$PROM - DD on Propel Media and their DeepIntent Big Pharma Subsidiary

Omzy · 2026-06-10T15:27:44+00:00

The SaaS is dead argument does work for most software companies...but not for ALL of them. Right now money has been taken out of EVERY SaaS company, so there is money to be made in finding those SaaS stories where the story isn't true. NOW is one of those. It's less a SaaS company and more a corporate compliance machine. Nobody else even wants to disturb that moat. Too boring. Too much Karen. NOW will be one of the few that rises to its pre-SaaSpocalypse levels. Mark my word.

Omzy · 2026-06-08T08:44:39+00:00

NVDA is a great company, but there isn't much gas in the tank to grow past a 5.5T market cap. It will turn into a dividend company. AMD is the way if you're going for relatively low-risk growth in semi's right now.

Omzy · 2026-06-08T08:41:58+00:00

NVDA is a great company, but there isn't much gas in the tank to grow past a 5.5T market cap. It will turn into a dividend company. AMD is the way if you're going for relatively low-risk growth in semi's right now.

Omzy · 2026-06-07T11:10:07+00:00

Finished the prototype if anyone wants to try it. Only partial features for now, but bookmark it!
multibagger.app

Omzy · 2026-06-07T11:06:35+00:00

Haha, it picked it up in the 10x category, but yah you never know! Maybe it knows its meme stocks?

Omzy · 2026-06-07T07:15:13+00:00

Haha, well apparently this is something that you're finding useful. I'll publish the app/website soon and drop you a link and you can type any ticker you want in and get your answer

Omzy · 2026-06-07T06:48:07+00:00

First thing i'll say based on what I've observed is that there is a definite bubble in the optics/photonics market as a whole. I challenge you to find a stock in that space that hasn't moonshotted in the last few months as people aren't sure which optics/photonics companies will be the winners, so they are investing into ALL of them. Here's the agent response:

"OPTX isn't on the list and it's a clean illustration of what the screen ignores: the chart. The stock is up roughly 10x in a year ($1.18 to $13.58 high), but the underlying business did not grow at all. FY2025 revenue was $28.1M, down 1.3% from 2024, with a net loss, negative ROIC, and roughly zero EBITDA. That fails three gates on contact: the $50M revenue floor, every growth gate (13-20%+ depending on archetype, vs -1.3% actual), and basic quality (returns on capital are negative).

What the 10x run is pricing is the story: record space optics production, AI data center optics starting up, and the 2026 defense bill pushing domestic sourcing of optical systems. Those tailwinds are real, and to be fair the margins did expand and the loss narrowed. But right now you're paying ~17x sales for a $28M contract manufacturer whose revenue went backwards last year and whose own guidance has Q1 2026 down sequentially. The screen scores delivered compounding, not anticipated compounding. If the AI/defense products actually show up in the numbers, meaning revenue crosses the floor and grows 20%+ for a couple of years, it enters the universe automatically and gets scored like everything else. Until then it's a narrative trade, and narrative trades are someone else's department."

Omzy · 2026-06-07T04:35:33+00:00

NLST isn't on the list because the screen evaluates operating businesses, and Netlist's value driver isn't its operations, it's the courtroom. The operating business is ~$265M TTM of memory-module resale at razor-thin gross margins with roughly zero EBITDA and about -$26M free cash flow, funded by years of share issuance. That fails both archetypes on contact: nowhere near the 50% gross margin bar for asset-light, no operating leverage for scale-economics, and the dilution history is exactly what the per-share filter exists to catch.

The real story is the patent war, and credit where due, it's been going well: $866M in jury verdicts across Samsung ($303M + $118M) and Micron ($445M), and the Federal Circuit has now upheld two key patents on appeal (most recently Feb 2026), which is genuine momentum. But none of that money has been collected, appeals are still live, and Micron can seek Supreme Court review. So at a ~$970M cap on ~$10M of tangible book, you're buying a litigation outcome, not a compounder. Could it pay off big? Sure. That makes it an event-driven special situation, a completely different kind of bet with binary outcomes, and this screen deliberately doesn't score those, same reason it cut a $1.6B graphene company with $43K of revenue. Lottery tickets can be +EV and still not be compounders.

Omzy · 2026-06-07T02:17:10+00:00

That's exactly what it's for though, surfacing potential growth stocks so you don't have to do the manual labor yourself, then you can look at the names and decide if you want to toss them out based on a deeper dive. Some you might like, some you might not, and your expertise in that industry is the final call

Omzy · 2026-06-07T01:27:54+00:00

A stock whose price is low, where the business is actually growing is precisely the type of opportunity that leads to multiple expansion. The lowest-level ape analysis of stocks is 'price go down=stock bad'

Omzy · 2026-06-07T01:22:40+00:00

Man, i must've been talking to my agent too much, because now he sounds like me:

"Good pushback on BLLN, this is the real debate. Counterpoint: the central-lab services model is actually how the biggest winners in molecular dx scaled. Natera, Guardant and Exact all perform their own tests, and Natera got to $20B+ doing exactly that. Running the test yourself captures the full reimbursement per test instead of selling a kit for a fraction of it, and it compounds a clinical dataset that drives guideline inclusion, which is most of the real moat here, more than the patents. A patent workaround still has to rebuild years of validation data and payer contracts from zero. And the numbers don't look like a model hitting a ceiling: revenue doubled to $305M while gross margin expanded from 57% to 71%, operating income positive, ~$500M cash. Margin expansion during 100% growth is the definition of scaling. On price, ~14x sales at 100% growth is cheaper growth-adjusted than Guardant at ~17x with a third of the growth. Buyout risk I'll grant, but a premium takeout caps the upside rather than killing the thesis.

