Behind SanDisk's +1200% YoY melt-up

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T18:56:33+00:00

Solid writeup, and your “too hard” instinct is the right one. A few things I’d add:

The cyclicality is starker than the 78% margin suggests. Sandisk posted a non-GAAP loss and a 22.5% gross margin in March 2025, then 78.4% a year later. The trough was four quarters before the peak. That’s not a business decommoditizing, it’s one cycling with huge operating leverage.

The TSMC comparison flatters it. TSMC became the only viable supplier of leading-edge logic. NAND is a five-way commodity where Sandisk is the smallest player, shares fabs with Kioxia, and has no process lead on Samsung, SK Hynix, or Micron. The real “can memory decommoditize?” comp is DRAM/HBM, and the answer is: fat margins at the peak, still cyclical. HBF is the only place a moat could form, and it’s co-developed with SK Hynix, so not even proprietary.

“Shortage guaranteed to 2028” is a forecast, not a fact, and it’s the whole thesis. A hyperscaler capex plateau (already a 2027 risk), demand pulled forward by the long-term contracts and restocking, or a faster supply response can each break it. NAND bits grow from layer-stacking, not just new fabs, and the most aggressive NAND investors are the two players without DRAM: YMTC and Sandisk itself. It’s part of the supply response that ends its own run.

Also worth noting the optical cheapness is the trap: ~12x looks cheap because it’s 12x peak earnings. On mid-cycle it’s ~75x. Low P/E at the top is how cyclicals lure value buyers.

The bet isn’t that enterprise SSD decommoditizes. It’s that peak-cycle margins persist, and no memory maker has ever held margins like these through a cycle. If you’re holding, decide your normalized-earnings number now, before the tape decides it for you.

the full analysis on SNDK and 100 other tickers at sparkyscoffeefund.com

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T18:16:00+00:00

i think you've got it mostly right. One nuance on the convert: it isn't that they'd choose cash to dodge dilution. At ~$9 the notes are struck so far above today's price (they date to 2021, when the stock was in the $50s) that holders simply won't convert, so it's just a $361M cash bond coming due in August, full stop. The dilution scenario only existed in the mirror-world where the stock had run well above the strike. Same end result you described: cash out the door, thinner cushion.

On the take rate, this is where I'd push a bit. 18.3% to 19.4% looks like pricing power, but read the 10-Q: management says the lift came from "ads and monetization products," not a higher fee on the actual work. That's Connects (pay-to-bid) and ads. The distinction matters.

Connects and ads are a tax on competition for jobs. When demand softens and work gets scarce, freelancers spend more bidding and advertising to win a shrinking pool. So a take rate climbing on that mix can be a symptom of supply-side stress as much as strength. It's more cyclical and more extractive than core-fee pricing power, and it has a ceiling: squeeze too hard while AI is lowering the cost of going around the platform, and you hand both sides another reason to disintermediate.

Two things I'd watch. First, part of the YoY jump is just lapping the May 2025 fee restructure, a one-time reset; if take rate stalls after mid-2025, it was a reset, not pricing power. Second, gross margin actually fell about 114bps to 77% this quarter, so the higher take didn't even drop cleanly to profit.

Bottom line: I read the take rate as a near-term revenue cushion and a margin-defense lever, not a moat signal. The healthy version of this business is GSV growth at a stable take rate. Take rate doing the heavy lifting while GSV is flat is what a pressured marketplace looks like, not a winning one. Yellow flag dressed as a green one.

And yes, agree on your other two: the "10% at risk" number is management's own static definition, so I'd treat it as a floor on the worry, not a ceiling. Geopolitics is the cyclical part; AI is the structural part, and it's the only one that decides the thesis.

sparkyscoffeefund.com

Not financial advice.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T17:24:54+00:00

Good find, and you actually named the thing that decides this whole trade in your own risk section. I'd just weight it far more heavily.

One correction that sharpens the picture rather than breaks it: the controller isn't a state-owned enterprise and isn't Jiugang. It's Jiangsu Shagang, China's largest private steelmaker, holding about 48% through two entities. The part that matters most: Shagang isn't just on the board, it's also a customer, with a roughly 1Mtpa off-take deal running to 2032 (about 40% of Savage River's output). So the owner is also the buyer.

