Thursday, November 12, 2026

@StableBread Nov 2

Fajasy on X

Fluence Energy’s $FLNC CEO, CFO, and chief customer success officer just left on October 30, effective immediately, six weeks after its fourth guidance cut in 19 months! The press release says CEO Julian Nebreda, CFO Ahmed Pasha, and John Zahurancik “stepped down.” But the 8-K says all three will be eligible for benefits under $FLNC’s executive severance plan, which only pays out on an involuntary termination or a “good reason” resignation. So I read the exits as the board pushing all three out. The interim CEO and CFO come from $FLNC’s two co-founders and major shareholders, Siemens $SIEGY and $AES: → Interim CEO Axel Meier: Retired in June as CFO of Siemens’ Smart Infrastructure division and has been a $FLNC director since January 2020, through all four guidance cuts. → Interim CFO Ricardo Roizen: A former CFO of AES Andes, a Chile-based AES affiliate, seconded for up to 90 days unless extended, with AES Andes still paying his salary. With Bernerd Da Santos, AES COO from 2017 to 2023, running operations since September 15, Siemens and AES veterans now hold $FLNC’s CEO, CFO, and COO seats. Nebreda, Pasha, and Zahurancik all came from AES as well, so the board hasn’t turned to outsiders for the top three seats, at least until its searches for a permanent CEO and CFO finish. AES also buys $FLNC’s systems and negotiates change orders and settlements with $FLNC, so the interim CFO is now on a customer’s payroll. $FLNC also delayed its FY2027 guidance. Pasha said on September 16 that $FLNC planned to provide “a detailed business plan and a financial update for fiscal year 2027” when it reported FY2026 results. The November 2 release now says FY2027 guidance “is expected to be provided at a later date.” So the FY2026 results on November 23 will show how Q4 went, but not how much of the ~$2.9B of backlog scheduled for FY2027 $FLNC expects to deliver. The release says $FLNC is prioritizing profitable growth “through disciplined pricing and a streamlined cost structure,” which I read as fewer low-margin orders and cost cuts. At ~$5.40/share, $FLNC trades between the $3.93 bear case and the $7.67 low end of the base case in my September 21 update. Would you say replacing Nebreda and Pasha was overdue? But with an interim CEO, a CFO on loan from AES, and no FY2027 guide, I’d rather see three numbers before giving the new team any credit: 1) Revenue: Q4 vs. the ~$810M the September guide implied. 2) Houston: Output at the contract manufacturing plant behind most of the September 16 cut, vs. the 11 units/day it was supposed to run. 3) Cash: The balance as of September 30, vs. $365M as of June 30.

@DOMOCAPITAL Nov 2

DOMO Capital Management, LLC on X

@mrbergmann The credit terms (carving out Dec. dividend and providing transferability to another party) clearly seem to indicate, at least to me, that $MNRO is expecting to announce a sale of the entire company within months.

@stockgutter Nov 2

SG on X

@kiwicarrotcake still might be a good gamble. Just saying that sure as night follows day, $OKLO will spend some of its kitty and probably not wisely.

@StableBread Nov 2 1 click

Fajasy on X

@wallstengine EBITDA up 19% on 10% revenue growth beats the 2030 plan from Investor Day, which only calls for low-to-mid-teens EBITDA growth on low-double-digit revenue. $BWXT

@stockgutter Nov 2

SG on X

those assumptions though. - given trajectory of capex, don't you think it will continue in 2026? - given history of dilution, more seems likely - $OKLO did 3 acquisitions in 2026 afaik (Atomic Alchemy, ARMEC, Creative Engineers). Assuming none in the next 13 months seems unlikely.

@junkbondinvest Nov 2 1 click

junkbondinvestor on X

AI debt spreads by structure. 15 of 17 are wider since issue, and Oracle now trades wider than most secured data center paper. $ORCL $CRWV

@ACapitalLP Nov 2

A Capital on X

@snack8812 No this selloff is SpaceX buying $ECHO related. Deal premium getting puked.

@ParadisLabs Nov 2 1 click

Paradis on X

$LITE & $MRVL Scenario Analysis & Explanations: TLDR: Lumentum brings ~a third of the combined profit to the Marvell deal and gets ~a third of the company. Why would a business more than doubling its revenue accept that? There's no real premium on what it brings!!!! 🚨 * Each cell compares Lumentum holders' share of the combined company's profit vs. what they'd have kept if Lumentum stayed independent. ** Red cells = Lumentum holders are worse off in the deal. Green = better off. *** n/m = Lumentum makes a loss on its own, so a % comparison isn't meaningful. Explanations: - If Lumentum keeps growing, shareholders lose in every column: −12.5% if Marvell hits its $20B FY28 outlook, −33% if Marvell stalls, −43% in a downturn. - If Lumentum just holds today's level, holders only win if Marvell hits $20B (+17%). - If Lumentum's margins fall back to last year's 15%, the deal protects them: +46% to +188%. This kind of shape is normal...every all-stock deal looks like this. You swap 100% of your company for a fixed slice of a bigger one, so you give away some upside if your company outperforms and get cushioned if it doesn't. Again, normal. -> What's NOT normal is where *today* sits on the grid!!!! 🚨 Usually the target is paid a premium on top of what it brings. That shifts the whole grid green, so holders still win if their company keeps performing. Here, Lumentum holders get ~33%, and Lumentum already earns ~31% of the combined profit (~35% on next quarter's guidance). There's no real premium. The breakeven sits right at today!!!!! 🚨🚨🚨 For comparison, here's how the grid changes if they'd got a 40% stake: - Keeps growing + Marvell hits outlook: −12.5% becomes +6%. - Holds today's level + Marvell stays put: −14% becomes +4%. -> Why so little? 1. The $1,132 / 23.9% premium announced today was over Lumentum's share price, which already valued Lumentum more cheaply than Marvell for the profit it makes. 2. So the premium only got holders to their fair share, not above it. 3. And it's paid in Marvell stock at a fixed ratio: with Marvell down ~30% since the leak last week, it's now worth ~$800, below Lumentum's pre-leak price. -> Feels like the trend is against them too. 1. Lumentum's share of the combined profit has gone from a loss in mid-2024 to 9%, 27%, 31%, and ~35% next quarter. 2. The 33% is fixed, so everything above it goes to Marvell holders. 3. Even if Marvell delivers, Lumentum only needs ~26% more profit than today's run-rate to cross into the red, and its own guidance shows ~36% growth in a single quarter. IMO Lumentum management thinks current margins are unsustainable and that CPO hands power to companies like Marvell. If they're wrong, they sold the fastest-growing part of the combined company for roughly what it contributes... while its share was still rising......!!!!!! [Non-GAAP operating profit from company filings and guidance. Scenarios use Marvell's own FY28 outlook]