Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Thursday, October 1, 2026

Back to today

From X

@negligible_cap

Negligible Capital on X

The rising tide is lifting all AI threatened boats… but should it? Some weekend thoughts as the saaspocalypse seems to be winding down -- TLDR: Long software, short consulting / IT services is interesting: Consulting and IT service names like ACN, CTSH, INFY, GLOB, etc. have rebounded sharply alongside enterprise software names (eg. CRM, NOW, WDAY, TEAM blah blah blah) recently. These moves have been driven pretty much entirely by factor rotation - the rebound in consulting names comes from software’s new AI tailwind rather than being earned by their own fundamentals $ACN, for example, is up 50% in the last two months since the June lows, despite posting their 2nd consecutive guidance cut last quarter -- $CTSH up 67%, $GLOB up 40%, $INFY and $TCS both up around 20%. Despite the rebound, most of their results were very “meh” – several misses in growth / guidance expectations (largely attributed to conflict in the middle east, which probably has some merit), leading to some violent selloffs (Eg. Accenture dropped 18% on June 18 after earnings) Meanwhile, software as we all know is seeing genuine acceleration in some cases, especially in their AI-related revenue metrics, and the narrative is quickly evolving to one in which software is likely to benefit from AI (largely due to strong moats) The same can’t be said for IT services names. Unlike software, where AI is seemingly becoming more additive for their platforms, AI is likely to be structurally deflationary for labor-based IT service models. The current pricing model faces disruption as enterprises seek greater efficiency in delivery and shift towards more outcome-based work. Customers are likely to demand service providers pass on AI productivity gains via lower pricing, especially for contract renewals. Also clients are delaying IT spend due to concerns over rapid AI investments / prioritization of spending elsewhere (eg. IBM’s pre-release, which saw consulting revs miss expectations, among other issues). The growth uncertainty alone likely puts a ceiling on multiples Anyways I know I’m making some very broad generalizations and am probably wrong and this isn’t financial advice but I’ll close it out reminding everyone that Accenture has 800k employees
@leevalueroach

Lee Roach on X

Owning timber REITs here seems like a no brainer. $RYN has an enterprise value of $7.4 billion. They own four million acres. You are buying this for $1,817 per acre. That is dirt cheap. Find me anywhere else you can own a large swath of land for $1,817 per acre. You can’t! The public market will punish RYN for owning a large amount of land. Lower valuation and will call it a value trap. But imagine the optionality of owning this large amount of land. Texas Pacific Land owned a large amount of land and look what happened to their stock price. One of the best performers ever. I’ve done well owning land banks. This one pays a fat dividend. Rare. Market is asleep at the wheel with their pants down and drooling.

Investor Letters

All letters

Not So Fast

Entravision, the portfolio’s largest position, fell more than 40% from its highs as Q3 returns dropped to 37.8% YTD.

EVC $682M
The Mikro Kap 3 clicks

Research Roundup Vol. LIV

Research Roundup covers AAON's data-center cooling ramp, Knife River's margin recovery, ChronoScale's Microsoft-backed neocloud buildout…

AAON $6.8BKNF $2.9B
Monte Independent Investment Research
SFIX · long

Stitch Fix INC

Stitch Fix’s 2017 IPO rested on overly ambitious long-term growth expectations and an unrealistic definition of its addressable market.

SFIX $347M
Value Investors Club 1 click

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

110 publications

Newsletters 93

YouTube 4

Blogs 12

Seeking Alpha 42 of 206

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

72 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

189 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.