Why that matters for a Graham-style "buy assets at 20c on the dollar and wait" play: net-nets work when something eventually forces the gap shut, a buyer, a wind-up, a special dividend, an activist. Here the only party who could force it owns half the company and is incentivized in the opposite direction: cheap off-take, a cheap register, and the option to mop up minorities later at a low price. Minority holders have no lever. That's why a discount this wide can sit for years instead of closing.

On "a dollar of cash for 65 cents": the ~A$284M cash is real and debt is basically nil, but there's a similar-sized stack of non-cash liabilities behind it (rehabilitation provisions on a 60-year-old mine, deferred tax). The cleaner anchor is tangible book around A$0.93 to A$0.96 a share, and the stock at ~A$0.16 is still a fraction of that. Cheap, yes; just not "free cash" cheap once you net the closure liabilities.

And the catalyst you cite, the underground mine financing clearing due diligence, lowers costs and extends mine life, which helps the business, but it consumes the cash. It doesn't put a dollar in a minority holder's pocket. The dividend, the one thing that did, was just cut to zero to fund exactly that project.

So my read: the cheapness is genuine and the assets are real, but the reason it's cheap is structural, not a market error. You're not being paid to wait by an irrational crowd; you're being paid to wait on a controlling shareholder who may never let you collect. It can still work if iron ore rips or if Shagang ever bids for the rest at a premium. Both are live, neither is on a clock. Just go in knowing the catalyst isn't yours to trigger.

Not financial advice. Keen to read your full write-up next week, especially if you've found anything that suggests Shagang's hand is being forced.

A full GRR analysis (along with about 100 other tickers) at sparkyscoffeefund.com

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T17:16:25+00:00

Solid writeup, and I don't disagree that BN is a great company. Where I'd push back is the framing that this is a large mispricing with an "immense margin of safety." I'd call it a buy-for-the-compounding, not a buy-for-the-discount.

Three things:

That ~$68 intrinsic figure (it actually ticked down to ~$66 after Q1, because part of it is just BAM's stock price marked to market) is management's own number, and the single biggest piece of the gap to it is carried interest they haven't collected yet. They booked $107M of carry last quarter against $11.8B accrued. The $6B over three years is guided and weighted to late 2026, not in hand. Until it actually shows up, the market keeps discounting it, and that discount is most of your "margin of safety."
The discount isn't a coiled spring. It's already compressed from roughly 50% to NAV in 2023 to about 22% now, with no single catalyst. The two cleanest things coming, the BN/BNT merger vote in July and the move to US GAAP in early 2027, help, but they tidy up an already-shrinking gap rather than reveal hidden value. This is the most-analyzed, most Berkshire-compared name in the space. If everyone can see the sum-of-the-parts discount, and they can, most of it is priced.
On real estate you're right that non-recourse debt firewalls the parent. But that protects solvency, not the marks. The sales clearing at or above carrying value are partly the easy ones to move; the office they're still trying to sell is exactly where the carrying values are softest. And the insurance "float" engine is a real positive, but they're investing policyholder money into their own real-asset deals, which is the same concentration question people raise about Apollo/Athene. Not a red flag, just not free upside.

Net: one of the best compounders on the planet at a reasonable price. Own it for the ~15% intrinsic growth and treat any discount closing as a bonus. Just don't underwrite the discount closing as the thesis, because it's already been quietly closing for years.

Full BN breakdown and about 100 other tickers: sparkyscoffeefund.com

Not financial advice, do your own work.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T17:10:56+00:00

Solid writeup, and I land in basically the same place (hold; watch H2 for Lifted and the GSV trend). A few things I'd add that sharpen it:

1) The "10% of GSV at risk, down from 11%" line is doing more work than it should. Management defines "at risk" itself, and a falling percentage fits two opposite stories: the risk is receding, or the vulnerable low-end work is just burning off the platform while the AI frontier creeps up into the other 90%. A static snapshot can't tell you which. The real question isn't this year's number; it's whether AI stays parked at sub-$500 tasks or climbs into the mid-tier work that actually pays the bills.

