Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Sunday, October 25, 2026

Back to today

From X

@StableBread 3 clicks

Fajasy on X

Curtiss-Wright $CW is BWX Technologies’ $BWXT closest comp, and $BWXT trades below it on every measure but FCF yield. Since naval propulsion is close to half of $BWXT’s revenue, its closest comps are other Navy suppliers. Small-reactor developers like Oklo $OKLO and NuScale $SMR wouldn’t work anyway, as they lost $73.2M and $64.0M from operations in Q2 2026, leaving no EBITDA multiple to compare against. So I decided to compare $BWXT with four listed companies building or equipping the same Navy submarines and carriers: → Curtiss-Wright $CW: Pumps, valves, and turbines for the same submarines and carriers, plus reactor coolant pumps for Westinghouse’s AP1000. → Leonardo DRS $DRS: Naval power and propulsion systems, including electric drive equipment for the Columbia-class. → General Dynamics $GD: Builds the submarines through its Electric Boat unit. → Huntington Ingalls $HII: Builds the carriers and submarines at its Newport News shipyard. Here’s how they compare on 2026 estimates (P/E, EV/EBITDA, EV/sales, FCF yield): → $BWXT: 30.7x, 22.5x, 3.95x, 2.64% → $CW: 36.3x, 24.8x, 5.54x, 2.90% → $DRS: 26.9x, 18.4x, 2.48x, 2.78% → $GD: 19.7x, 13.9x, 1.68x, 5.34% → $HII: n/a, 12.3x, 0.98x, 5.28% Note: CW’s, GD’s, and HII’s EBITDA is operating income plus D&A from company guidance, since they don’t guide EBITDA. $BWXT trades above the two shipbuilders, which earn thinner margins. HII guides shipbuilding operating margins of 6.0-6.5% and GD 10.5% overall, vs. $BWXT’s 12.6% GAAP operating margin in 2025. A reasonable EV/EBITDA range for $BWXT is 16-24x, between its own end-2023 multiple and Curtiss-Wright’s today.
@convequity

Convequity on X

Our DCFs usually assume a tech company settles into 3% growth forever. Very few ever do. We forecast growth for several years, then step it down linearly to a 3% sustainable (terminal) growth rate at the end of the explicit forecast period. Most of our valuations are tech stocks, so we use 3%: if the broad US economy grows ~2-2.5%, a frontier company presumably grows faster. But tech has little middle ground of steady single-digit growth. Companies grow double digits, or get acquired, or their revenue declines, often until they get acquired. $CSCO and $IBM are rare exceptions. Huge installed bases, enterprise lock-in and services carried them through their single-digit stretches. An industrial that has grown ~3% a year for decades is a very different dynamic. It has a mature market, a few main players plus some smaller ones, not that much competition and no real danger of being acquired. Its moats are physical; its demand saturates rather than disappears. Tech advances civilization and pushes the frontier of productivity and what humans can do. That attracts more competition and more players wanting a piece. We think three things squeeze out the middle. Products get replaced by the next platform rather than maturing. Near-zero marginal cost lets the scale leader undercut on price and outspend on R&D once growth slows. And the market marks slow growers down into cheap targets for buyers who cut costs and fold them in. So setting a sustainable growth rate for tech is theoretically more challenging. Our 3% is really a bet that the company reaches a durable, mature state. A more honest framing is scenarios: durable compounder, acquired, or decline. 3% is a blend of outcomes, none of which looks like 3%.

Investor Letters

All letters

Tower Semiconductor Deep Dive

Tower Semiconductor’s low-loss photonics chips halve lasers in 1.6T optical modules, supporting a $680 million annualized photonics run…

TSEM $19B
CV's Substack 9 clicks

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
JBFCY · long

Jollibee Foods CORP

Jollibee Foods trades at PHP 144, about 56% below its January 2019 high, framing a long thesis on the Philippine restaurant operator.

JBFCY $2.5B
Value Investors Club 1 click

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

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

128 publications

Newsletters 108

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 62 of 253

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.