Monday, October 5, 2026

Back to today

From X

@blondesnmoney

Cluseau Investments on X

It's been a year since this post and I've held all the names aside from Sandisk (which I sold 600 shares of at $130 and think of on a regular basis), and Powll Industries. Not a great day today, "attitude adjustment" from Western Digital (made a bad day trade as well), and Kioxia and WDC have been halved since June (would've been nice to cash out at the peak). Still, I think perspective is key, all of these components have come a long way since the original post a year ago, and I think the toughest part has been owning them rather than attempting to time the market. Every headline has been absolutely brutal in prompting the worst, most emotional decisions, at the wrong time. I made a few modifications, I spent $50 to collar $MU between 1000 and 1500 until December, which seems like a really inexpensive hedge to get 400 points of upside and limit losses to a 70 point downside, and today I used proceeds from selling $WDC calls to buy some December and January 350 Strike Puts on my entire position. It serves as a contractual stop loss, WDC is up 120% this year but I don't want to ride it back to the cost basis or negotiate with myself on the way. Either it holds 350 and finds some footing, or I get closed out in a few months and move on. Despite today's relatively bad day, the basket has worked out ok over the last 12 months. Hedging Cost: 60,000 Basket Cost Basis: 1.404 Million Current Value: 4.328 Million Unrealized: 2.924 Million
@convequity

Convequity on X

Whether AI can run security operations on its own comes down to one question: when an automated action is wrong, who is accountable for finding out what happened and fixing it? Our note borrows two levels from self-driving cars. At L2 the driver answers for mistakes. At L4 the car drives itself, so accountability shifts to the company behind the system. 1. At L2, a third-party AI agent mostly assists. It connects to a security platform over MCP, the protocol that lets an outside AI model pull data from a vendor's platform. It suggests next steps and drafts investigations, while the human and the security platform still hold the wheel. 2. At L4 or L5, the system acts with no human in the loop in the security operations centre. It quarantines a machine, kills a process, revokes access or blocks traffic. Any of those can be wrong. When one is, the customer needs a clear accountable party that will investigate and fix the problem. In our view $PANW can be that party. It is already inside the customer's systems, keeps audit trails, and its own products take those hard-to-reverse actions. AI model labs are poorly placed for that role. On our reading, their terms usually limit what they answer for, so when an outside agent acts wrongly, the customer is left to investigate and fix the problem alone. Outside agents compete most easily for the analyst's workspace, which is L2 work. That makes $PANW better placed than model labs to sell autonomy.

British American Tobacco: Harvest

British American Tobacco’s U.S. reset revives combustibles and rebuilds its nicotine-pouch portfolio after legacy-brand writedowns and Velo…

Practical Parametric Yield

Cerebras’s WSE-3 faces parametric-yield constraints that could restrict supply, making power and clock-speed tradeoffs central to its next…

Nike, Part Two: The Deep Dive

Nike’s second Latticework program examines the company and the global athletic footwear and apparel industry for professional investors.

Nike, Part One: The Story

Nike grew from a $1,000 shoe-distribution venture in 1964 into the largest sports brand, using athlete endorsements, product innovation and…

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

109 publications

Newsletters 92

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

74 accounts

Investor letters we follow

189 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.