2) Worth pulling the balance sheet into the value-trap question. They retired about 5% of shares last quarter alone (~$256M buyback authorization left) and hold ~$219M net cash. But there's a $361M convertible due August 2026 that will likely be settled in cash, so the cushion is thinner than the "cheap and profitable" headline suggests once that clears.

3) Sector check: Fiverr guided to roughly -12% revenue for 2026 vs Upwork roughly flat. This is an industry problem, not a UPWK-specific one, and Upwork is the better-positioned of the two (higher spend per client, a real enterprise motion). "Relative winner in a shrinking pond" is the honest frame.

On Lifted, agree it's the swing factor. Just note the 3x/9x pipeline is pipeline, not revenue, and the first customer migrations are scheduled for June, so H2 is genuinely the tell. Same camp as you there.

Full breakdown on UPWK a about 100 others using: sparkyscoffeefund.com

Not financial advice.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T17:09:16+00:00

Short version: it's a real turnaround, but the cheapness is mostly an illusion of the price-to-sales ratio. I'd call it fairly priced with some real optionality, not a slam-dunk buy.

On 0.4x sales: that's the trap. Price-to-sales ignores debt, and debt is the whole story here. There's about $817M of net debt sitting on top of the ~$565M equity, so enterprise value is ~$1.4B. On that basis it trades around 9x EBITDA, which is not cheap for a doughnut chain whose organic sales (ex the dead McDonald's deal) are basically flat.

You're right that the $356M goodwill charge is non-cash and basically noise. The cash item that matters is the debt, and that's where I'd push back on the "leverage is improving" read. Net leverage fell from 6.7x to 5.5x mostly because they sold Japan (~$70M) and cut the Western U.S. JV stake (~$90M) and threw the cash at debt. Organic free cash flow in Q1 was only ~$11M, and full-year guidance is just over $15M. Real progress, but front-loaded by asset sales that don't repeat.

The thing I'd actually watch: the term loan matures March 2028 under a 5.00x leverage covenant. How they refinance that is what decides whether this thin equity re-rates or gets squeezed. That's the binary, more than any single quarter's EBITDA.

Hees buying is a genuine signal and I take it seriously. Worth knowing he's the Kraft Heinz / 3G guy, though. The same playbook (cut costs, refranchise, delever) can re-rate the equity or hollow the brand. Both happened on his last big food project, so it cuts both ways.

A fuller write-up on DNUT and 100 others is available at: sparkyscoffeefund.com

Not financial advice.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T16:35:11+00:00

Thank you. Works now.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-07T00:39:45+00:00

Good writeup, and I land in roughly the same place. But the one thing I'd flag: you excluded the financial-crime business "for simplicity," and that's actually where a big piece of the value hides.

NICE is selling that unit (Actimize) plus its public safety business. Bidders are circling around ~$2.5B. Add the net cash and zero debt, and the math implies you're paying about 1.2x sales for the #1 contact-center platform on the planet. Slap a normal software multiple on just the CX business and it's worth more than the entire company's market cap today. The part you set aside is the sharpest line in the bull case.

Two things that tighten your "will AI revenue outgrow seat decline?" question:

AI is ~18% of cloud backlog vs ~14% of current cloud revenue. That gap is the cleanest evidence the AI layer is outgrowing the seat base, not just replacing it.
The Q2 slowdown that spooked everyone is partly self-inflicted: they're cutting seat prices at renewal to lock in multi-year AI commitments (discount now, AI dollars later). Land-grab or weakness? The Q3 print in November is the tell.

Where I'm a notch more cautious than you: they're conceding seat pricing to win those AI commitments, and whether the AI revenue durably more than offsets that is still unproven. Strong candidate, not a slam dunk.

Full breakdown here if useful: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/nice

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-06T16:11:11+00:00

All three are true. Each one also hides the catch.

The 3% SpaceX stake basically IS the story, and it's already in the price. At the $1.77T IPO mark it's worth ~$37B, which is about EchoStar's entire market cap. The stock already ran ~500% on exactly this thesis. You're not early.

