10 Year Hedge Fund Analyst | Private Company CFO | Sharing idiosyncratic stock ideas with accelerating fundamentals | NFA DYOD
New York, USA
Joined July 2023
- Tweets2K
- Following2K
- Followers14.5K
- Likes7.2K
Pinned Tweet
Decided to make a Substack (see bio). Will be posting free articles on market and paid articles on individual stocks
First write up is on $brun, which I think will 3x in the next 12 months following a similar path as $NBIS $CRWV
Write up covers founding origins, business model explained simply, $nvda Exemplar Cloud partnership, customers and partnerships, compares coreweave and nebius trajectories to BRUN, covers unit economics of BRUN's contracts including IRRs, insider lock up debunked, sizing the neocloud market and brun's opportunity within it, rebuttals to common questions, valuation framework
Let me know what you think
@JonahLupton
$meta issuing equity to buy more chips, Elon saying $500B in ARR for SpaceX next year… there’s no bubble?
You really think rates moving from 4.5% to 5.1% blows that up and stops this train? Lol no
$orcl $crwv $nbis $brun
META $META REPORTEDLY PLANS TO CREATE A NEW CLASS OF STOCK WITH NO VOTING RIGHTS
The goal is to let Meta sell new shares to pay for its AI buildout without weakening Mark Zuckerberg's control, per WSJ. It could be announced as soon as Wednesday's earnings - Semafor
ALT Photo Credit: Carlos Barria/Reuters
My guy Elon talking about a 6 month payback period and people are panic selling $crwv $brun $nbis… yes I know SpaceX gets slightly better terms, contracts are short term, blah blah blah….
The reality is the unit economics of the neoclouds are very strong. Unfortunately, despite strong unit economics, they are have tough working capital dynamics at the outset. There is no doubt in my mind that these companies will gush cash in a few years. Stock market is meant to transfer wealth from the weak hands to the strong hands.
@RHouseResearch
Elon Musk says there's no AI demand issue and explains why SpaceX rents its compute on short-term contracts: AI compute is worth more per watt every year, renewals are coming in at higher prices, and the market is a “cheese shop” with no chips left
“Our belief is that the value of compute per watt will increase over time, not decrease. And the reason for that, I think it should be obvious to people really, is that as you improve the AI software, as the models get better and better, they’re able to, you get more useful intelligence per watt. And the value of that compute is proportionate to the useful intelligence per watt. And that’s why you see things like even old computers like H100s renting for more than they rented when they were new.”
“And I think that’s likely to continue. I think we’re going to face a shortage of superintelligence compute. And that shortage is going to remain for a long time. So, I think the smart move is to do short-term contracts and to essentially place the bet on useful intelligence per watt increasing rapidly, which obviously is done, so that’s what’s happened so far.”
“And also if you look at, say, how are our short-term contracts renewing? Are they renewing at higher dollars per watt or lower? And we see them renewing at higher dollars per watt, not lower dollars per watt. We are also frankly hounded relentlessly by every hyperscaler and by dozens of smaller companies to rent more of our compute. So we could rent out our compute several times over if we said yes to everyone. That’s just the situation here.”
“That’s why I posted that sort of video meme of the Monty Python cheese shop sketch where the guy goes into a cheese shop to get some cheese and they actually have no cheese. And so he goes like, what about this kind of cheese? What about that kind of cheese? And they really just don’t have any cheese.”
“So we’ve actually tried to offload some of our inference compute to other cloud providers so that we can use more compute for training. And we get the cheese shop sketch. You know, they’ll say, like, well, we’ll ask them about what about some, you know, GB300s? Nope, don’t have any of those. What about, you know, some GB200s? Nope, don’t have any of those. What about some TPUs? Nope. What about some Trainiums? Nope. What about some, okay, how about some H100s? And like, well, we might have some overseas somewhere and then they’ll check and come back and say, nope, we don’t have that either. So it’s like ridiculous.”
“Yeah. So I don’t think we’re going to have a demand issue here. And like, it’s not impossible. I’m not saying this will happen. It’s not impossible that we will have a six-month payback period for compute next year.”
$fnma $fmcc @pulte whats the hold up? I thought Scott Bessent was a genius (at least by his own account), how long does it take a genius to come to this conclusion? @BillAckman
What the chart proves: ownership structure is invisible in the spread. Private shareholders with a government backstop (2000–07) averaged 1.77. Government ownership with a backstop plus Fed buying (2009–21) averaged 1.72. Government ownership with a backstop and Fed selling (2022–26) averaged 2.41. The variable that moved the spread by 70bp was the Fed’s balance sheet. The variable that changed in 2008 — who owns the equity — moved it by nothing.
What the chart can’t prove: that release is harmless regardless of structure. Every year on that chart is a year with a government backstop behind the GSEs — implicit before 2008, explicit after. There’s no data point for “private GSEs, no backstop,” which is the scenario the spread worriers are actually worried about. So the honest reading isn’t “the spread argument is an excuse.” It’s “the spread argument is about the backstop, not about conservatorship — and the backstop is already in the 2021 PSPA.” The $113.9B of undrawn Treasury commitment survives release. Keep that line, add an explicit fee for it if you want, and you’re in the 2000–07 regime: private shareholders, government backstop, spread ~1.8. The data says that regime works.
Which makes your point stronger, not weaker. Bessent’s North Star is satisfiable by a document that already exists. If the spread were the real obstacle, the fix would be in the term sheet by now. That it isn’t tells you the delay is about something else — bandwidth, optics, or the “year after” — and that’s the excuse. The chart doesn’t say “release has no risk.” It says “the risk Treasury keeps citing has a known, cheap, already-drafted solution, and the ownership question it keeps delaying has never mattered to the number it claims to protect.”
