Saturday, October 10, 2026

@BarbarianCap Oct 10

Barbarian Capital on X

"The Russell 2000 index, which tracks shares of smaller companies, fell for a fifth-straight week, its longest weekly losing streak since May 2022." $IWM As Yields Surged, Small-Cap Stocks Were Hit Hard https://t.co/71BUJrMnXb

@calvinblissett Oct 10

Calvin Blissett on X

$OC https://t.co/pA9b0mDR9D https://t.co/Mx02ZpE88d

@StableBread Oct 10 1 click

Fajasy on X

Neither of the two commercial prospects BWX Technologies $BWXT has named for its BANR microreactor is a data center. 1) Prodigy Clean Energy, a Montreal-based developer of factory-built nuclear plants: Two BANRs for a transportable pilot plant in Belledune, New Brunswick, built mainly at $BWXT’s Ontario plants and running in the early 2030s. New Brunswick’s government signed a letter of intent (LOI) to buy the power. $BWXT and Prodigy are still negotiating a definitive agreement, and the release provides no dollar value. 2) Tata Chemicals Soda Ash: A Wyoming soda ash producer that signed an LOI to explore deploying up to eight BANRs. $BWXT also markets BANR to data centers. However, I found no data center contract, customer, LOI, or revenue in any $BWXT press release from January 2025 through October 2026, in the FY2025 10-K, or in the 2026 10-Qs. $BWXT’s own mentions stop at a product page saying BANR can provide “clean electricity for municipalities, data centers and campuses,” and slides 11 and 25 from its Investor Day on September 29, 2026, which list “AI/data center demand” as a driver of nuclear demand in general. I didn’t hear the phrase “data center” mentioned once during Investor Day, and slide 49 lists data centers in the third phase of $BWXT’s microreactor plan. CEO Rex Geveden said at Investor Day that “the incremental demand from AI right now is 60 GW” and “winning at AI means winning at power, and winning at power probably means having a nuclear solution.” If he’s right, $BWXT benefits by supplying components, fuel, and services to more reactors, not by selling microreactors to data centers. Advanced Reactor Design and Engineering, the product line that includes Project Pele (its prototype microreactor for the Pentagon) and $BWXT’s other microreactor programs, brought in $203.8M in 2024 and $147.1M in 2025, then $52.6M in H1 2026, down from $69.8M a year earlier. At 3.0% of $BWXT’s $1,761.8M of H1 2026 revenue, microreactors are still a small, early business.

