Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Back to today

Expert Call | Corning

Corning’s NVIDIA-backed 10x fiber expansion, enterprise connector demand and carrier capacity plans frame its optical communications outlook through 2030.

GLW $126B
P Equity Research 37 clicks

From X

@StableBread

Fajasy on X

If ur reading a write-up and they don't include a valuation range, more often than not: 1) They're lying to themselves. E.g. only pitching bull case. "The next 10x." $GRAB a couple years ago. 2) They're lying to you, the reader. E.g. not focusing on bear case enough. "It's asymmetric"... but actual downside if couple thing flops is 60%+. $FLNC just 2-3 months ago. 3) They have no clue and prob conclude by saying "position as small speculative bet" to be in a win-win scenario to gain subs. $CCXI today... Multiple based valuation is the simple/lazy route and easier to defend, yet less practical. Absolute valuations like DCF or Penman REV forces you to think more through scenarios and the business itself, which is what's actually useful because it's more subjective.
@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.

Investor Letters

All letters

Vicor Update, Part Two

Vicor uses ITC exclusion-order cases to license power-module patents, with published royalty multipliers rising from 1.0x before filing to…

VICR $10B
CV's Substack 4 clicks

Expert Call | Nebius

Nebius’s 1 GW annual active-capacity target from 2027 is realistic, according to a former product manager, with greenfield data centers…

NBIS $56B
P Equity Research 4 clicks
PTRN · short

Pattern Group INC

Pattern Group is a fragile consumer business targeted on the short side.

PTRN $3B
Value Investors Club 3 clicks

Dell's Tailwinds

Dell booked $131.7B of AI server orders in four quarters and held a $95B backlog as enterprise AI demand accelerates.

DELL $301B
Chipstrat 4 clicks

A Month with Muse

Meta’s Muse automated website fixes and design changes for a solo publisher, illustrating how $20-per-month AI agents can reduce…

META $1.9T
MBI Deep Dives 3 clicks

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 107

YouTube 4

Blogs 17

Seeking Alpha 49 of 229

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

88 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

189 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.