This is roughly accurate. You can have good unit economics and still have bad working capital dynamics at the outset with fast growth exacerbating need for cash.
The hard part about investing in stocks with this model is sometimes investors care and sometimes they don’t ($tsla $spcx etc.)
This is why there’s so much volatility in neoclouds $crwv $shaz $iren $nbis $brun
J.P. Morgan: CoreWeave needs its active data center power to reach 4-5x annual additions to generate positive free cash flow, which is only expected in 2030E at a 4.5x ratio.
$CRWV
Agree w/ @DeepSailCapital - short squeeze is looking promising:
Everyone is on the 6% 10-year train
Anthropic growth is slowing (I'll take the over on $200B ARR exit rate for 2027)
Neoclouds implode (highest put volume on record for $crwv) yesterday
Oil stays ~$100+
If rates move back to say 4.8%, there will be a mega move in some names (like $CIFR where Abbott is freezing approvals before midterms, which will obviously clear after midterms)
It's all the same bet on rates.
xitter.cf/DeepSailCapital/status…
Send it to zero $acn
New: Accenture has told employees it will only fund $29 per month of Claude use. Meaning that employees who often spend as much as $1,000 a month are now scrambling to find ways to keep access to the tool. A sign of the continuing crack down of AI 404media.co/accenture-tells-…
Asymmetric Bets retweeted
Should be pretty evident CoreWeave's cost of capital is declining over any timeframe greater than a few months.. DDTLs (the ABS, project-finance style facilities backed by specific clusters and customer contracts) comprise the majority of CoreWeave's debt.
Pricing on the DDTLs has tightened a lot over the years. From S+9.62% for DDTL 1.0 issued in 2023.. to as low as S+2.25% for DDTL 4.0 done in March 2026. Note how the older, higher-priced DDTLs 1.0 and 2.0 are declining as the facilities are fully self-amortizing.. And new, lower-priced DDTLs are drawn to fund the most recent capex.
Will be interesting to see where the next DDTL prices. Not going to argue it will be tighter than the S+2.25% (DDTL 4.0) and S+4.50% (5.0) prints from earlier this year. But probably worth noting that DDTL 5.5 was done at S+5.50% (not shown below as it was completed post quarter-end) in July 2026 when AI financing markets were similarly volatile.. And DDTL 5.5 has a 5 year term yet funds capex associated with non-investment grade customers on 3 year contracts, making it a much more aggressive structure than anything prior. In any event, where DDTL 6.0 lands seems much more important than where its (illiquid) unsecured senior notes are trading.
$CRWV
CEO of Coreweave $crwv owns 9% of the stock still, worth $5B+.... selling stock to build a more diversified portfolio just shows he's smart.... BTW, had Bill Gates not sold his $MSFT stock to diversify, he'd be worth $1.2 trillion.... instead, Steve Ballmer (MSFT's next CEO) has a higher net worth than Bill Gates.....
xitter.cf/RealSimpleAriel/status…
$CRWV is such an incredible company that CEO Michael Intrator, a former carbon credit salesman turned Ethereum mining expert, has apparently been unloading shares on retail investors for months. LOL.
Meanwhile, the Twitter experts are working overtime to remind everyone what a can’t miss investment this POS supposedly is.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
The wtd. average yield on $crwv debt is 8.5%, not 15% like people want you to believe.... its one bond.... the echo chamber is dangerous, and we have the same problem with elections
A level headed take (and correct take) below:
xitter.cf/KawzInvests/status/211…
$CRWV isn’t paying 15% interest. Only 4% of their debt costs that.
I went through the Q2 10-Q line by line. Out of ~$35B in debt, exactly one loan sits at 15%. It’s $1.3B, due March 2028, and already being paid down.
The 15% chart going around is the market yield on their 2032 bond. A higher yield doesn’t change what CoreWeave pays. It works like a mortgage. If you locked in at 3% and rates go to 7%, you’re still paying 3%. CoreWeave locked that bond at 9.625% and still pays 9.625%.
What they actually pay
> $6.6B of convertibles at ~2%
> ~$10B of bonds at 9-10%
> Most secured loans around 9%
> ~8.4% blended across everything
They have roughly $20B of 2026 capex left to fund, and 2027 will need more. Their main funding tool has been loans backed by customer contracts. The investment grade one backed by Meta priced around 5.9% in March. If they keep borrowing that way, I think the math holds.
Zooming out, the AI trade still looks intact to me. $ASML reported record Q3 profit this morning and said lithography demand will outrun their supply in 2027 and 2028, even after adding ~30% capacity each year. Customers are already asking about 2029 and 2030 slots.
Demand is still outpacing supply everywhere I look. $CRWV $ASML
The entire timeline is now an expert in CDS on neoclouds but almost none of them can explain unit economics of the business.... interesting.
Hot take for FinTwit:
If you're trying to beat the NASDAQ -- this is why its hard (the math):
--> diversified basket of stocks, 23x fwd p/e, growing eps 48% last 12 months, (3 year EPS CAGR of 27%, 5 year EPS CAGR 18%), 20% net income margins, basically no leverage (.8x EV/EBITDA), and the just for good measure 35% ROIC.
You cannot beat that without extreme concentration, and most active managers can't get that mandate from LPs. If you can get the mandate, you're likely to hold $MSft $GOOG $amzn, $META and then LPs say "why the hell are we paying you fees". You can do it with levered beta, but hot trends typically unwind quickly.
This is the math behind the death of active managment (ex-pods... data per claude)
@chamath @Jason @DavidSacks @friedberg @ackman
