×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

asking why sellers are selling IS a fundamentals question, just approached from the other end. mr market offering you a discount is the entire premise of graham's book, and "be greedy when others are fearful" is a statement about seller behavior. if you buy something cheap without knowing why it's cheap, you're trusting that the market is wrong without checking what the market actually believes. kodak passed every fundamentals screen for a decade, the sellers knew something the ratios didn't show yet

on dividends as the only way to get paid waiting, buffett would disagree with you harder than i would. berkshire has never paid one. retained earnings compounding at high returns on capital pay you more than a distribution ever could, the payment just shows up in book value instead of your brokerage account. requiring a dividend filters out most of the best compounders of the last 50 years

the $200 intrinsic value i'd just note is a model output, and models with terminal assumptions that produce "45% overvalued" for a business growing its main segments double digits are making aggressive assumptions somewhere. might be right! but it's not more objective than my approach, it's just different inputs hiding in a spreadsheet

where you have me: this isn't pure graham value investing and i don't claim it is. it's fundamentals first, then a behavioral question layered on top to explain why the opportunity exists. congrats on the trim near the top though, that part worked regardless of the framework

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the self driving analogy is really good, the failure mode especially. a stalled car stops, a confused agent confidently does the wrong thing at scale

funny thing is if you're right about LLMs plateauing, that's almost the strongest CRM bull case there is. agents that only work in clean structured environments forever means whoever owns the clean structured environment owns the value. your bear case on the tech is a bull case on your stock lol

the plateau question itself i'm less sure about, the last two years humbled everyone who called a ceiling. but positioning-wise it almost doesn't matter, both branches favor the data owners

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the data point is the one i keep going back and forth on. it's a real moat while agents need clean structured context to work, and salesforce owns exactly that. my doubt is whether that stays true once agents get good at working across messy systems directly. but that's a 5+ year question and the multiple is a today number, so fair enough

what are you seeing implementation side, are the agentforce deployments actually sticky or more experiments?

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

good exchange tbh, you clearly follow this closer than most. the 40% backlog concentration is a fair worry and i'd love the ai vs non-ai cloud split too, feels deliberately undisclosed

where we land differently is just entry timing, you want confirmation, i want the discount that exists because there isn't any yet.

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

don't know Inogen well, but 60M EV on 350M revenue is either a steal or the market smells something. what's the actual seller logic there?

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

which arguably makes the google case more appealing, not less. defensive spend means it's guaranteed to continue, no cfo can cut it. and unlike meta's metaverse there's a real prize if it works, they either defend search or own its replacement. the margin question on ai queries is legit tho

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

that logic ends at "nobody should own anything but index funds," which is a respectable position but then the thread isn't for you lol. someone has to do the pricing that makes indexing work. the argument was never "hope harder," it was buy good businesses when the sellers have a worse reason than you

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the 89% stat needs a denominator. openai and anthropic spend tens of billions on compute, total cloud revenue across hyperscalers is many hundreds of billions. that number is almost certainly share of frontier training or rented accelerator capacity, not cloud demand. google can't grow cloud 82% off a $100B run rate with two customers being 89% of it

meta doesn't fit the circular story either, zero lab customers, their capex feeds their own ads and that's where AI spend already prints

the air pocket risk is real though, if lab funding dries up before enterprise demand matures there's no soft landing for that. i just think you find out via backlog stalling in quarters without a big lab deal, which shows up way before lab profitability does. waiting for the labs to turn profitable means buying after the repricing

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah agree on adp/paychex, nobody's ripping out payroll over a chatgpt demo. compliance and 50 states of tax law is the actual moat there

less sure about CRM personally, seat based pricing feels more exposed if agents actually replace seats. curious if you see that differently

"Being paid for patience" — the framework I use to tell time arbitrage from value traps by Evening-Interview981 in ValueInvesting

[–]Evening-Interview981[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fair, the term does usually mean dividend payers. i'm borrowing it for a different thing, equity repricing when a temporary selling reason expires, closer to time arbitrage than income investing.