@calvinblissett Oct 10 2 clicks

Calvin Blissett on X

$CHRD: 6.5x FCF, Good CEO, buying back lots of stock, low-cost pure play EP. 8% FCF yield at $60 WTI. No meaningful leverage CHRD trades at ~$142, market cap ~$7.74B, enterprise value ~$8.63B. Dividend yield ~3.7% ($5.20 annual base). Buyback/total shareholder yield is higher: policy returns ≥75% of adjusted free cash flow (mostly buybacks after the base dividend) at current low leverage (<0.5x). On 2026 guidance of ~$1.3B Adj. FCF, this implies a potential total cash return yield in the low-to-mid teens. Valuation is low: ~9.5x TTM P/E, ~7.6x forward P/E, EV/EBITDA ~3.2-3.6x, P/FCF ~6.5x. Analyst consensus PT ~$166-174 (~20%+ upside); highs to $193. Marcellus non-op sale (to POSCO, expected Q4 2026 close) provides ~$550M gross proceeds, sharpening pure-play Williston focus, boosting cash/flexibility for returns or balance-sheet strength, and removing a non-core asset. Reasons for future growth: Flat-to-low absolute oil volumes (maintenance program ~161 MBopd oil) but rising per-share metrics via efficiency and buybacks. Longer laterals (majority of program, including 4-mile) cut costs/breakevens and improve recovery; base production enhancements and lower declines support volumes with less capital. Pure-play focus post-sale plus disciplined consolidator role in the Bakken. Efficiency gains already drove material FCF improvements. LTM Owner’s Earnings (Buffett-style): Roughly Net Income + DD&A + other non-cash charges − maintenance CapEx (and normalized for WC/one-time items). For this E&P, nearly all CapEx is maintenance to offset natural declines, so Owner’s Earnings approximates free cash flow. TTM (to ~Jun 30, 2026): Operating cash flow ~$2.59B, CapEx ~$1.40B → FCF ~$1.19B. DD&A ~$1.54B; Net Income ~$841M. Company-reported adjusted FCF (preferred operational proxy) was strong in 1H26 (~$738M combined Q1+Q2) and has been running at an elevated rate. This is a rigorous, cash-based measure after the capital required to sustain the business. Expected next-12-months Owner’s Earnings: ~$1.3B adjusted free cash flow (company 2026 guidance, including derivatives, at $75 WTI / $3 HH for 2H). Why higher than LTM: stronger realized oil prices vs. prior periods, operational efficiencies (longer laterals, cost controls, base enhancements), volumes at/above high-end of prior guidance, and capital discipline (CapEx held ~$1.4B midpoint). The $550M Marcellus proceeds is one-time cash (not recurring earnings) that further supports returns and balance-sheet optionality. At ≥75% payout, this supports substantial shareholder distributions while maintaining a strong BS. Business simply: Pure-play Williston Basin (Bakken) E&P—largest operator there. Drills oil-focused horizontal wells, produces/sells crude, NGLs, and gas. High-quality inventory; shift to longer laterals improves economics. Management: Danny Brown (CEO; prior Oasis/Anadarko). Track record of efficiency, synergies, disciplined capital allocation, and per-share value creation. Capital allocation: Base dividend + aggressive buybacks under the 75%+ Adj. FCF framework (leverage-dependent). Share count reduced meaningfully; cumulative returns large relative to market cap. Maintenance production focus. Risks: Oil price sensitivity/volatility (primary driver), basin decline/inventory longevity, execution on laterals or M&A, regulatory factors in ND/MT, energy transition headwinds. Margin of safety & upside: Low leverage, high cash generation even at moderate oil prices ($60-70 WTI still supports solid FCF/returns), conservative CapEx, and efficiency gains provide protection. Upside from multiple expansion toward peers/history, continued buyback accretion to per-share metrics, operational outperformance, oil strength, and pure-play clarity. Consensus implies ~20%+ near-term upside; higher in stronger commodity scenarios. Attractive FCF yield + value profile in E&P. Figures based on company results/guidance, market data, and analyst notes as of early October 2026. Oil prices and execution remain key variables.

@calvinblissett Oct 10

Calvin Blissett on X

$OC: Trading at an $11B market cap and 5x EBITDA, Owens Corning (NYSE: OC) presents a compelling asymmetric investment thesis as a forecasted >90% probability 2026/2027 "Super El Niño" prepares to drive massive, non-discretionary, insurance-funded roofing repair demand across the Southeast United States. Historical parallels from the 2015–2016 and 2023–2024 El Niño cycles demonstrate clear operating leverage, where severe storm activity doubled roofing EBIT and generated 2x to 3x stock returns within 12 to 24 months. Modeling a 35% (base) to ~50% (bull) EBITDA expansion at a standard 9x EV/EBITDA multiple points to a 2x base-case to nearly 3x bull-case upside over the next 12 months, supported by a ~2.5% dividend yield and tactical plant expansions in Ohio and Alabama. Primary risks include asphalt input price spikes linked to high crude oil prices and ongoing integration or tariff friction from the $3.9B Masonite acquisition. However, the thesis features a deep margin of safety anchored by a elevated trough EBITDA margin floor of 24–34% (up from 13–16% in past cycles), cost-saving vertical integration via in-house asphalt oxidation, and strict insurance policy timelines that compel homeowners to replace damaged roofs regardless of broader macroeconomic weakness.

