ROMO (Relief of Missing Out) 😅 always beats FOMO in investing.

Ortisei & Munich
Joined January 2012
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Enjoyed AndyFest Vienna 2026 @evfcfaddict so much that I’ve temporarily modified my X address until the conference glow up fades. I’m no longer Jason … I’m EuroTrack180.
2
1
71
8,478
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Unreal $META
3
2
28
10,098
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
$ABVX As a follow-up to a few posts that I saw regarding the perceived elevated rates of NMSC and malignancies in the 50 mg arm specifically in the phase 3: A few thoughts: 1) The phase 3 50 mg dose is actually a small minority of the patient years of safety data acquired -- the much larger dataset for that dose comes from the phase 2b long-term open label follow-up, which can be reasonably pooled with the phase 3 results given the same dose and detection protocols (Note, we have seen some analyses that pool 25 mg and 50 mg arms. We would NOT recommend doing this as it is not fair to claim that the risk of developing cancer in the 25 mg arm is known to be the same as the 50 mg arm). Pooling 50 mg phase 2b and 50 mg phase 3 data sets yields a much lower rate of events across the board. (I suspect it was just a bit of bad luck on the smaller phase 3 dataset for the 50 mg dose in isolation, see below chart for what we've been working off of after integrating these phase 2 data -- note there are some assumptions that go into this but the variability should be pretty de minimis); 2) Two ways things generally cause cancer: DNA damage from some oxidative/radiation/something else source that damages DNA or inhibits DNA repair mechanisms at their core OR substantial or highly targeted immunosuppression. Because both of these events are total exposure related, typically events accelerate over time. The phase 2 had the much longer follow-up with fewer patients whereas the phase 3 had more patients followed up for less time. The phase 2 had a very low number of events, and the phase 3 50mg dose was the only arm that had an elevated set. A priori, if the drug was a carcinogen, we would have expected the opposite: that the phase 2 would have a higher incidence/100 PY than the phase 3 given the individual patient exposures on a cumulative basis to such carcinogens are much higher in the phase 2 than the phase 3 in addition to the idea that there is a delay between when the carcinogen can cause the malignancy to when it can be detected (and T=0 is always the first instance in which that timer could start). Also, if the drug was as immunosuppressive as would be needed to cause cancer, you would expect to see a boatload of opportunistic infection before you'd see the cancer signal -- we see none.; 3) Pre-clinical testing confirmed that the drug is actually an anti-proliferative -- we would have expected the drug to be protective against tumor growth, not stimulating it; 4) No consistency or clustering for any cancer type at any time point; 5) NMSC carries a much different (lower) risk profile than other types of malignancies since they are caught very easily and have a low rate of metastases, and are seen at a massively disproportionately high case numbers relative to other types of malignancies (also included in the bottom table following pooling of the 50 mg arm), so FDA is less concerned about it than non-NMSC; 6) To warrant a black box, the FDA usually requires, at a minimum, consistency of preclinical and/or striking clinical datapoints such that careful consideration must be made to determine if the benefit/risk profile inverts in a subset of all patients that may receive the drug. In this case, we not only have completely disparate and conflicting datapoints, but we even have one data point relating to the MoA and pre-clinical data findings that suggest the drug should have the opposite effect. In addition, black box decisions are not made in isolation. They are heavily debated back and forth between the company, internally, require a lot of internal consensus on establishing causal link, and are not made in a vacuum to unmet need and efficacy; 7) UC patients have an elevated rate of inflammation (by definition) and, in turn, elevated rates of cancer compared to healthy individuals (~+.5 events/100PY vs non-UC). Obefazimod is now a proven highly effective therapy that leads to robust endoscopic remissions and attenuation of much of this inflammatory effect. I would hypothesize if you ran a large enough study and followed patients for long enough, you would find that there would be a cancer benefit from the drug secondary to the disease control that it would afford. The weight of this potential benefit (which makes sense given the pathophysiology) must be considered against the risk of the agent itself causing cancer (for which we have no reason to believe it actually should cause cancer).
11
25
6
229
54,274
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?
335
949
210
4,473
870,159
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Real time pump and dump 😭
*Walter Bloomberg
@DeItaoneMar 10
🚨 U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY CHRIS WRIGHT REMOVES POST ABOUT NAVY ESCORTING OIL TANKER THROUGH THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
45
507
12
6,428
208,622
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
#GreenX $GRX.ax $GRX nice decision from the Singapore court!
2
7
1
23
2,363
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
"Even for the very best investors, identifying a bubble is a good deal easier than judging when it will burst. With a 10 yr horizon, the inverse relationship between starting valuations and returns is clear. Over one year, there is no correlation at all." economist.com/finance-and-ec…
1
5
5
26
35,798
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
The Value Investors Club "Hall of Fame." Thousands apply. Few get in. Even fewer win the VIC contest each year. I looked at every winning pitch since 2001. Here are the Top 10 investors by total wins (plus my favorite pitch from each)👇
2
25
2
240
50,359
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
New Notes of a Wooden Head idea is out: $GLPG (biotech, but not the GLP-1 circus). Link in bio.