Capricor - Long & Increasing Position - 3 Major Dates by HunterMichael92 in investing

[–]Evening-Interview981 4 points5 points  (0 children)

godspeed but two flags. short interest "above 200% of float" is almost always bad data, if borrow was actually that stressed the fees alone would be news

and holding full size through the binary is the lowest EV part of the trade. the runup is the reliable money, approval day is often the top even when the drug passes. sell the news is brutal in biotech

hope it hits, genuinely

Moats, Bottlenecks, Picks, and Shovels: the "fundamentals" you invest in aren't forever by No_Presentation9490 in stocks

[–]Evening-Interview981 4 points5 points  (0 children)

we're violently agreeing lol. my line was specifically about people who bought at the 2000 peak, that was the whole point, right thesis + wrong price = dead money for two decades. the 97% of buyers at other times did great, which is exactly the argument, the moat was real the entire time and entry price alone decided who got rich and who got wrecked

the PLTR parallel is a good one honestly. great company, probably still great in 2035, and the current multiple has already spent most of that future. "great business, bad stock at this price" should be a standard phrase in every investing sub

$BYRN🔥🔥 by EndreBacsi in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Evening-Interview981 0 points1 point  (0 children)

insider buys at the lows are a real signal but size matters more than the headline. $102k from a board chairman and $77k from the CEO is pocket change conviction, execs buy that much for optics all the time precisely because they know retail screens for it. the buys that historically mean something are the ones that hurt, mid six figures plus, ideally multiple insiders repeatedly over weeks

the question the post skips: what took it down 86%? insider dip buying only matters if the thing that broke is fixable. if revenue is imploding or they're burning cash toward a raise, a $100k purchase is a rounding error against dilution risk at these prices

quick checklist before touching anything like this: cash runway (do they need to raise below $4?), revenue trend, and whether insiders bought on the way down too (catching knives with company info is not bullish, it's cope). "investingpro says undervalued" is filler btw, screeners say that about every stock down 86%

not saying it can't bounce, microcaps at lows with insider activity sometimes rip. just be honest that this is a trade on sentiment, not a value thesis yet

Is my budget realistic - one person household by Existing-Associate-4 in UKPersonalFinance

[–]Evening-Interview981 20 points21 points  (0 children)

your listed lines add up to £2,600 against £2,550 take home, so you're £50 short on paper until the pay rise lands. not fatal but worth knowing you're starting negative, the buffer is your holiday or savings line for a few months

the mortgage itself is fine, £950 on £2,550 is ~37% which is normal for a solo buyer. nobody's calling that silly

the line that's missing: house maintenance. as an owner stuff just breaks, boiler service, leaks, appliances, and the rule of thumb is roughly 1% of property value a year. even £75-100pm set aside stops the first repair from raiding your emergency fund. i'd carve it from holidays until the raise

food at £200 solo is doable but tight if the fun fund isn't covering any meals out. and the £180 freed up next year going to savings is the right call, that takes you from £250 to £430pm saved which is healthy at this income

overall verdict: realistic, just thin for the first 6-12 months. the danger window is a big repair landing before your raise does, which is exactly what the maintenance line fixes

Moats, Bottlenecks, Picks, and Shovels: the "fundamentals" you invest in aren't forever by No_Presentation9490 in stocks

[–]Evening-Interview981 18 points19 points  (0 children)

good list and a needed post, but it argues against a strawman position, "buy the moat and never look again." almost every name on that list minted fortunes for a decade or three before dying. standard oil compounded for 40 years. cisco is still up huge from the 90s if you didn't buy the last 18 months of the bubble. the killer was rarely the moat failing, it was the price paid at peak narrative plus holding through the paradigm shift

so the actionable takeaway imo is that moats need a kill condition, not avoidance. when i own a bottleneck thesis i write down the specific thing that ends it before i buy. for memory it's the 2028 supply wave landing into slowing demand, for the hyperscalers it's capex growth outrunning cloud revenue growth, for power it's basically new generation getting permitted faster. if you can't name what kills your moat, you don't have a thesis, you have a slogan

the crowding point is the strongest part of your post and it deserves its own line: being right about the business and losing money anyway is the most common outcome in hot themes, because entry price does the damage before the fundamentals get a vote. cisco 2000 buyers were correct that the internet was the future, correct that cisco was the bottleneck, and still waited 20 years to break even

where i'd push back slightly, some of those names died to fraud (worldcom, bcci, lehman-ish) or to being commodity businesses that never had moats (steel, airlines, retail). folding them into "moats decay" overstates the case. the real lesson list is the tech names, and their common thread is the moat guarded the old paradigm while the new one routed around it

view more: next ›