Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Sunday, October 25, 2026

Back to today

From X

@StableBread 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.
@convequity

Convequity on X

$RBRK's backup engine breaks data into fixed-size blocks, for example 4 MB, and stores only the unique blocks across backups. Commvault and Cohesity instead divide data into variable-sized chunks, with the boundaries set by the content itself. Each design has a trade-off. With fixed blocks, a small change inside a block means the whole block gets written again, so Rubrik uses more storage. In return, hashing and comparing blocks is simple, which means faster backups and lower compute overhead. With variable chunks, only the changed portions are written, so storage use is much lower. Working out chunk boundaries and hashes as the data comes in takes more CPU and memory, which can slowdown backups. Cohesity offsets part of this with a scale-out architecture that processes in parallel across nodes. The two designs fit two different jobs. Variable-length deduplication suits long-term archives, where storage cost matters more than speed. Fixed-block deduplication suits recovery after a hack or ransomware attack, where fast restores and predictable performance matter more than saving storage. That matches how each company started. Rubrik came into the market in 2014 focused on security and on getting critical data back quickly after a breach. Cohesity started from a different idea. It built its own file system that spreads data across many servers, each with its own computing power. Backup copies stay readable like normal files, so companies could search and analyze them where they sit, without restoring them first. Security came second. The two are now moving closer together. Cohesity has leaned much more into security and recovery, especially after buying Veritas's backup business in 2024.
@convequity

Convequity on X

$NTSK began as a CASB vendor, governing how employees use SaaS applications at the point of use. Years of that work gave it application-specific knowledge of user behavior, data movement, and risk inside cloud apps. That knowledge carries over to AI. Netskope inspects prompts, responses, and file transfers inline and in real time, and it can respond with something more precise than a block: preventing a risky copy-and-paste, stepping up authentication for a sensitive interaction, or coaching the user as they work. The part that matters more comes after the prompt. AI adds autonomy and chaining, so a single human interaction can trigger many machine-executed actions across tools, data stores, and services, often outside one user session. If data is over-permissioned and tools are loosely scoped, an agent can stay inside its allowed permissions and still cause harm faster than a person can intervene. The context Netskope gathers at the interaction can be carried forward to constrain that downstream execution: who the user is, what data is involved, which action was taken, and how risky it looks. So Netskope's edge is that it already knows the user, the data and the action at the moment of the prompt, and it can use that context to limit what an agent does next. It is now building the agent side directly. Its Agentic Broker rates agent actions by risk before they run, and its AI posture management for agents built on AWS, Azure and GCP is still in preview. That is the part to watch.
@convequity 2 clicks

Convequity on X

More $NVDA chips could end up going to SpaceX and other buyers that can borrow at investment-grade rates, leaving neoclouds with fewer chips than they need. SpaceX's planned $40bn chip borrowing shows why. The deal: $SPCX is in early talks for about $10bn of bank loans and $30bn of investment-grade debt, led by Apollo, with Pimco also in talks. It would close in 2027, and the talks could still fall apart. The comparison: in December, Apollo lent about $3.5bn to fund xAI's Colossus 2 chips through a separate company set up just for that deal. The interest rate was about 10% a year. xAI is now part of SpaceX. Investment-grade debt usually costs much less. US investment-grade corporate bonds yield around 6% on average today. The rate on the new $30bn has not been reported, so we don't know the exact saving yet. Why it could be cheaper: lenders would be relying on SpaceX's launch and Starlink businesses to repay, not only on the chips. That is the real financial payoff of putting xAI inside SpaceX. Most GPU buyers can't borrow like that. $CRWV is rated junk (Moody's Ba3, Fitch BB-) and pays 9.25% on its 2030 bonds. Standalone AI labs have no public credit ratings that we could find. Not every neocloud pays up. $NBIS has a GPU loan at a floating benchmark rate plus 2.5%, against CoreWeave's plus 5.5%. Our view: the debate on X is whether this proves AI demand or shows too much leverage. We think the bigger point is cost of capital. When chips are scarce, the buyer that borrows most cheaply can pay for the most of them, and neoclouds paying junk-level rates get squeezed out.

Investor Letters

All letters

Margin Call

Petrobras’s Morpho-1 well revived hopes that Brazil’s Equatorial Margin can become a major new oil frontier after hydrocarbons were…

PBR $83B
Doomberg 9 clicks

Our Views on CoreWeave

CoreWeave's financial statements point to a business model familiar to the authors after a closer review of the AI infrastructure company.

CRWV $30B
WHAT ARE WE DOING? “Contrarians At The Gate” 12 clicks

Capital Wars

CoreWeave’s $35 billion to $39 billion 2026 spending plan relies on debt as unsecured yields reach 15%, making its GPU cloud expansion a…

CRWV $30B
Net Interest 11 clicks

Putting bear cases to rest

Medpace authorized $1 billion of buybacks through 2028 after Q3 revenue rose 8.5% to $716 million; service revenue grew roughly 12% as…

MEDP $18B
Best Anchor Stocks 14 clicks
DLTR · long

Dollar Tree INC

Dollar Tree is long after divesting Family Dollar, separating its stronger banner from its weaker business.

DLTR $25B
Value Investors Club

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 62 of 254

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

190 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.