Friday, October 16, 2026

@KEDM_COM Oct 8

KEDM.com on X

One of those months where $QQQ is outperforming $IWM massively (again) https://t.co/G7XXqhR41M

@TheBenSchmark Oct 8

JabroniCoin.USD on X

Bernstein on China aluminum ceiling: The ceiling has moved from distant policy to binding constraint. China introduced a 45mtpa aluminum capacity ceiling in 2017, but the limit only matters now. Operating capacity reached 44.8mtpa in 2025, with utilization at around 98.5% $CENX https://t.co/MO6I7y1m2W

@ACapitalLP Oct 8 2 clicks

A Capital on X

$CIFR < $14 👀

@convequity Oct 8 1 click

Convequity on X

$NVDA vs $AVGO: The Optical Edge NVIDIA can keep growing while facing pressure from more directions. Custom chips, optical supply constraints and specialized inference systems give customers more reasons to consider alternatives. Broadcom’s optical capabilities could help it win the accompanying compute order. Customers need both accelerators and the optical components that connect them to bring capacity online. Securing those components alongside an ASIC purchase could shift the customer’s platform choice toward AVGO. Control across lasers, photonic and electronic chips, and packaging also gives Broadcom more freedom to optimize the complete design. Embedded lasers could reduce the laser power required, easing dependence on scarce, high-power external lasers, although replacement becomes harder. For AVGO, this remains a potential design route. NVIDIA can respond through partnerships, but separate suppliers still have their own margins and product priorities. Google ($GOOGL) and Amazon ($AMZN) are expanding the alternatives through TPUs and Trainium. Our ABBX model allocates 10GW of Anthropic’s 13.8GW planned capacity to those two platforms. The plans span different timelines, but show how a few large buyers could redirect substantial spending away from GPUs. Huawei adds pressure through its integrated optical approach and the prospect of Chinese models supplying cheaper tokens internationally. That could affect both hardware choices and the prices compute providers can charge. Cerebras ($CBRS) targets workloads where faster responses matter. It can compete for latency-sensitive decoding without replacing GPUs across every stage of inference. NVIDIA’s defenses remain substantial. GPU batching supports high total output, flexibility across workloads matters, and its ecosystem is deeply established. Customers can use GPUs for prefill and specialized chips for decoding. Wider enterprise model development would also favor NVIDIA because smaller buyers have less reason to fund custom-chip programmes. At comparable valuations, we prefer adding to AVGO: it can benefit from custom-silicon adoption while helping customers secure the optics needed to deploy it. For NVIDIA, the key question is how much market share and pricing power it retains as customers gain more alternatives.

@SowingAlphaSeed Oct 8

Farmer on X

Seems like a real bull thesis for $CIBR and $GLD https://t.co/t08uLOuJfS

@ACapitalLP Oct 8 2 clicks

A Capital on X

What’s $FTAI worth even assuming Power is $0?

@StableBread Oct 8 4 clicks

Fajasy on X

One of the world’s 10 biggest financial institutions signed a deal in 2024 to deploy software from Nubeva Technologies $NBVAF (TSXV: $NBVA). Nubeva won’t name the bank, but its filings leave a trail. The April 2024 release on the deal said revenue from the first 12 months “is not expected to be material,” and no press release or filing has updated the deal since. Nubeva reports revenue by country, and in FY2026, U.K. revenue was $204,055, the same figure as the license line. Nubeva also discloses what share of revenue its largest customers make up. In both of the last two years, U.K. revenue matched one customer’s share almost exactly. In FY2026, U.K. revenue was 40.8% of the total ($204,055 / $500,586), and the two largest customers were 41% each. In FY2025, U.K. revenue was 36.6% ($193,986 / $530,616), and the second-largest customer was 37%. One of the two 41% customers lines up with the support and maintenance line, 41.1% of FY2026 revenue ($205,712 / $500,586), which the last customer of Nubeva’s old TLS (web-traffic decryption) product pays. That means the license revenue, the U.K. revenue, and the remaining 41% customer all appear to be the same account. The FY2025 statements show the 37% customer at 0% of FY2024 revenue, so it started paying in FY2025, the first full fiscal year after the bank deal. In a June 2024 video, CEO Randy Chou said the bank doesn’t want anyone to know it uses Nubeva. If the U.K. customer is the bank, HSBC $HSBC is the likeliest candidate. It’s based in London, and at eighth by assets, it’s the only U.K.-headquartered bank in S&P Global $SPGI’s top 10. Then there’s Netskope $NTSK. The company that bought Nubeva’s key-capture patents runs a public page titled “Netskope + HSBC” that pitches its platform to the bank. It’s a sales page, with a “Meet with your Netskope team” button and a named Netskope sales rep, and it pitches Netskope against a “Bluecoat / Zscaler hybrid approach,” which reads like HSBC’s current setup. It also shows Netskope courting HSBC, not HSBC buying from Netskope, and nothing on the page mentions Nubeva or ransomware. If the bank is HSBC, Netskope, which owns the key-capture patents Nubeva sold, is already pitching Nubeva’s biggest license customer. None of this proves the bank is HSBC. But in the latest quarter (February-April 2026), instead of growing, revenue from the U.K. customer fell ~70% (vs. a 19% rise in the same quarter a year earlier). License revenue was $18,796 ($204,055 for the year minus $185,259 through January), vs. the ~$62K/quarter it averaged in the first three quarters. The FY2026 MD&A doesn’t say whether the license customer renewed. If it didn’t, Nubeva likely lost the bank (possibly HSBC) behind 41% of its FY2026 revenue. The six-month report due by December 30, 2026 will show whether license revenue came back.