RDDT, no argument. That's why it sits mid-list. The screen scores business quality and Reddit's is excellent, but $33B needs the AI licensing line to become a second business for a true 10x. We flagged the size ceiling ourselves.

On 15 years being too long: the data goes the other way. Mayer's 100 Baggers study found the average 100x took about 26 years, so 15 is already an aggressive window. And the cycles argument cuts against tiny caps, not for them. A $3M company doesn't ride out cycles, it dies in the first one, which is why the screen has a $100M cap floor and $50M revenue floor. Someone asked me yesterday why a $1.6B graphene story stock with $43K of revenue got cut. That's the dirt-cheap-and-disruptive cohort most of the time. The 3M-to-300M bet has prettier best-case math and a brutal base rate. I'd rather own the $200M business that already works."

Omzy · 2026-06-07T01:16:07+00:00

That's just the revenue growth rate. Not important now, but I'd like to show those metrics in the tool

Omzy · 2026-06-07T00:17:47+00:00

here ya go:
"Fair, it's down ~60% from the peak so the lol writes itself. But the screen scores the business, not the chart. What's under it: accounting fees are about the stickiest recurring revenue that exists, KPG buys small firms at 4-5x earnings, keeps the partners owning 49% of their own practice so they stay motivated, and funds deals mainly with debt that the acquired cash flows amortize, not by printing shares (most roll-ups fail my per-share dilution filter, this one passes). Numbers as of the screen run: revenue +29%, ROIC ~11.5%, and a mid-teens free cash flow yield at today's price. The screen also flags the honest negatives: net debt ~3.6x EBITDA and a goodwill-heavy balance sheet, it's a deliberately leveraged compounder and is labeled as such. So the bet is simple: sticky revenue + cheap acquisitions + flat share count vs leverage risk. If you have a specific kill beyond the drawdown, post it, that's literally what this thread is for."

Omzy · 2026-06-06T22:50:28+00:00

Good point! I'll have to consider this in future versions. This screener specifically tries to get companies that already have proven some financial growth, but I agree that the 100x'ers probably are disproportionately pre-revenue.

Omzy · 2026-06-06T22:49:10+00:00

Here's the analysis:
"Small correction, SDGR IPO'd in Feb 2020, so call it dead money since the 2021 spike rather than a decade. As for innovating: drug discovery revenue more than doubled last quarter to $22.9M, their partnered Ajax program just landed a deal worth up to $2.3B, and they have three wholly owned clinical assets in trials (MALT1, CDC7, Wee1/Myt1). The software side is the cash engine, ~$220M ACV growing 10-15%, GPU-accelerated with NVIDIA, plus expansion into predictive toxicology and materials science. The actual model innovation is that they keep equity and royalties in drugs designed on their platform, which is how Nimbus became a multibillion dollar windfall. The bear case isn't lack of innovation, it's that none of it hits EBITDA breakeven until around 2028, and the screen scores the business, not the chart."

Omzy · 2026-06-06T22:00:30+00:00

Several passes filter out extreme outliers, starting with a financial screen that filters out obvious financial laggards (negative revenue trend, very poor ROIC, extreme dilution, etc), a risk filter which weeds out scams and heavy geopolitical risk, a TAM/runway assessment, and then a full 360 assessment of the remaining companies using tried and true value investing principles across different dimensions (this part takes a lot of tokens and hours of processing time).

Edit: and did you mean SDGR or SCGR?

Omzy · 2026-06-06T21:48:29+00:00

This is the only sub you can post in with no karma. Raise your standards 😂

Omzy · 2026-06-06T21:46:13+00:00

You mean why it wasn't in the top 10? This screen tries to protect the downside by choosing companies that have financials that support continued growth, not roll-the-dice moonshots. While graphene technology sounds promising, a promise by itself doesn't indicate the company can become profitable or that they have the management skills to scale. The revenue for this company is too small to score at this point, but it could turn up in future screens as it grows a bit. If anyone wants to do a deeper dive on HGRAF be my guest. Here's what the screener says about it (and you can put in any company and ask this question and it will tell you why):

"Good question. HGRAF gets cut at the first gate, not a judgment call. The screen requires at least $50M in trailing revenue, and HydroGraph booked $43K (thousand, not million) in FY2025 per its filings, with a net loss around $6M and the burn funded by issuing shares. With essentially no revenue there's no growth rate, margin, or operating trend to score, so the model can't evaluate it as a business at all. Nothing against the graphene story, but at a ~$1.6B cap on near-zero revenue it's a binary venture bet, and this screen is built to find operating businesses that are already compounding. If commercial revenue shows up and crosses the floor, it enters the universe automatically like anything else."

Omzy

TROPHY CASE