Tuesday, October 13, 2026

@calvinblissett Oct 10

Calvin Blissett on X

$OPBK: Korean American depositor focus across Southern CA, TX, NV, WA. LTM Owner's Earnings=27.32m 7.8x multiple. 3.7% dividend. At book. 12 full service branches and 1 loan production office (LPO). SBA preferred lender status allows them to unload 75% of loans at a premium. Focused on real estate and housing. 1h 2026 closed 5 LPOS due to "limited market demand" was outside core geography. NPLS +22.7% from YE 2025 to Q2 2026. Cost of deposits end of Q2 2.93%, more than 50% are CDs which is bad as they are not sticky and rate sensitive.

@calvinblissett Oct 10

Calvin Blissett on X

$FF: $195m EV, 30-40m current EBITDA est at RIN prices. 30m in hidden Arkansas land value (1.7k A out of 2.2k not being used) Thesis: Future Fuel's economics are primarily a bet on biodiesel margins. FF owns a relatively high-cost 59-million-gallon-per-year biodiesel plant, so it generally needs stronger industry margins than larger competitors to justify running at high utilization. The reason a high-cost producer like FF can still matter is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): refiners must satisfy EPA-mandated renewable-fuel volumes, either by blending fuel or acquiring RIN credits. When mandated demand approaches or exceeds economical industry supply, the D4 RIN price rises until the marginal/high-cost producers have enough incentive to restart. FF is one of those marginal producers. That is the core thesis today. D4 RINs have risen sharply from roughly $0.50 in the depressed period to around $1.50, reflecting tighter expected supply/demand, while the EPA's much higher 2026–27 requirements should require substantially more biomass-based diesel production. If the industry remains short of required supply and the RIN bank is drawn down, RINs and therefore biodiesel margins should remain high enough to keep FF operating profitably; roughly speaking, every $0.10/gallon of sustainable margin on ~50 million gallons equals ~$5 million of annual operating profit. A return toward $0.30–$0.50/gallon margins could mean ~$15–25 million of biodiesel operating profit, versus very little or losses when margins collapse. The catalysts are higher plant utilization, continued tight D4 RIN supply/2027 RIN-bank depletion, and stronger chemicals earnings; the major risk is the opposite—RIN prices fall because supply increases, EPA policy weakens demand, exemptions expand, or renewable-diesel capacity overwhelms the market. In simple terms: FF is the expensive factory that the market may now need to run, and the RIN price is effectively what determines whether it gets paid enough to do so.

@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.

@aleabitoreddit Oct 10

Serenity on X

I think almost everything about my $AXTI thesis from 2025 was validated? From AXT's position in the InP substrate bottleneck... Being able to threaten the hyperscaler buildout (per Reuters)... $IQE has been flagging this as a major risk, VPEC and Taiwan epiwafer foundries have been crying over InP substrate bottlenecks. And there's even AXT direct confirmation of partnerships with $LITE and $COHR as the InP substrate supplier. AXT also stated $130m/quarter InP revenue capacity exiting 2027 (~$520m annualized) so that's a massive revenue inflection compared to previously. Now... the biggest question is: How much can AXT price hike? The substrates they make are just such a tiny part of the BOM... but can threaten hyperscaler buildouts with optics. So if they manage to price hike to $SNDK NAND degrees (which they can), then I think AXT could get re-rated a ton from here. But if they end up like Japanese ABF suppliers that are less willing to abuse their position, that's a different story. Will need to do more channel checks to see how that's coming along. But at the very least, I would argue there should be some valuation baseline just due to their critical importance (eg. upstream refinery ownerships, crucible processing, etc) + existing capacity revenue without hikes. TLDR: - Bottleneck thesis was at like ~$500m MC - Upside now comes from price hikes due to duopoly position + ownership of upstream bottlenecks in the InP substrate manufacturing process. (which they can due to low cost of InP substrates in overall costs) - Uncharted territory, we'll see (also a central part of geopolitical tensions so there's always risk there).

@aleabitoreddit Oct 10

Serenity on X

Good question! Just some informal thoughts... there's three "moats" to look at for $SIVE: - Capacity - Qualifications (especially for custom DFB lasers) - Technological 1. For capacity, they're coming online with 100M+ CW DFB lasers Q4 2027 (global supply is roughly ~608M EML/CW lasers currently per Trendforce). Obviously by 2027 global capacity is going to grow a lot, with $AAOI, $AVGO (3x expansion), and others coming online. But if you extrapolate their 2:1 statement, that implies 300m lasers/year long term coming from their own supply + external foundries. This is incredibly valuable during a shortage that was quoted to be 3-5 years, and $LITE stating they already have demand visibility into 2031... And when suppliers have started to qualify many more (eg. 5-7 vendors vs. 2-3 earlier) due to bottlenecks. I'm sure a lot of how they achieve that staggering amount is due to their manufacturing process/yields (which is a moat). 2. For qualifications, if you look at 70mW/100mW pluggable lines with Chinese players, I'd argue this is more generic and moreso reverting back to a capacity argument and manufacturing process to achieve those numbers. Custom DFB arrays that they've been working on with Ayar (they hinted at 2-3 others back in 2023 like Celestial) take years for optical i/o related things and would be a moat if they finish quals. So it's not quite something you can hot swap or design out really easily for $MTSI or another company. But of course cpo scale up and such is mass volume in 2028, and we're still H2 2026. 3. People can always compare raw specs like power output, but it's probably way way more nuanced so easier to just point toward customer statements. With $JBL 1.6T LRO: "I think that there's the potential for a relatively dramatic moat with our LRO part…" from Jabil's EVP, especially related to power consumption. And $SIVE is my guess sole source in this line. Jabil is probably the most important testament to how their lasers perform in mass production scenarios maybe around Q2 next year. Ayar said something similar along the lines of "we couldn't do it without Sivers" for custom implementations.

@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.

@aleabitoreddit Oct 10

Serenity on X

Someone did ask “How is Serenity” this time around! So I’m happy. I’m just personally excited about $LITE selling out into 2029 and implications for optical peers like $AAOI. Not advice, but I personally think markets haven’t fully caught onto the scale of AOI’s ramp in 2027 + current bottleneck severity. It’s one of my largest positions right now for a reason! Also I’m looking forward to touching grass over the weekend. Apparently there was an OCP San Jose event… Maybe I’ll drop by if there’s a Kiss of Life group like at ICML.

@aleabitoreddit Oct 10

Serenity on X

Looks like one of you posted on $RDDT WSB… with a $1M $AAOI position. I’m laughing at the comments, even more amusing when my name pops up Might still be early if people think there’s “no moat” in lasers and that AOI makes no money. (wait and see Q2 2027) https://t.co/vG6Zl4LZHf