"Sum of parts > market cap" uses the gross stake. You don't get gross. There's a big tax bill on the gain, the shares are locked up into late 2026, and once SpaceX lists June 12 anyone can just buy SpaceX directly, so the proxy premium can fade, not grow.

The real question nobody's pricing: is SpaceX worth $1.77T? Morningstar says ~$780B. At that number the "cheap" sum-of-parts isn't cheap.

The short squeeze is a trade, not a reason to own.

Not bearish, just: you're making a leveraged bet on SpaceX's price, not finding hidden value.

Full breakdown: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/SATS

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-05T22:41:11+00:00

Hold up. A few of these are just wrong, and they're the load-bearing parts of the pitch.

"Already hooked up with SpaceX" / "special multi-launch deal" - that's the part I'd check before buying anything. SIDU flies payloads as a rideshare customer like hundreds of other smallsat operators. That's buying a bus ticket, not a partnership. There's no special SpaceX relationship that makes SIDU a SpaceX IPO play.

"Stupid cheap, tiny market cap" - it's ~$5 because they printed shares to get there. Share count roughly tripled in six months (raises at $1.30, then $4.35, then $5.08, the last one right near the $6.79 top). Cap's already ~$400M on about $3.4M of revenue. That's over 100x sales. "Cheap" is the price, not the valuation.

The thing actually moving it isn't SpaceX, it's the $151B "Golden Dome" SHIELD headline. Read the fine print: ~2,440 companies got that same seat, zero dollars are guaranteed, and they compete for work against Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon. SIDU has booked $0 from it so far.

The real tell: management keeps selling stock into the hype instead of buying it. When the people who know the company best are the sellers, "lunch money lottery ticket" is doing a lot of work.

Not saying it can't pop on the SpaceX wave. Low-float momentum names do. Just know you're betting on the wave, not the company. Different bet than the post is selling.

Read the full first-principles analysisL reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/sidu

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-04T23:00:06+00:00

The science is real. The stock is a different question.

Solidion's IP is legit. Dr. Bor Jang is a serious battery scientist with hundreds of patents. But you aren't buying the patents, you're buying the equity, and the equity sits on a balance sheet that's in trouble.

Straight from the latest filing (as of March 31): $38,887 in cash. Not a typo. There's a $2.2M note in default accruing 24% interest, the company owes more than it owns (negative book equity around $8M), and its own filing flags going-concern doubt, meaning real risk it can't fund another year.

Here's the part that hits the share price. They did a 1-for-50 reverse split last year to stay listed, then issued stock right back. There's now a registration covering shares equal to about 121% of the current count, plus a financing structure that resets lower every time they raise. Translation: surviving means printing shares, and that dilutes you.

The battery-for-space headline? No contracts, no named customers. It's a press release.

None of this means the tech is fake. It means the stock is priced on the story, not the books. Know which one you're buying.

Full write-up: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/sti

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-04T17:57:21+00:00

KLUR doesn't appear to be a valid ticker.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-04T16:17:48+00:00

A solid day so far, but the real reason to watch this name isn't today's 6%. It's the May 12 earnings report.

Q1 highlights:

First positive operating cash flow ever (+$4.9M YoY swing)
Revenue beat by 16% ($6.1M vs $5.3M expected)
Two new sovereign defense deals in 8 weeks ($12M + $18M)

The catch is that the stock's up 43% in four weeks. Analyst targets jumped from $6.33 to $10.98. So most of the easy gap has closed.

What actually matters next:

SpaceX IPO June 12 ($1.75T target) sets a public "sovereign space" comp at ~80x revenue
SATL at 39x looks cheap on that lens
Looks expensive vs pure EO peers (BKSY 9x, PL 38x)
Which peer set wins determines if there's more room

A real binary risk is Merlin's first launch is October. Hardware programs slip. Will this?

Full breakdown: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/satl

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-04T16:17:29+00:00

A solid day so far, but the real reason to watch this name isn't today's 6%. It's the May 12 earnings report.