1
1
780
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Ackman: "May I meet you?" Bessent: "How much does your arm weigh?" I LOVE THIS PLACE!
Kristen Welker: “Well, and banana prices are up almost 7%, coffee prices up nearly 19%. Isn't the fact that you're rolling back tariffs an admission that ultimately they do drive up prices for consumers?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Kristen, how much does your arm weigh?” Kristen Welker: “That I do not know.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Exactly. But you know how much you weigh, and you get on the scale every morning. Inflation is a composite number. And we look at everything. So we are trying – we try to push down the things we can control. And as I said that we are working on – the energy prices are down. And everything flows from that. And I think we're going to see these other prices come down. And again, many of these goods were part of trade deals with countries that have been in the works for months.”
19
11
2
320
105,485
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
1/2Nachdem die letzte Folge die längste der Podcast-Historie war, folgt nun die kürzeste. @FBuschek gibt uns ein Update zu seinem Pitch $DUOT und sagt uns vor allem, warum er mittlerweile kritischer gegenüber dem Unternehmen... youtu.be/2CXtMTEmalw
4
2
2
19
4,673
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
My worthless dating advice: Look for a compounder, not a 0dte 🤭🌳🙏
I hear from many young men that they find it difficult to meet young women in a public setting. In other words, the online culture has destroyed the ability to spontaneously meet strangers. As such, I thought I would share a few words that I used in my youth to meet someone that I found compelling. I would ask: “May I meet you?” before engaging further in a conversation. I almost never got a No. It inevitably enabled the opportunity for a further conversation. I met a lot of really interesting people this way. I think the combination of proper grammar and politeness was the key to its effectiveness. You might give it a try. And yes, I think it should also work for women seeking men as well as same sex interactions. Just two cents from an older happily married guy concerned about our next generation’s happiness and population replacement rates.
14
3
338
48,179
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
The story of Abivax ( $ABVX ) told by lead investors @SofinnovaVC (Kinam Hong) and CEO Marc de Garidel. They were 3 hrs from bankruptcy in 2022 and now have an $8bn market cap! #BioEurope25
6
13
2
76
13,828
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Now I get the hype behind $QBTS 's 11 billion valuation, their 100% y/y revenue growth of 3.7m this quarter is crushing it. That 650 P/S is going to get cheap pretty fast at this rate
2
2
15
1,952
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
An open letter to the Hon. Dr Jim Chalmers MP. $MYX.AX harvestlaneam.com.au/wp-cont…
7
8
7
53
30,846
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
"A U.S. Commerce official told Reuters in an emailed statement that the department is not currently negotiating with any of the companies." $IONQ $RGTI $QBTS $QUBT
The Trump administration is in talks with quantum-computing firms to exchange federal funding for equity stakes, per WSJ. Companies like $IONQ, $RGTI, $QBTS, and $QUBT are discussing government ownership stakes via the Commerce Department, with proposed minimum funding of $10 million each. Deputy Commerce Secretary Paul Dabbar is leading the talks under a restructured CHIPS R&D Office.
24
72
45
414
218,123
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
In Gold Oz's: 1. The 1929 high took 30 years to recover. 2. The 1966 high took 32 years to recover. 3. The 1999 high will be unlikely to recover in even in 50+ years All other equity crises were relatively insignificant in XAU oz's and were just part of the far large cycle up's and down's, yup that includes the massive events of: 1. 2020 2. 2008 3. 1987 4. 1973 5. 1907 PS: This illustrates that the creation of the FED [1913] has created all the volatility rather than brought stability. @Oculus_1trade @sdbullion @VersanAljarrah @vandell33 @sdbullion @MilesFranklinCo @theresetsniper @TheCryptoSniper
How long it really takes to recover from crashes: 1907 Panic: –48% … 10 years to make new highs. 1929 Great Depression: –89% … 25 years to recover. 1973 Oil Shock: –45% … 9 years to recover. 1987 Black Monday: –36% … 2 years. 2000 Dot-com Bust: –78% Nasdaq … 15 years to recover. 2008 Financial Crisis: –57% … 5.5 years. Now look at the modern market: 2020 COVID Crash: –34% … new highs in 6 months. 2022 Bear: –27% … new highs in under 18 months. 2025 Crash: -23% to new highs in 1.5 months Crashes used to take years or decades to heal. Now It’s training you to believe every dip will bounce… until the one comes that doesn’t. And when that happens? It won’t bounce for years. Imagine if the top is already in, and you don’t see a new high again until 2040 or 2045. Most of you won’t live to see it. And that’s exactly what’s about to happen.
82
342
47
1,631
536,928
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
I’m not sure if people realize how rare and fuking bearish this is
98
33
21
443
289,876
Thomas Moroder 👁️^👁️=e^(-🥟/2) retweeted
Amanj Raheem, Secretary of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Council of Ministers: It has been decided that at 6:00 AM on Saturday, September 27, 2025, oil from the Kurdistan Region will be exported to the global market via the Kurdistan-Ceyhan oil pipeline and will be marketed by SOMO. #CHANNEL8
19
5
86
19,922