Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Sunday, November 8, 2026

Back to the front page

From X

@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

It think it's stupid that "AI Bubble" gets used over and over. In infra names you have: - 1-3x fwd P/E memory companies from Samsung to $ESMT. With HBM players now having hyperscaler multi-year price floor LTAs. - Optical companies like $POET traded -$97M under net cash. Valuing the operating business very negatively, not even at $0. - While AI companies with larger premiums continue to record demand over the next 3-5 years. Such as the new $20B LTAs signed w/ $COHR to $5B LTAs signed w/ $LITE. Can someone in the media honestly see negative EV high-beta optical companies, where 2 years of burnrate would still value the company below $0. or single digit memory companies with contracted demand + price floors years out and say that's a bubble? Many of these names are extremely profitable today... But obviously there's other elements inside the theme, such as: - Certain startups like Instinct that look like a private valuation bubble. - Leveraged Neoclouds that didn't finance properly - and AI lab valuations and commitments, which should be viewed cautiously. But everything gets grouped into one with the boogyman of "leverage" or "debt". Yes, valuations can compress or correct from macro, potential regulatory uncertainty, or potential capex reductions. But for the companies physically powering the AI buildout, it looks more like the Great AI Deleveraging of 2026... Than anything like fundamental demand destruction. As more earnings come out and free cash flow accumulates over time. I'm confident in a recovery, especially in bottlenecks, and for markets to eventually discern durability + growth over frothy valuations tied to AI.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

The two things I'm excited about are Gen G vs. T1... and new NASA's $10 Billion contract to begin settling on the moon. NASA selected: - $SPCX (SpaceX) - Blue Origin - $FLY (Firefly) - $LUNR (Lunar) - $LMT (Lockheed Martin Space) - $NOC (Northrop Grumman Space) - $VOYG (Voyager) - iSpace US to compete for future lunar delivery missions - $1.3B in launch and orbital transportation orders awarded to Arrow Science, Blue Origin, and Impulse Space. - $94 million for Blue Origin to deliver NASA's nuclear powered PROMISE rover - Existing CLPS 1 contract ceiling raised from $2.6B to $4.2B. - NASA also announced awards to Honeybee Robotics, a Blue Origin company, $RDW for a lunar power and communications tower
@leevalueroach

Lee Roach on X

Any rational person should lever themselves up until infinity on 0% convertible debt when rates are pushing 6%. You would be irrational to not do that. Especially if you are any good at capital allocation. How do you think $GME got $5bn of cash on the balance sheet and 10% of eBay. Oh and they made over $1bn in mark to market returns on eBay so far. And 6% on the remaining $5bn is $300 million of interest income per year. All for a zero percent convert that is still out of the money. One of the best capital allocation moves I’ve ever seen on Wall Street.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

I'm going to give a contrarian take on Neoclouds like $NBIS and say the theme looks compelling after the valuation crash. Since there's a reason why Elon's $SPCX is heavily focused on this market full of "guppies" that would die: He sees how attractive the economics are after selling compute to $GOOGL and Anthropic. And this is reflected by his actions not words, from SpaceX's recent $40B financing for GPUs procurement. $AMZN, $MSFT, and even $META also see how profitable the economics are and are accelerating their AI DC buildouts. I'd argue if a Neocloud has: - Close relationships with $NVDA + others for allocations - Existing contracted capacity + permitting - Well funded counterparties, such as Hyperscalers. - Attractive economics, such as financing their procurement correctly (not the way $CRWV has with high debt interest unless they refinance). Then I think they'll do just fine... However, the bigger worry is more toward newer players starting financing or the permitting process, since barrier to entry has now become extremely high. For financing, read through on $IREN earnings has shown public Neoclouds can adapt extremely well to tight markets: As seen with their 90% prepayments for GPU capex on a 5Y deal. Their older H100 GPUs recontracted at double their previous pricing and 12% higher contracted pricing also point against depreciation fears. And in the case DC buildouts slow from permitting delays... it heavily favors some over others. Rosenblatt's recent note for example stated they see little risk with $NBIS primary buildout that was in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. And there's probably less risk with developers in places like Australia. Markets have also show this infinite compute arbitrage can't go on forever, hence the reluctance to further finance capex, via things like ATMs. But ironically, tighter financing and hypothetical restrictive permitting would increase the competitive advantage of established neoclouds. And create a larger moat against newer DC developers.

Investor Letters

All letters

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%.

AXON $31B
Speedwell Memos 3 clicks

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 74 of 279

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

359 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.