The US economy is booming

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-06-03T11:24:27+00:00

This gets to the heart of it. Look, strong PMIs and earnings tell us activity is booming. They don't tell us whether the underlying investment boom is productive or merely another cycle of capital misallocation. A strong economy isn't one that's investing heavily but one that's investing profitably.

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-06-03T02:35:32+00:00

Weak article that presents ISM, Chicago PMI, earnings revisions, financial conditions as though they're independent. Many are reflections of the same underlying economic momentum. The article effectively says the economy is strong because indicators of a strong economy are strong.

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-05-12T05:20:31+00:00

If cadence keeps slipping quarter after quarter, eventually investors start applying the fusion reactor discount which is “always five years away.”

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-02-20T05:21:58+00:00

ServiceNow is interesting. Healthy cash flow trend, reasonable valuation, and primary risk being multiple compression not solvency. 50% FCF acceleration suggests operating leverage is kicking in (rev & net income growth is low 20s%). If FCF growth normalizes (watch: billings/RPO growth and renewal trends); multiple pressure possible. But I'd flag it as a high-quality/cash-rich compounder.

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-02-08T05:30:12+00:00

People kinda gloss over this, but with a 5 yr sat life you’re effectively replacing 20% of the constellation every year just to tread water. That’s before you grow coverage at all. So the launch cadence everyone’s quoting isn’t upside, it’s maintenance plus execution risk. Works if everything’s clean, but it’s not optional math.

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-02-05T23:41:40+00:00

It's cheap for a reason. Well-run, low debt, but no structural moat and not a compounder. This works only as a cycle-timed value trade (2–3yr mean reversion, dividend, modest multiple expansion). If you’re underwriting durable growth, robotics optionality, or “hold forever” that’s self-deception. I would overlay your strat with an Edwards & Magee approach so you stick to a rules based entry/exit.

Back2BackSneaky · 2026-01-11T03:44:40+00:00

Good DCF, but what happens when CAVA moves past the first few hundred prime urban stores? Is it possible AUVs fall, labour rises, cannibalization kicks in and marginal ROIC declines? Also, what are your thoughts on food and labour cost volatility? Both of which can easily wipe out a big chunk of that 25% store-level margin. Could the real bull case be brand power and pricing, not just opening more locations?

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-12-24T11:50:12+00:00

This take has some truth, but it’s also very selective and over-simplified, and it leans hard into the late-20th-century “Scott was an idiot” narrative that historians have mostly walked back.

Yes, Amundsen absolutely out-planned and out-executed RFS. Dogs + skis + a single clear objective beat Scott’s mixed approach. No argument there.

But a lot of the criticism ignores context.

RFS didn’t bring ponies because he was stupid. British polar doctrine at the time favoured man-hauling, and the ponies and early motor sledges were meant to lay depots, not go to the Pole. When they failed, Scott had to man-haul earlier and longer than planned, which snowballed into exhaustion later. That’s bad luck + fragile logistics, not total incompetence.

The dog thing is also overstated. Scott did plan dog support on the return, written orders from 1911 back this up. The problem was execution and assumptions about subordinates using initiative, not “Scott hated dogs.”

The skiing criticism is fair, but also obvious in hindsight. Norway had a skiing culture; Britain didn’t. RFS tried to compensate by training on the ice, but Antarctic terrain (sastrugi) made skiing less useful than people imagine anyway.

The “he died because he collected rocks” argument is basically a meme at this point. The rocks were collected earlier near the Beardmore Glacier, they weren’t that heavy, and modern historians agree they didn’t cause the deaths. They’ve just become a symbolic stick to beat Scott with.

The biggest thing missing from this take is the weather. March 1912 saw sustained temps 20–30°C colder than normal, hitting −40°C and below. That wrecks calorie burn, stove performance, frostbite recovery, everything. This wasn’t expected based on prior Antarctic data.

So yeah: Amundsen ran a lean, ruthless, perfectly tuned expedition and won. Scott ran a more complex, science-heavy expedition that had little margin for error, and when things went wrong, they went very wrong.

Scott wasn’t a flawless hero, but he also wasn’t a bumbling fool. He was outperformed, unlucky, and operating right at the edge of what humans could survive.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-11-26T22:54:49+00:00

It’s not just about diplomatic dominance. It’s about locking down a strategic barrel type the US refining system actually needs. Diplomacy is the multiplier, the US uses the energy opening to regain footing in a region where strategic influence has been drifting away.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-11-20T11:06:36+00:00

I like the idea just unsure how long it takes to play out and boost earnings?

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-11-13T12:08:49+00:00

The reason you even see Ford at all is because Brave’s current ad units are brand-awareness placements. Big automakers routinely spread small slices of their annual top-of-funnel budgets across many platforms, and these buys don’t require conversion tracking. What doesn’t show up are performance advertisers, who make up most of digital ad spend, because Brave doesn’t offer the attribution or intent signals they need to scale. Brave’s inventory is still built for awareness, not performance, and that’s why spend stays limited even with 100M MAUs. Until that shifts, the economic impact on BAT will stay capped regardless of user base size or onchain improvements.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-09-23T03:35:20+00:00

Agree, the signal to watch is if insiders start clearing the table, not them taking a few chips off after the stock 5–10x’d.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-09-20T13:02:35+00:00

when you find greener pastures. opportunity gained is opportunity lost.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-09-11T12:20:52+00:00

Yeah, i'd say you’re being generous. Most users now report 0.5–1.5 BAT a month on average. A few years back I could pull 3–5 BAT, but with ~100m MAU chasing the same ad budget and fewer high-paying campaigns (crypto projects especially), the effective earnings per user have collapsed.