@StableBread Oct 10

Fajasy on X

BWX Technologies $BWXT is in military base power three ways, through (1) Project Pele, a prototype reactor it’s building for the Pentagon, (2) the TRISO fuel its microreactors run on, and (3) Janus, the Army program that chose $BWXT’s commercial reactor for Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Pele is a 1.5-megawatt (MW) transportable, gas-cooled microreactor built for the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office under a 2022 award. $BWXT delivered its full TRISO fuel core to Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in December 2025, received the Department of Energy’s (DOE) preliminary safety approval in September 2026, and targets delivering the reactor to INL in 2027. TRISO (tri-structural isotropic) fuel, which the Department of Energy calls “the most robust nuclear fuel on earth,” packs uranium into particles coated in carbon and ceramic layers. $BWXT produces TRISO at Lynchburg “in the hundreds of kilograms quantities,” Joe Miller, president of Government Operations, said at its Investor Day on September 29, 2026. It also supplied the fuel for Antares, a microreactor startup whose reactor was the first new reactor to reach criticality (a self-sustaining chain reaction) under DOE’s reactor pilot program in June 2026. POWER magazine, a power-industry trade publication, reports $BWXT is “the only Janus vendor that self-supplies its TRISO fuel.” $BWXT is also negotiating a commercial TRISO plant in Wyoming with Kairos Power, an advanced reactor developer, at up to $500M of capex. CFO Mike Fitzgerald said at Investor Day that $BWXT needs to see high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU, the 5-20% enriched uranium most advanced reactors need) become available before committing to the plant, and “probably will not make a decision on that for a little while.” The Army chose BANR (the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor), a 20 MWe (megawatts of electricity) gas-cooled design scaled up from Pele, for Fort Campbell. $BWXT plans to start construction at the site in late 2028 and have the reactor running in the early 2030s. Three details matter here: 1) No contract value: $BWXT’s release describes “a phased contracting approach.” For comparison, the Janus agreement for Radiant, a microreactor startup, is worth up to $750M. 2) $BWXT will own the reactor: The Army chose vendors “to own, construct and operate nuclear microreactors” ($BWXT’s release), under fixed-price, milestone-based agreements in which the Army pays at milestones rather than buying power. 3) Not first in line: With operation in the early 2030s, $BWXT’s reactor won’t meet the September 30, 2028 deadline a May 2025 executive order set for an Army-regulated reactor running on a U.S. military base. Radiant and Antares, two of the other Janus vendors, both target 2028 for their first reactors. After Radiant’s agreement, $1.45B of the program’s $2.2B is left, and an even split among the other four vendors would give $BWXT ~$360M over fiscal 2027-2031, or $72M/year, under 2% of 2026 revenue guidance.

@convequity Oct 10 2 clicks

Convequity on X

@jukan05 Not quite. It is more like $LITE's biz outside of UHP CW will seen tons of price & volume pressure, while its UHP doesn't seem to be attractive akin to CPO. Still a good biz, just marginally less attractive.

@StableBread Oct 9 5 clicks

Fajasy on X

The S&P 500 lost 18% in 2022, and the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate, the main U.S. bond index, lost 13%, its worst year since it began in 1976. Over the same year, $XLE, the S&P 500 energy sector ETF, returned 64%, gold was flat, and cash earned ~1.5%. Now what if I told you there's a framework that would've said to own cash and energy in 2022, not stocks and bonds? That framework is called Gave's Four Quadrants, after Charles Gave, co-founder of Gavekal, a macro research firm. It uses two ratios built from market prices, the S&P 500 vs. Oil and Gold vs. Treasuries, to place the economy in one of four environments, and it describes what to own and what to avoid in each. Here's how stocks, bonds, gold, and cash tend to perform in each environment: → Deflationary boom: Stocks, bonds, and cash rise, and gold underperforms. → Inflationary boom: Stocks and gold rise, cash does very little, and bonds fall. → Deflationary bust: Bonds and cash rise, gold stays fairly stable, and stocks fall. → Inflationary bust: Gold and cash rise, while stocks and bonds fall. In my backtest of Gave's rules from 1970 to September 2026, a portfolio split equally between cash, the S&P 500, and either 10-year Treasuries or gold, whichever the framework favored, would have returned 5.7% per year after inflation. Its max drawdown was 28%, vs. 54% for the S&P 500. As of the end of September 2026, the two ratios place the U.S. in an inflationary boom phase. But since January 2025, the S&P 500 to gold ratio has been below its 7-year average, which has often come a few months before the S&P 500 to oil ratio drops below its own 7-year average. If that happens, the U.S. is back in an inflationary bust phase, like 2022. So how do you read the two ratios yourself, and what do they say to own today? That's what I walk through in my new ~20-minute video!