Thursday, October 15, 2026

@DeepSailCapital Oct 14 1 click

Deep Sail Capital on X

$DJT Downside still 100% from here https://t.co/6YIEeHfC3e

@BrokenMoats Oct 14 3 clicks

Broken Moats on X

Quickly back to very attractive levels to put back on short exposure on the software sector after the manic move in Q3 and digestion in September before the sudden crash up in the past 10 days..... AI wins software is in trouble - faster disruption more competition, pricing pressure AI trade is over, software is going to catch down as the market will tank and this won't sit that out (the are not cheap) Disruption and pricing is the tailwind, now valuation is too. Rates don't hurt either as up until recently these were considered long duration assets Recent results were status quo for most (no real acceleration) and pitch AI cohort growth as growing xx% but its not uplifting the total growth they are just changing what they charge for to show the street what it wants to hear) -- that phase is over, valuations are in many cases at year and multi year highs. SBC still a problem. Now comes renewals in the back of this year and thats where the issues will start to emerge on retention and pricing. An thats day 1 they will snowball overtime for the vast majority of these companies. Plenty of names to choose from: $PAYC $DOCU $TEAM $DDOG $PCTY $GDDY $RNG

@LaughingH20Cap Oct 14 3 clicks

Laughing Water Capital on X

@secretlyaninja @mbamcnulty mkt used to look 18 mos fwd & annualizing Q4 of a growing co would = a conservative look at where the stock should trade. Now unless it is beat & raise next Q nobody cares. Until they do. Whether $3.80 or $4.50 or '27 or '28 any reasonable mult gets a lot of upside for $LQDA

@John_Hempton Oct 14 2 clicks

John_Hempton on X

@ShitFund I remember being on the opposite side of him on $OPEN.

@stockgutter Oct 14 2 clicks

SG on X

I asked @grok to assess how the full results that $MRNA plans to release at ESMO that would strengthen or weaken the impression from top line results announced in August. The results are copied below. Seems reasonable to me at first glance (without having checked any of the data cited) -- anyone have a different view? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Items that could weaken (or further strengthen) the positive view include: - Magnitude of benefit: Hazard ratios (HRs), confidence intervals, absolute risk reductions, and landmark rates (e.g., 1- or 2-year RFS/DMFS). The earlier Phase 2b KEYNOTE-942 showed an RFS HR of ~0.51 (~49% relative risk reduction) and a DMFS HR of ~0.41 at 5 years. A substantially weaker Phase 3 effect (for example, HR closer to 0.75–0.85 with modest absolute benefit) could make the result look less compelling given the complexity, cost, and personalized manufacturing of the therapy. A comparable or stronger effect would reinforce the topline. - Statistical robustness and maturity: Width of confidence intervals, exact p-values, number of events, and median follow-up duration. Narrow intervals and a solid number of events support reliability; wide intervals, low event counts, or very short follow-up at the interim analysis could raise questions about reproducibility or durability. Subgroup consistency: Results by stage (IIB/IIC vs. III vs. IV), age, BRAF status, PD-L1 expression, geography, or other factors. Benefit concentrated in higher-risk stages or selected subgroups would narrow the practical population and commercial opportunity relative to a broadly consistent effect. Durability (Kaplan–Meier curves): Early separation that later plateaus or converges would suggest limited long-term impact. Sustained separation would support durability. - Overall survival signal: Any immature OS HR, death counts, or curve separation. An adverse or flat trend (while not decisive this early) could temper enthusiasm pending mature data. - Safety, tolerability, and feasibility details: Grade ≥3 adverse events, serious AEs, immune-related AEs, discontinuations, quality-of-life/patient-reported outcomes, and any manufacturing metrics (production success rate, turnaround time, or treatment delays). Higher toxicity, discontinuations, or practical barriers could offset efficacy gains. The topline noted consistency with prior experience and no new signals, but granular rates matter. - Stronger, consistent, durable efficacy with manageable safety and feasible delivery would solidify the positive assessment, support regulatory filings, and underpin commercial expectations. Marginal magnitude, inconsistency across key subgroups, limited durability, or meaningful safety/feasibility issues would lead to a more cautious view of clinical utility and value, even though the trial formally met its endpoints.