Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Monday, October 26, 2026

Back to today

Merger Monday & Election Implications

EQT’s $50 billion merger with Range Resources and Ovintiv’s $1.26 billion acquisition of Logan Energy reshape North American oil and gas alongside Brazil and British Columbia election…

EQT $34BRRC $13B
Bison Insights 7 clicks

From X

@kevin__mak

Kevin Mak on X

I think this is a good analysis and I'm long $QURE, but I want to flag something about this style of argument because it shows up across a lot of stocks. The common version is "the fundamentals are much better than they were x years ago, but the market cap is the same, so it must be underpriced." That doesn't follow. A disconnect like that means one of the two prices was wrong. It could be too cheap now, or it could have been too expensive before. All you actually know is that the market was probably wrong once. (To credit: @ClearPath100 doesn't explicitly say it's underpriced here.) That said, I still think these situations are worth finding. I generally assume the market is more often right than wrong, so a stock that moves with its fundamentals isn't very interesting. The disconnects are where the market might be wrong, and that's what we want. You just have to do the work to figure out which price was the wrong one. For QURE, I think the shorter comparison is more useful than the 5 year one. The stock was $70+ before the FDA denial that took it to $8. It's $48 today at a lower market cap than it was at $70. In between, the path to approval got better, not worse. The BLA is filed, the confirmatory study design is agreed, the timeline to commercialization is shorter, there's a year more of follow up data, and more cash on the balance sheet. Every risk that exists today also existed at $70. The biggest risk that did exist at $70, the FDA refusing the dataset, has already played out and been resolved. So which price was wrong? My guess is a lot of sharp people owned this at $70+, dumped it on the news, and never came back. I think they were right to sell back then. But if you were right to own it at $75 with more risks and a longer timeline, you should want to own it even more at $48 with fewer risks and a shorter one. Not buying it back isn't consistent with their own original view. I think the reason is simple. Losing 75% on a stock stings, and it's a lot easier to stay away than to admit the same thesis is back on the table at a better price. That's part of why we own it here. Disclosure: Creek Drive and its affiliated funds holds a long position in QURE. Views expressed are current opinions for informational educational only, subject to change and are not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Investing involves the risk of loss and past performance is not indicative of future performance. See the disclosures link in my bio for more important information.

Investor Letters

All letters

Molina & Kinsale

Molina Healthcare and Kinsale Capital’s earnings are reassessed through a long-term lens, emphasizing conviction and detachment during…

MOH $11BKNSL $8.3B
Bearstone 8 clicks

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 $18B
CV's Substack 10 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 $81B
Doomberg 13 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 $34B
WHAT ARE WE DOING? “Contrarians At The Gate” 13 clicks

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 69 of 272

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.