Saturday, November 7, 2026

@kab604 14h ago

kab60 on X

@AKWilk Gregs got it. $FOUR shareholders are a whiny bunch. And the whiners seems to have capitulated just before operating leverage kicks in, and the bar is finally set for beat and raise.

@StableBread 15h ago

Fajasy on X

Here’s how I’d position for growth with sticky inflation, U.S. stocks close to their most expensive since 1881, and AI spending that’s turning to debt: → Less in U.S. index funds: If the CAPE’s history holds, U.S. stocks will return less over the next 10 years than the S&P 500’s 7.1%/year average after inflation since 1871. That doesn’t mean you should stop dollar-cost averaging into your retirement accounts or sell what you own, but there are better risk/reward opportunities than an index this concentrated in U.S. large-cap tech. → Value stocks, emerging markets and real assets: Charles Gave favors all three in an inflationary boom. Growth × Policy favors emerging markets and real estate in its current phase, and value stocks, emerging markets and commodities if the real rate rises above 1% (it’s ~0.8% now, and headed above 1% if the Fed hikes again in December). According to Barclays, whose CAPE for U.S. stocks is 39x, the UK (18x) and China (14x) trade at less than half that. → TIPS over nominal Treasuries: In October, 10-year TIPS yielded 2.78% above inflation on average and nominal 10-year Treasuries yielded 5.13%, so TIPS come out ahead over the next 10 years if CPI inflation averages more than 2.35%/year (5.13% minus 2.78%). CPI inflation was 3.7% over the 12 months to September, so inflation would have to slow well below today’s pace for nominal Treasuries to win. → Gold over nominal Treasuries: Gave favors gold over bonds for as long as the gold/IEF ratio stays above its 7-year average. It’s 61% above it now, so gold would have to lose ~38% against $IEF to flip that reading. → More cash than risk-on alone suggests: Risk-on underweights cash, but with the S&P 500/WTI ratio swinging with every Iran headline, I’d keep more, since Gave’s inflationary bust favors cash and energy and avoids long-duration stocks and bonds. In short, I’d own less U.S. large-cap tech, more of what an inflationary boom favors, and enough cash to act if Gave’s reading flips to a bust.

@convequity 15h ago

Convequity on X

Marvell buying Lumentum is easier to understand strategically than financially. Four days after $MRVL announced its all-stock acquisition of $LITE, I understand why both sides want it. I remain unconvinced by the shareholder economics at the announced $115bn enterprise value. Smart bulls long $LITE after mid-2026 for its UHP CW story, but we don't. Lumentum's ultra-high-power laser advantage depends on the optical architecture customers choose. Moving the light source closer to the optical engine can reduce losses and change the power required. Today's component bottleneck may become less valuable as the system design changes. External lasers still offer cooling and replacement advantages. Broadcom $AVGO uses them too; its strength is coordinating switch silicon, optical engines and packaging. Huawei's Hi-ONE takes a different route with a built-in light source. Both reinforce the importance of controlling the broader design. That helps explain Marvell's motivation. In AI clusters, weaker networking can leave expensive accelerators idle. A cheaper networking component may never compensate for the lost compute. Buying Lumentum gives Marvell more control over the optical technology it needs to compete. But shareholders have to fund that integration. Marvell holders exchange roughly one-third of the combined company for Lumentum. Lumentum holders receive a fixed number of Marvell shares, leaving them exposed to Marvell's share price and the combined company's execution. We have always being negative on $MRVL vs. $AVGO. Always a tier 2 mgt in both vision and execution. The expected first-half-2028 close is a nightmare for a catch-up strategy. Both companies can keep developing products, but the benefits of combined ownership remain deferred. Broadcom and Huawei have time to advance their designs and deepen customer deployments. By closing, the competitive gap could be wider. I would assign no value to an NVIDIA $NVDA rescue. NVIDIA already has investments and partnerships with both companies. It can access their technology without acquiring the business; a takeover would still depend on price and regulatory clearance. The strategic rationale is understandable. The shareholder case needs customer wins and earnings that justify the ownership exchanged, integration costs and time lost. I remain skeptical.

