with their Swarm acquisition and trying to force that tech to work, it put a 18+ month delay on them. My hope was that ASTS would capitalize on that, and it generally appears that they've had scaling issues that prevented that from happening. That isn't really their fault, "space is hard" and "mass production is different from prototypes". I think money isn't a problem for them, they have so much cash (they were smart to take advantage of their high stock price). The problem is execution is hard even if you have lots of cash. Strategically they're in a good place, the MNO's definitely want/need them to work to compete w/ Starlink. But the MNO's are powerless, they're awful at execution (they're only good at increasing your monthly bill!). The BO failure was a really big problem. SpaceX (Starlink) had very little leverage on ASTS before. If they slowroll/deny F9 launches, they just push ASTS towards their competitor (BO). Two competitors (BO and ASTS) become stronger. But since BO was offline, it makes SpaceX the de facto monopolist to ASTS' launch. That gives them a ton of power in this situation and I imagine (but have no way to prove it), they would flex that competitive pressure on the company. That's not illegal anti-competitive behavior, that's just "pressure". It's a tricky set of problems that face the company and the stock price reflects that. I don't have a strong view in either direction of whether things get better or worse from here. But my initial hopes/thesis were steadily eroded by the execution issues (and valuation), hence my eventual exit from my long position. I don't think I'm saying anything thoughtful or what people don't already know/experience. But worth putting it out there because I've received _a lot_ of questions. Disclosure: No position in ASTS.
@kevin__mak 2 clicks

Kevin Mak on X

$CORZ Some quick notes on this one. 1) In my view, CORZ has the most economically advantaged deal in the entire HPC industry. Their series of ~590mw of deals with CRWV was heavily tilted in their favor, and no deal after that has the same terms. 2) That deal is 70%+ finished construction, so there's no "if they get it built", it's largely built and should be fully built by early 2027. 3) According to CFO Jim Nygaard, the CRWV infrastructure cost $5.5B but would cost $7.5B to rebuild today, and CORZ holds the first lien. I call this a “capex put,” because IF there’s a problem with CRWV paying its contracts, CORZ has a claim on substantial infrastructure that could be re-leased to another customer. Depending on assumptions (discount rate, terminal value, etc), I see this as being worth $10-$13 per share in todays terms. They still have a ~530MW deal with AMD, plus another 1.5GW of "future expansion". The upside of CORZ is not the same as the other HPC/neocloud type plays. There's very little/no scenarios where I can see this stock going up by 5-10x. But the downside scenario is also very different. This is significantly less risky than its peers, yet, in this indiscriminate "vibes/basket" based market, it often trades very similarly. There lies the opportunity. When the market treats different assets as the same, because nobody cares about the nuance anymore. Positioning: I sold all of my shares between $20-$26 per share and thought I was done with CORZ forever. It's a pleasant surprise to be able to buy them back sub $15. Disclosure: Creek Drive and its affiliated funds holds positions in CORZ. Views expressed are current opinions for information only, subject to change and are not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Investing involves the risk of loss and past performance is not indicative of future performance. See the disclosures link in my bio for more important information.

Investor Letters

All letters

Free Recaps of the best new stock ideas, delivered every morning.

Read past recaps

Constellation: Stars Aligning?

Constellation Brands trades near $127 at roughly 11x next-twelve-month EV/EBIT, with recent business results offsetting concerns over…

STZ $22B
TSOH Investment Research 19 clicks
FRMI · long

Fermi INC

Fermi Inc. is presented as a time-sensitive long special situation.

FRMI $2.1B
Value Investors Club

Revisiting Veeva #2

Veeva plans Falcon agents for pharmacovigilance, clinical-trial documents and regulatory writing, targeting multibillion-dollar…

VEEV $51B
Lewistown Capital

Nubank ($NU) Deep Dive

Nubank has risen 318% from its 2022 low while sustaining 20-25% annual EPS growth, 30% ROE and a 15x P/E multiple.

NU $75B
Jimmy's Journal

Have a source we’re missing? Send your pick

Recent recaps

Latest recap

Thursday, October 15 61 stock ideas
  • Is The Market Turning The Page? WHAT ARE WE DOING? “Contrarians At The Gate”
  • Breaking: The Offshore Monopoly Is Legal Now! Cannibal Stocks
Read the recap

All recaps

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 107

YouTube 4

Blogs 17

Seeking Alpha 49 of 229

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

88 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

189 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.

Anything we’re missing?

Send us a pick