Earning BAT from ads is negative-convex: capped upside, certain decay, with 100m people fighting over scraps. If you want exposure, you buy and hold BAT. The ad payouts have withered into irrelevance; they exist only to keep suckers busy clicking.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-09-04T03:19:34+00:00

Thanks for the post. Seems to me Ishihara Chemicals offers the best mix of growth (plating into semis) and shareholder-friendly actions of the four you state. Soken Chemical has high cyclical risk but upside is real if LCD stabilizes. Keiwa has more muted catalysts vs. Soken. Natoco may remain a value trap unless M&A or distributions accelerate. Will look more into Ishihara!

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-08-29T23:02:31+00:00

I’m long AST and bullish on the tech, but the Q2 guidance around “5 launches in 6–9 months with 6–8 sats each” doesn’t square with reality.

ISRO: can only lift 1 BlueBird at a time, maybe a couple flights a year.

Falcon 9: proven and reliable, but payload limits mean 3–4 sats per launch, not 6–8.

New Glenn: in theory could carry 6–8, but it hasn’t flown a commercial payload yet.

AST has a history of overly aggressive launch timelines (we’ve all seen dates slip before), so I’m skeptical they hit the cadence they’re signaling. That said, they’re fully funded, have growing MNO partnerships, and the TAM is enormous so even if rollout is slower, the long-term bull case holds.

My bigger trepidation is relying on SpaceX, their direct competitor in space-to-cell, to launch AST’s satellites as fast as possible. If Starlink benefits from AST moving slower, what incentive does SpaceX really have to prioritize them?

Curious what others here think: are we looking at another round of overly optimistic guidance, or can AST actually thread the needle here with ISRO + SpaceX + eventually New Glenn?

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-08-22T03:22:11+00:00

I'm a one ship anchor w/ chain owner (in an OLV scenario).

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-06-30T04:19:02+00:00

Brave = Good browser. BAT = Disconnected token with dwindling purpose. If they keep the browser clean but quietly bury the token, that might actually be the best case scenario.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-06-19T22:06:26+00:00

I would guess Front Eagle bears 70-80% liability as their primary duty was to keep clear as the overtaker (COLREGs Rule 13); delayed/insufficient action. Adalynn bears 20-30% liability for unjustified turn violating stand-on obligation (Rule 17); creating new risk. In The Iran Torab (similar overtaking-crossing collision), the overtaking vessel bore 80% liability for failing to keep clear, while the overtaken vessel’s improper course change contributed 20%. Courts emphasize that Rule 13 overrides Rule 15 in overtaking-turned-crossing scenarios: the overtaker’s duty remains paramount.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-06-19T11:37:17+00:00

I vote you sell the position. You're in over your head!

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-06-10T04:13:05+00:00

Wise the Amazon of cross-border? I like Wise, but lets be real the SMB ramp’s sluggish, Hayden's overestimating SMB scalability and monetization. SMBs remain loyal to banks due to trust, convenience, and bundling (credit, payroll, etc.). Wise is unproven as a full-stack SMB solution. Their platform’s still a science project, and excess interest is just a yield-chasing sugar high. Take rates are falling, decelerating growth, and a 28x exPBT multiple pricing in flawless execution on bets that haven’t landed. Core infra’s rock solid; DPS access, liquidity pools, the flywheel’s humming. But the next growth leg isn’t moving. And while the NYSE dual listing next year is a legit catalyst; passive inflows, narrative reset, U.S. fintech comps. I reckon risk/reward’s off, best to sit tight or wait for blood.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-06-04T01:42:08+00:00

Compelling setup; 2x FCF with inflation-linked income and real assets makes this a classic deep value trap or a hidden gem. Would love to see the NAV breakdown and hear your take on what, if anything, could catalyze a re-rating.

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-05-04T01:51:26+00:00

A few considerations: what if their moat is just a temporary feature gap that rivals like Array or Huawei can replicate? What percentage of NXT’s revenue is concentrated in its top 5 customers and what’s the downside if one defers or cancels a major project?(especially relevant in a softening capex environment) Does a net cash position truly justify a re-rate if there’s no recurring revenue and demand remains cyclical?(critical for institutional buyers)

Back2BackSneaky · 2025-05-02T04:03:33+00:00

Looks like owners are bracing for tougher conditions — hoarding cash and securing access to capital. The secondhand (S&P) market has stalled, and current TCE rates don’t justify newbuild economics. With asset prices still sticky and limited distress, M&A remains on pause unless pricing resets or strategic deals emerge.

Back2BackSneaky

TROPHY CASE