@valuedontlie 16h ago

Colin King on X

Seeing a handful of companies absolutely slash guidance recently... $GIL moving from $4.65-4.75 EPS to $3.70-3.80 with only 1 quarter to go in the year is a pretty sharp turn in outlook... https://t.co/Fu9OA3AyZg

@AsifSuria 16h ago

Asif Suria on X

I am long both Netflix $NFLX and $META. As a Netflix shareholder, I am not sure how I feel about this development where Lionsgate Studios $LION is discussing creating original content for Meta. Netflix used to have amazing content. These days it is much harder to find something good to watch.

@stockgutter 16h ago

SG on X

covered remaining $BSP calls https://t.co/pNTttIc1h6

@Adam_Wyden 16h ago

Adam D. Wyden on X

$STGW $MGNI So magnite is growing topline ~10 pct and EPS 20 pct and trades 21x 2027 EPS...thats a 27.00 stock for $STGW on CONSENSUS 27.... on our numbers it could be ~35.00. We also think there is 20 mm shares short in real time which is 20 pct of the float... Please explain. @Mark_Penn @ballan11 @jayleveton @stoolpresidente @TheRoaringKitty

@calvinblissett 16h ago 1 click

Calvin Blissett on X

Great question. My short answer is that CareCloud ($CCLD) sells an outcome and selling that outcome requires trust and experience: getting doctors paid. Commoditizing AI makes that cheaper for CareCloud to deliver, not easier for someone else to copy. I also think they are very well positioned to deliver AI and keep reaping its benefits an they alluded to as much on the Q3 call. RCM is the bloodflow of a medical practice. It’s how the practice gets paid, and nobody experiments with their cash flow to save a few dollars on a cheaper AI tool, especially when small practices are hesitant to adopt AI to begin with. One missed month of collections can sink a small practice, so trust and a track record matter more than the newest model. Practices sign multi-year contracts, and a CareCloud rep told me the most common objection he hears is that prospects are “locked in a contract” with someone else. The stickiness that keeps practices from leaving their current vendor works for CareCloud once it has them. Hospitals are stickier still: the rep put hospital sales cycles at 1–3 years. The data from doing the work is part of the moat and not replicable at least quickly. They process claims for thousands of practices. On the Q3 call, management said denial rates fell from about 8% to under 4% in a year, against the 6–8% the large RCM firms publish and the 7–8% benchmark for physician practices. Zero-touch claim processing rose from 74% to 84%. A startup can buy the same model. It can’t buy the claims history, the payer-specific rules or the people who handle the exceptions that lead to Carecloud being MUCH better than industry benchmarks Cheaper AI widens their cost advantage. They already run a large team in Pakistan at a fraction of US labor cost, and AI is now cutting manual claim touches by 44%. In the CEO’s words: “Our team now handles more volume with the same headcount.” It shows in the margins. Revenue minus direct operating costs went from 47.8% to 50.5% of revenue, and adjusted EBITDA margin hit 29%, against about 13% in 2023. When AI gets cheaper for everyone, the operator with the most volume to run it on wins the most. It’s like Walmart with barcode scanners: everyone could buy one, but Walmart got the most out of it. They also said software development is a growth engine (I plan on asking about economics which they said were good and given their track record I believe), my take is this is a way for them to utilize that cost advantage and monetize that while it is still very potent relative to the industry. What is a risk here is the Warren Buffett tiptoes at the parade analogy and the Charlie Munger distinguish when the economics stick to your ribs versus just go all to the customer, I think that is a real risk but over a time frame long enough that in today's price it isn't super concerning. Follow up to above: RCM is usually priced as a percentage of what the practice collects (a royalty like what Bill Ackman loves as mentioned recently in his Oct 26 Equity Mates interview which I enjoyed: https://t.co/AyJVuRKudW). When AI cuts denials from about 8% to under 4% (Q3 call), the practice collects more, and CareCloud’s fee rises with it. The client is better off and so is CareCloud. This is Charlie Munger's win-win business model (more data in writeup on this), what lead him to $COST and away from Valeant and $CACC. The core moat is the relationships and the volume of work that already exists. At about 5x EBITDA (see writeup for what peers trade at in TRANSACTIONS (13.6x for one set and 18x for another), the market is pricing CareCloud as an AI loser when it’s one of the bigger beneficiaries IN MY OPINION