Sunday, November 8, 2026

Back to the front page

From X

@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 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.

Axon 3Q26 Business Update

Axon cut full-year guidance after delayed federal Dedrone contracts slowed 3Q revenue growth to 28%, while software and services grew 43%.

Trading Post November 5, 2026

MercadoLibre’s logistics expansion cut margins by 60 basis points, while Mercado Pago grew credit 62% with 7% NPLs.

Thursday Tailwinds #13: Nov 5, 2026

Florida marinas are 92% full as boat counts rise and permits constrain new supply, creating pricing power for existing operators such as…

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts

Investor letters we follow

359 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.