Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Wednesday, September 2

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Everything we published on this day.

70 stories — the front page that day →

@kevin__mak

Kevin Mak on X

I think this is a good analysis and I'm long $QURE, but I want to flag something about this style of argument because it shows up across a lot of stocks. The common version is "the fundamentals are much better than they were x years ago, but the market cap is the same, so it must be underpriced." That doesn't follow. A disconnect like that means one of the two prices was wrong. It could be too cheap now, or it could have been too expensive before. All you actually know is that the market was probably wrong once. (To credit: @ClearPath100 doesn't explicitly say it's underpriced here.) That said, I still think these situations are worth finding. I generally assume the market is more often right than wrong, so a stock that moves with its fundamentals isn't very interesting. The disconnects are where the market might be wrong, and that's what we want. You just have to do the work to figure out which price was the wrong one. For QURE, I think the shorter comparison is more useful than the 5 year one. The stock was $70+ before the FDA denial that took it to $8. It's $48 today at a lower market cap than it was at $70. In between, the path to approval got better, not worse. The BLA is filed, the confirmatory study design is agreed, the timeline to commercialization is shorter, there's a year more of follow up data, and more cash on the balance sheet. Every risk that exists today also existed at $70. The biggest risk that did exist at $70, the FDA refusing the dataset, has already played out and been resolved. So which price was wrong? My guess is a lot of sharp people owned this at $70+, dumped it on the news, and never came back. I think they were right to sell back then. But if you were right to own it at $75 with more risks and a longer timeline, you should want to own it even more at $48 with fewer risks and a shorter one. Not buying it back isn't consistent with their own original view. I think the reason is simple. Losing 75% on a stock stings, and it's a lot easier to stay away than to admit the same thesis is back on the table at a better price. That's part of why we own it here. Disclosure: Creek Drive and its affiliated funds holds a long position in QURE. Views expressed are current opinions for informational educational 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.

Research Roundup Vol. LI

Nvidia’s Q2 2027 triple-digit growth and above-consensus FY28 outlook reinforce AI infrastructure spending, while Symbotic’s new automation…

NVDA $5.2TSYM $23B
Monte Independent Investment Research
@convequity

Convequity on X

Exploring SaaS survival in the agentic era — $PANW vs $DDOG. Both sit on critical telemetry. Both expose MCP. On paper they look alike. They aren’t. Model labs have a real reason to build their own observability collectors. Coding agents write and ship code; to get better they need production feedback. Own the host telemetry, close the loop. That same incentive is much weaker for cybersecurity endpoint agents. Finding beacons and writing better code are different jobs. Building a Falcon- or Cortex-class sensor estate is years of trust, labeled attacks, and compliance — not a natural side quest for a model lab. Then there’s the screen. Datadog doesn’t own where developers live. They already live in Cursor / Claude Code / Copilot. So those agents pull Datadog in over MCP. The data plane stays sticky; the UI gets shared. Palo Alto usually does own where the SOC lives. The shift starts in the security console — cases, playbooks, response. In a PANW shop, Cortex is the main workplace. Claude can sit on top in a multi-vendor stack. That’s the risk but not the base case. Same idea — agents need the pipes. What’s different is who tries to own the collector, and who already owns the desk. Thoughts welcome. Full Part 3 write-up for Convequity subscribers is on its way.
@convequity

Convequity on X

Snyk is a clean postmortem for what happens when a security tool lives inside the coding agent’s loop. The product was mostly scan-and-warn. Find the issue, comment on the PR, suggest a fix. Blocking the merge usually sat in GitHub, not in Snyk. Bigger platforms smothered it. $PANW, $CRWD, and Wiz pulled AppSec into the bundle the CISO was already buying. GitHub was the main developer surface and put scanning where the code already lived. Then coding agents arrived and delivered the final blow. A lot of that scanning became something the agent could just do. Growth held up for a short while after the COVID/cloud tailwind. Then it decelerated hard. This is the same lens we use in Convequity’s SaaS Agentic Survival Evaluation Framework. The PANW, CRWD, and FTNT reviews go up on Convequity in a few days.
@DOMOCAPITAL

DOMO Capital Management, LLC on X

Yes, those two. They are willing to sell the entire company, but the value of those two plants, specifically, are now much higher. I expect significant consolidation within the industry and that everyone is just waiting to see what happens with not only E15 in California, but year-round nationwide. If the Senate passes something in September/October then the odds that both $ALTO and $GPRE get sold skyrocket.
@BrokenMoats 1 click

Broken Moats on X

$SNOW conference call is the bear case for application software companies. Their data infrastructure combined with coco and cowork on top increasingly makes SNOW a key player in data migrations, and data consolidation for their customers and a key hub to switch between models means SNOW has a seat at the table to be one of the most important and internal pieces of an AI stack....and as they become the permissions data holder with governance and api/mpc to internal and external partners, they can actually become the system of record across applications. This would allow you to use tools like cocoa inside to contextualize in human language what you want built, or even what data/answers you want and how you want that visualized.... Compare this to a Salesforce that is essentially becoming a database company silo to their specific domain by opening up their data to Claude to be the work engine. Eventually companies will increasingly want to stop interfacing with multiple applications to query and want to UI and query across a singular interface (originally thought to be an LLM like Claude, but with specific training and different inference costs / intelligence across models its more like the player presiding over the biggest pool of company data (snowflake, databricks) could become that central payer - less model lock, more flexibly, and central access point for models, data, queries and ui across functions. May not relegate a salesforce obsolete but significantly destroys their value when people access from Snow or even from an LLM like Claude were they lose the ui interface, and behavioral association and slight shared/learned network effects and become a database. Increases switching costs overtime and certainly destroys pricing (agent force consumption model is a step in the modern pricing setup, but start based models are dead, its not an if for most applications without highly defensible and proprietary data) $PEGA, $APPN, $PATH, $CRM, $PAYC are first pass through som of the more exposed names
@Mike10947310 1 click

Mike on X

During the Iran dip initially there was a lot of behind the scenes AI progress. And so when there was finally relief — in the form of the initial detente -> MOU — things totally ripped. I feel like with these insane $NVDA and $AVGO guides we are almost in this spot again. Hedge funds have delevered, momo has been historically crushed, Warsh has said a lot of hawkish things, and the next FOMC the market expects a hike. Obviously the big overhang is yields. But it feels to me like for all the discussion of guidance/rates/the yield curve… really the bond market just wants the war to end or at least be paused. I am not so sure that the US has no power to at least have things significantly deescalate when it wants (maybe into midterms). It’s like, we can “lose” a war, but Iran can still recognize that with time its leverage will decrease, its economy will be destroyed further… like it seems a bit naive just to think that because the war is going badly, Iran has no desire to see it wind down. This latest tit for tat for example hasn’t been that crazy. So IF you think that we get some sort of detente, which is really what I think yields need — are we not kind of a coiled spring here and running back a similar setup to when things started ripping?