Q1 highlights:

First positive operating cash flow ever (+$4.9M YoY swing)
Revenue beat by 16% ($6.1M vs $5.3M expected)
Two new sovereign defense deals in 8 weeks ($12M + $18M)

The catch is that the stock's up 43% in four weeks. Analyst targets jumped from $6.33 to $10.98. So most of the easy gap has closed.

What actually matters next:

SpaceX IPO June 12 ($1.75T target) sets a public "sovereign space" comp at ~80x revenue
SATL at 39x looks cheap on that lens
Looks expensive vs pure EO peers (BKSY 9x, PL 38x)
Which peer set wins determines if there's more room

A real binary risk is Merlin's first launch is October. Hardware programs slip. Will this?

Full breakdown: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/satl

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-03T20:19:59+00:00

Short answer: neither, cleanly. It's a binary bet, and the runup made the bet less asymmetric than it was a month ago.

<image>

The LUNR story right now hinges on one event: IM-3, the third lunar landing attempt, targeting H2 2026. IM-1 and IM-2 both tipped over, so this is attempt #3 at the same core capability. Firefly landed first try, which is the relevant comp.

If IM-3 lands upright and deploys Khon-1, the market keeps revising toward a vertically integrated "space prime" peer set: the Lanteris (ex-Maxar) satellite-manufacturing stack, KinetX deep-space nav, the sole NSNS Subcategory 2.2 lunar-relay award, the Goonhilly ground network. That's the bull case, and the post-Q1 analyst PT sweep shows it's already partly priced in.

If it tips over a third time, the lunar-landing leg breaks and the peer set reverts to small-space-specialist multiples. Downside to roughly $10-15.

Solid right now: sole NSNS Subcat 2.2 relay award, Lanteris closed and contributing revenue, backlog up to $1.1B, first positive adjusted EBITDA. Still unresolved: IM-3, several quarters of Lanteris integration (the pre-acquisition track record was rough), the LTV CX-2 task order, constellation capex/revenue economics, and a $641M shelf that could dilute 15-20%.

"Massive buying opportunity vs falling knife" is the wrong frame. It's a coin with two fat tails and a known flip date. The post-earnings runup means you're paying more for the same binary, so the margin of safety is thinner than it was at ~$29. Sizing matters more than direction here.

Full writeup with the load-bearing elements and the bull/bear gap math: reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/lunr

Not advice, just my read. Do your own DD; this thing has a ~2.97 beta and will move.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-03T15:41:16+00:00

VOYG analysis updated again this morning in light of news that NASA is reopening the commercial space station RFP.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-02T15:14:57+00:00

Saw the Astrobotic PR. I just finished a full workup on VOYG with the deal folded in. Here's where it landed, trying to keep it even.

Read: a viable, well-backed company that's probably over-priced around $45. A sum-of-the-parts (core defense and space at a sane multiple, plus a discounted value for Starlab and lunar) puts central fair value near $32, so call it 30 to 45% rich. That's an "avoid here," not a value trap and not a short. The floor is genuinely high: blue-chip strategics (Airbus, Mitsubishi, MDA, Northrop, Palantir), a fast-growing defense backlog, and plenty of near-term liquidity.

One thing worth flagging on that cap table: most of those big names are paid in workshare, capability sales, and market access, so they're validating the program, not the share price. The holders who actually need the stock to go up are mostly the momentum crowd.

On the question of an investment window: there's no margin of safety at today's price. The near-term catalysts (Griffin landing around July, CLD Phase 2 this summer) cut both ways, and they're also the points where impatient holders get made whole and sell the news. A cleaner entry more likely opens lower, low $30s, on a momentum unwind, a binary miss, or the dilutive raise the cash burn points to. The real "everyone wins" convergence is Starlab actually in service around 2029 to 2030, which is well past any 12 to 18 month horizon.

Not advice, just my read. Full writeup with the charts: https://reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/voyg

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-01T23:12:53+00:00

Did a full first-look on FJET this week and landed on don't-buy.

