New Ask Claude or ChatGPT about any stock, using Bullpen. Bullpen in Claude or ChatGPT. 7 days free
Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Back to the front page

ON THE TAPE with Guy Adami

Guy Adami discusses Nvidia, Anthropic's IPO prospects, energy, gold and the AI trade.

NVDA $4.6T
WHAT ARE WE DOING? “Contrarians At The Gate” 1 click

From X

@StableBread 4 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%.
@BrokenMoats 2 clicks

Broken Moats on X

We listened to the $ROL call or just trading semis versus everything else because they Tok down guidance a second straight quarter and the implied growth in Q4 could go negative on residential. Big feline but stock is still expensive for what is an ongoing challenge to lead gen from LLMs but the other factor they didn't refer to is the PE competition. Seems like an opportunity to scale back in short somewhere closer to $25 seems correct incredibly odd to see it up after that call

Investor Letters

All letters

Sea Ltd Earnings Update: Q3 2026

Sea Ltd reported Q3 2026 revenue of $8.6 billion, up 43.4% year over year, while net income rose 34.0%.

SE $48B
SixSigmaCapital: Navigating the Financial Markets 4 clicks

Airbnb 3Q26: Business Update

Airbnb’s 3Q26 revenue rose 19% to $4.9 billion as nights and seats grew 16%, with app bookings up 29% and Reserve Now Pay Later adding…

ABNB $111B
Speedwell Memos 2 clicks

Research update

S&P Global research will assess Platts, Kensho and ratings growth; Benefit Systems’ 72% YTD rally changed its valuation, while Netflix and…

SPGI $136BICE $96B
Global Outperformers 3 clicks

Monte Investments Market Brief Vol. CXXXV

Quanta Services’ backlog rose 63% year over year to $64 billion as shares fell 30%, while AI power and data-center construction demand…

PWR $77B
Monte Independent Investment Research 2 clicks

No title

SpaceX’s $24 billion Starbase power plant, Microsoft’s Oracle capacity cuts, Riot’s $72 billion AI lease and Quanta’s sell-off frame…

PWR $77BORCL $363B
Monte Independent Investment Research 3 clicks

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

130 publications

Newsletters 110

YouTube 4

Blogs 15

Seeking Alpha 83 of 283

Nominate a publication

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts
Nominate an account

Investor letters we follow

369 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.