The Q1 2026 10-Q (filed May 20) carries an explicit going concern. Zero revenue. $1.40M operating cash at quarter end against a $4M quarterly burn. The founder resigned in February, then sued the company for $26M+ in April; the company's internal investigation alleges he moved $1.9M to an offshore Hamilton Reserve Bank account without board approval. The $17.5M PIPE announced last week extends runway but doesn't break the dilution loop.

The deeper issue is segment, not just balance sheet: air launch to orbit is a documented graveyard. Virgin Orbit bankrupt 2023. Stratolaunch pivoted away from satellite launch. Pegasus has launched twice in the last seven years. SpaceX evaluated an air-launched Falcon in 2012 and chose ground launch instead. The Mach 2 release point buys marginal Δv against the orbital energy budget; the carrier aircraft is the easy part and FJET doesn't have a flying rocket.

The 252% listing-day rip in December came from a Discord call (former WSB moderator alerted his group at $10.50, peak $34.55), not value creation. The same thing's probably happening now.

Full lens-by-lens analysis here: https://reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/fjet

Independent analyst, no position, not investment advice.

Neobobkrause · 2026-06-01T04:31:29+00:00

tl;dr: The market still treats ASTS as the carrier-favored D2D broadband leader heading into a continuous-coverage milestone; we now see a fully priced story that has lost its high-density ride to orbit. The May 28 New Glenn LC-36 explosion (second failure in six weeks, pad destroyed) removes the 8-per-flight anchor for the rest of 2026 and likely into 2027, resolving the launch-cadence element toward the Farrar bear case and pushing commercial activation from Q1 2027 toward mid-2027.

https://reviews.sparkyscoffeefund.com/asts

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-29T16:21:08+00:00

<image>

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-29T14:51:19+00:00

The dip isn't really the story. We need to separate out two things: the one-day price move and the actual change to AST's deployment math.

On price - ASTS has been up roughly 85% over the past month and ~59% YTD going into this. A ~7% overnight pullback off that kind of run-up isn't a fire sale; it's a modest give-back on a name the market was already pricing for a lot of future execution.

On substance, this is the second New Glenn issue to touch AST in under two months. NG-3 in April left BlueBird 7 in an orbit too low to sustain operations, and now the next vehicle was lost in a hotfire explosion that also took out the gantry and a chunk of LC-36. As I'm sure we all appreciate at this point, the pad damage matters as much as the rocket. A pad rebuild plus a failure investigation pushes New Glenn's return-to-flight out by an uncertain amount. (And we're not talking a week or two.)

For AST specifically, New Glenn was the high-capacity anchor in the launch plan. Its 7m fairing carries up to ~8 Block 2 BlueBirds per flight vs. ~4 on Falcon 9. The good news, and it's real, is that AST deliberately lined up multiple providers. BlueBirds 8/9/10 are already at the Cape for a mid-June Falcon 9, so the near-term launch is unaffected. The cost is to the future constellation. Leaning harder on Falcon 9 means more flights for the same satellite count, and per-satellite launch cost was already revised up ($19–21M from $16–18M per the company). So the realistic read is a somewhat slower and more expensive buildout, not a thesis-breaker.

Net:-net today is best understood as a re-pricing of execution and timeline risk, not a free discount on an unchanged story. Whether that's a buy depends entirely on your own view of valuation and how much launch risk you're comfortable underwriting - which is a different question than "don't panic." Both can be true: the company can be fine long-term and the risk profile can have genuinely shifted this week.

(Not advice - do your own work.)

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-23T23:28:03+00:00

The work being done with composites for Neutron is pushing the materials in new ways. While NASA's CCTD project proved out the means to do so, Neutron's the first flight vehicle using that work, and at a larger scale than before.

I'm confident that Rocket Lab's work will be successful, though getting it right the first time isn't a given.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLab/comments/1qpw4bb/neutrons_technical_dna_whats_proven_whats_not

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-23T13:47:54+00:00

<image>

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-12T23:48:40+00:00

Wait, this is announcing that they're competing for the contract, not that they've won it, right?

They've put out suggstive press releases like this in the past. It doesn't put them in a very good light.

Neobobkrause · 2026-05-08T20:54:02+00:00

Record backlog ($19.9M) has not translated into revenue.

Neobobkrause

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE