Offshore
Photo
Quiver Quantitative
Wow.
Earlier this year, a stock trade by Representative Robert Bresnahan caught our eye.
We posted this report.
$CRDO has now risen 141% since his trade. https://t.co/aNLyllpB4k
tweet
Wow.
Earlier this year, a stock trade by Representative Robert Bresnahan caught our eye.
We posted this report.
$CRDO has now risen 141% since his trade. https://t.co/aNLyllpB4k
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Quiver Quantitative
UPDATE: Last year, we noticed a suspicious trade made by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
We posted this report.
$HL has now risen 229% since the trade was made: https://t.co/QWVp8UtbnQ
tweet
UPDATE: Last year, we noticed a suspicious trade made by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
We posted this report.
$HL has now risen 229% since the trade was made: https://t.co/QWVp8UtbnQ
tweet
Offshore
Photo
App Economy Insights
💡 Insights you might have missed
🧬 Abbott buys Exact Sciences
☁️ Oracle’s AI hangover
📉 What’s actually priced in
Free article just dropped 👇
https://t.co/bB4sY62mNv
tweet
💡 Insights you might have missed
🧬 Abbott buys Exact Sciences
☁️ Oracle’s AI hangover
📉 What’s actually priced in
Free article just dropped 👇
https://t.co/bB4sY62mNv
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
How the U.S. Went From Building Capacity to Borrowing It
When energy use is rising and debt to GDP is falling, the country is physically expanding. You’re adding real output with more goods, more infrastructure, more capacity and the debt burden shrinks because the productive base is getting bigger underneath it. That’s the we grew our way out of debt era.
But once you move into the mid 80s and especially the 2000s, the picture flips. Total US energy use basically goes flat, yet debt to GDP surges. That’s the growth you get when credit expansion and asset inflation are doing the heavy lifting instead of physical throughput. Same amount of real energy, way more financial claims on top of it. That’s why it gets framed as nominal growth born out of currency debasement rather than new production.
A More Complete Read
The chart is useful, but there’s more happening beneath the surface. Energy isn’t the whole story, it’s just the simplest physical proxy for real growth.
A few things complicate the picture…
•The US economy became radically more efficient. A unit of energy today produces far more output than in 1950. Software, biotech, and services don’t show up in BTU counts the way steel mills did.
•We outsourced a ton of energy burn. A lot of the flatline is just because the heavy lifting moved overseas. US consumption still relies on rising global energy, it just doesn’t happen inside US borders.
•The debt surge isn’t only monetary policy; it’s demographics and politics. An aging population, slower labor force growth, and a preference for smoothing the decline through credit and asset inflation created a long term upward push on debt/GDP.
•Not all debt is created equal. Postwar debt built highways, factories, homes. A lot of today’s debt funds transfer payments, financial engineering, and the cost of maintaining living standards that no longer match the underlying productive capacity.
We went from a physically expanding economy to a financially leveraged one. But the deeper takeaway is that the US is trying to run a 1950s style debt and entitlement load on a 2020s energy base and demographic reality. And that mismatch forces policymakers into a corner where mild debasement and financial repression become the default path.
That’s the real story hiding in the chart.
tweet
How the U.S. Went From Building Capacity to Borrowing It
When energy use is rising and debt to GDP is falling, the country is physically expanding. You’re adding real output with more goods, more infrastructure, more capacity and the debt burden shrinks because the productive base is getting bigger underneath it. That’s the we grew our way out of debt era.
But once you move into the mid 80s and especially the 2000s, the picture flips. Total US energy use basically goes flat, yet debt to GDP surges. That’s the growth you get when credit expansion and asset inflation are doing the heavy lifting instead of physical throughput. Same amount of real energy, way more financial claims on top of it. That’s why it gets framed as nominal growth born out of currency debasement rather than new production.
A More Complete Read
The chart is useful, but there’s more happening beneath the surface. Energy isn’t the whole story, it’s just the simplest physical proxy for real growth.
A few things complicate the picture…
•The US economy became radically more efficient. A unit of energy today produces far more output than in 1950. Software, biotech, and services don’t show up in BTU counts the way steel mills did.
•We outsourced a ton of energy burn. A lot of the flatline is just because the heavy lifting moved overseas. US consumption still relies on rising global energy, it just doesn’t happen inside US borders.
•The debt surge isn’t only monetary policy; it’s demographics and politics. An aging population, slower labor force growth, and a preference for smoothing the decline through credit and asset inflation created a long term upward push on debt/GDP.
•Not all debt is created equal. Postwar debt built highways, factories, homes. A lot of today’s debt funds transfer payments, financial engineering, and the cost of maintaining living standards that no longer match the underlying productive capacity.
We went from a physically expanding economy to a financially leveraged one. But the deeper takeaway is that the US is trying to run a 1950s style debt and entitlement load on a 2020s energy base and demographic reality. And that mismatch forces policymakers into a corner where mild debasement and financial repression become the default path.
That’s the real story hiding in the chart.
Chart #2
Red=debt to GDP
Yellow=total US energy consumption (Q/BTU) https://t.co/9CCQnVuuTB tweet
Offshore
Photo
WealthyReadings
Few hours in, $ZETA isn’t very appealing to me.
Revenue growth is rapidly slowing.
FY28 expectations are $2.1B versus $1B in FY24, with guidance of $1.275B for FY25. That implies 27% YoY growth in FY25, followed by ~18% CAGR through FY28 - a clear deceleration.
Sure, 18% CAGR is excellent, but the slowdown raises questions about usage and demand.
The bull case seems to rely on growing spending from existing clients, shown by the rising proportion of $1M+ accounts. I assume bulls will argue this proves the service is valuable, but growth cannot be sustained only by existing clients. They need new ones, within a very competitive industry.
And onboarding has been weak since the LiveIntent acquisition end of FY24, which provided a boost but highlights a very slow organic growth. They bought their user base growth. External demand didn't really follow.
ARPUs are also flatish YoY despite more high spenders, meaning a weaker spending from smaller clients so the growing usage is so-so imo.
The company is probably solid and will grow, but most onboardings haven't been organic and demand looks limited, although many companies thrive on their user base.
But as an investment, this feels like a growth story with slowing momentum and no clear demand drivers in a crowded sector.
Even excluding giants like $GOOG or $META who have a particular advertising system, they still face competition from $ADBE & co with other advantages.
$ADBE Digital Experience segment has grown steadily at 9% for two years, with the same switching costs that many would attribute to $ZETA as well. Why would clients leave them?
I expect bulls will argue $ZETA offers a better, more efficient service. But without organic growth through new user acquisition, that’s just narrative. Perhaps enterprises prefer more complex workflows but to keep an access to a digital service.
I guess my main question as an investor is: Why would multiples expand?
Multiples don’t matter without growth acceleration or meaningful advantage over competition. $ADBE trades at 6x sales, higher than $ZETA's 3.6x, sure, but why should $ZETA deserve higher multiples than $ADBE?
$ADBE has a stable growth - which is better than a decreasing one, multi‑billion revenues, other business, is incorporated into the most valuable companies' of the world workflows with massive competitive advantages.
$ZETA, by contrast, is a $4B company with slowing growth, limited implantation and no clear path to organic acceleration nor user onboarding, with massive competition.
No disrespect once again, this is the way I see it. Not saying they won’t succeed neither, just that I don’t see why the market would reward slowing growth with richer multiples.
As usual, I’ll probably get some insults for disagreeing with the community. But I’m looking forward for constructive criticism on what I’m wrong on or missing in the story.
Maybe new features are coming as that's often the case with growth companies and if so I'll have the same conclusion than for $PATH: let me see demand and then I'll change my mind. For now, I do not see what would justify multiples expansion.
I’ve heard @wealthmatica is the $ZETA king, so if you’re reading, I’d be glad to hear counterarguments or be pointed toward content with answers.
In the meantime, everything was written with respect and arguments, so if you feel like commenting, try to do the same 🙏.
We're here to make money together, not insult each others.
tweet
Few hours in, $ZETA isn’t very appealing to me.
Revenue growth is rapidly slowing.
FY28 expectations are $2.1B versus $1B in FY24, with guidance of $1.275B for FY25. That implies 27% YoY growth in FY25, followed by ~18% CAGR through FY28 - a clear deceleration.
Sure, 18% CAGR is excellent, but the slowdown raises questions about usage and demand.
The bull case seems to rely on growing spending from existing clients, shown by the rising proportion of $1M+ accounts. I assume bulls will argue this proves the service is valuable, but growth cannot be sustained only by existing clients. They need new ones, within a very competitive industry.
And onboarding has been weak since the LiveIntent acquisition end of FY24, which provided a boost but highlights a very slow organic growth. They bought their user base growth. External demand didn't really follow.
ARPUs are also flatish YoY despite more high spenders, meaning a weaker spending from smaller clients so the growing usage is so-so imo.
The company is probably solid and will grow, but most onboardings haven't been organic and demand looks limited, although many companies thrive on their user base.
But as an investment, this feels like a growth story with slowing momentum and no clear demand drivers in a crowded sector.
Even excluding giants like $GOOG or $META who have a particular advertising system, they still face competition from $ADBE & co with other advantages.
$ADBE Digital Experience segment has grown steadily at 9% for two years, with the same switching costs that many would attribute to $ZETA as well. Why would clients leave them?
I expect bulls will argue $ZETA offers a better, more efficient service. But without organic growth through new user acquisition, that’s just narrative. Perhaps enterprises prefer more complex workflows but to keep an access to a digital service.
I guess my main question as an investor is: Why would multiples expand?
Multiples don’t matter without growth acceleration or meaningful advantage over competition. $ADBE trades at 6x sales, higher than $ZETA's 3.6x, sure, but why should $ZETA deserve higher multiples than $ADBE?
$ADBE has a stable growth - which is better than a decreasing one, multi‑billion revenues, other business, is incorporated into the most valuable companies' of the world workflows with massive competitive advantages.
$ZETA, by contrast, is a $4B company with slowing growth, limited implantation and no clear path to organic acceleration nor user onboarding, with massive competition.
No disrespect once again, this is the way I see it. Not saying they won’t succeed neither, just that I don’t see why the market would reward slowing growth with richer multiples.
As usual, I’ll probably get some insults for disagreeing with the community. But I’m looking forward for constructive criticism on what I’m wrong on or missing in the story.
Maybe new features are coming as that's often the case with growth companies and if so I'll have the same conclusion than for $PATH: let me see demand and then I'll change my mind. For now, I do not see what would justify multiples expansion.
I’ve heard @wealthmatica is the $ZETA king, so if you’re reading, I’d be glad to hear counterarguments or be pointed toward content with answers.
In the meantime, everything was written with respect and arguments, so if you feel like commenting, try to do the same 🙏.
We're here to make money together, not insult each others.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
When Low Claims Stop Meaning What They Used To
At face value, this chart makes the labor market look calm. Claims are low, layoffs aren’t accelerating, and the line is drifting back toward levels we usually associate with stability. If you only lived inside this metric, you’d think the job market is holding up just fine.
But this number comes from a system that no longer reflects how people actually work.
Why Claims Look Strong Even When Workers Aren’t
Unemployment insurance was designed for a W-2 world. Today, a huge share of workers don’t fit that mold. Gig workers, contractors, self employed folks, they don’t qualify for traditional UI, so when their income disappears, nothing shows up here. And even for people who are eligible, the benefit is often too small and too frustrating to be worth the process. A lot of people simply skip filing and go straight into hustling on the apps to stay afloat.
Add in messy classification…people with unstable hours still get counted as “employed” and you end up with an indicator that captures layoffs, but not the broader slowdown underneath them.
That’s why the line stays low even while credit delinquencies rise and households start missing payments. The stress is real; the claims just don’t pick it up until much later in the cycle.
What’s Actually Happening Beneath the Surface
If you connect this chart to everything else we’re seeing, the higher probability story is pretty clear.
Companies are tightening, but quietly. They’re cutting hours, freezing hiring, pushing work toward contractors, and trimming the edges instead of doing the big, headline grabbing layoff waves. Workers who lose a steady job plug the gap with gig income, which technically makes them “not unemployed,” but definitely not secure.
So claims look great. The lived experience doesn’t.
This isn’t a healthy labor market, it’s a stretched one. A labor market where people are working more jobs with less stability, where falling income volatility gets mistaken for strength, and where the early warning signs show up in credit data long before they show up in claims.
Credit to @charliebilello for the great chart. Give him a follow.
tweet
When Low Claims Stop Meaning What They Used To
At face value, this chart makes the labor market look calm. Claims are low, layoffs aren’t accelerating, and the line is drifting back toward levels we usually associate with stability. If you only lived inside this metric, you’d think the job market is holding up just fine.
But this number comes from a system that no longer reflects how people actually work.
Why Claims Look Strong Even When Workers Aren’t
Unemployment insurance was designed for a W-2 world. Today, a huge share of workers don’t fit that mold. Gig workers, contractors, self employed folks, they don’t qualify for traditional UI, so when their income disappears, nothing shows up here. And even for people who are eligible, the benefit is often too small and too frustrating to be worth the process. A lot of people simply skip filing and go straight into hustling on the apps to stay afloat.
Add in messy classification…people with unstable hours still get counted as “employed” and you end up with an indicator that captures layoffs, but not the broader slowdown underneath them.
That’s why the line stays low even while credit delinquencies rise and households start missing payments. The stress is real; the claims just don’t pick it up until much later in the cycle.
What’s Actually Happening Beneath the Surface
If you connect this chart to everything else we’re seeing, the higher probability story is pretty clear.
Companies are tightening, but quietly. They’re cutting hours, freezing hiring, pushing work toward contractors, and trimming the edges instead of doing the big, headline grabbing layoff waves. Workers who lose a steady job plug the gap with gig income, which technically makes them “not unemployed,” but definitely not secure.
So claims look great. The lived experience doesn’t.
This isn’t a healthy labor market, it’s a stretched one. A labor market where people are working more jobs with less stability, where falling income volatility gets mistaken for strength, and where the early warning signs show up in credit data long before they show up in claims.
Credit to @charliebilello for the great chart. Give him a follow.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
When Prices Outrun Rents, History Tells You What Happens Next
This is the simplest way to see whether housing is expensive or reasonable. It compares home prices to rents going all the way back to 1980. When the line rises, it means home values are running ahead of the actual cash flow value of shelter. When it falls, either prices are cooling or rents are catching up.
And you can see the pattern instantly…every time this ratio shoots too far above normal, it eventually comes back down. The early 80s did it. The late 80s did it. The mid 2000s did it in dramatic fashion. After each spike, the chart doesn’t just drift back toward average, it slides below it before stabilizing. Housing moves like a pendulum, not a ruler.
Now look at today. We’re clearly in elevated territory again. Not at the 2006 insanity, but definitely above the long run median and nowhere near the downturn lows that usually mark the end of a cycle.
Where This Usually Goes Next
If history is any guide, this ratio isn’t going to sit up here forever. It tends to revert to the mean in one of two ways: quickly during a hard correction, or slowly through time as prices flatten and rents and incomes inch higher.
Given the current mix of high mortgage rates, owners locked into cheap pre 2022 loans, affordability stretched to the breaking point, and very little transactional volume, the slow grind version is more likely. You don’t need a 2008 style collapse for this ratio to fall. You just need a few years where home prices stop running and rents do the heavy lifting.
But the direction is the same either way. If the chart keeps behaving the way it always has, valuations will drift back toward the low 14s, and probably into the 12s at the bottom of the cycle. That’s what normalization looks like in housing: not necessarily dramatic price drops, but a multi year adjustment where reality eventually wins out over the last bubble’s momentum.
tweet
When Prices Outrun Rents, History Tells You What Happens Next
This is the simplest way to see whether housing is expensive or reasonable. It compares home prices to rents going all the way back to 1980. When the line rises, it means home values are running ahead of the actual cash flow value of shelter. When it falls, either prices are cooling or rents are catching up.
And you can see the pattern instantly…every time this ratio shoots too far above normal, it eventually comes back down. The early 80s did it. The late 80s did it. The mid 2000s did it in dramatic fashion. After each spike, the chart doesn’t just drift back toward average, it slides below it before stabilizing. Housing moves like a pendulum, not a ruler.
Now look at today. We’re clearly in elevated territory again. Not at the 2006 insanity, but definitely above the long run median and nowhere near the downturn lows that usually mark the end of a cycle.
Where This Usually Goes Next
If history is any guide, this ratio isn’t going to sit up here forever. It tends to revert to the mean in one of two ways: quickly during a hard correction, or slowly through time as prices flatten and rents and incomes inch higher.
Given the current mix of high mortgage rates, owners locked into cheap pre 2022 loans, affordability stretched to the breaking point, and very little transactional volume, the slow grind version is more likely. You don’t need a 2008 style collapse for this ratio to fall. You just need a few years where home prices stop running and rents do the heavy lifting.
But the direction is the same either way. If the chart keeps behaving the way it always has, valuations will drift back toward the low 14s, and probably into the 12s at the bottom of the cycle. That’s what normalization looks like in housing: not necessarily dramatic price drops, but a multi year adjustment where reality eventually wins out over the last bubble’s momentum.
Bubble. https://t.co/0SRjg3WU5L tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
There are definitely people milking fear for clicks. But there are also people just trying to describe the world as it actually is with record debt, broken housing ladder, widening wealth gaps, geopolitical mess. Calling that doomerism doesn’t fix any of it; it just makes honest discussion sound illegitimate.
Being willing to see fragility in the system is situational awareness. You can be optimistic about human ingenuity and skeptical that this particular setup ends smoothly.
The opposite of doom is clear eyed realism plus the willingness to act anyway.
tweet
There are definitely people milking fear for clicks. But there are also people just trying to describe the world as it actually is with record debt, broken housing ladder, widening wealth gaps, geopolitical mess. Calling that doomerism doesn’t fix any of it; it just makes honest discussion sound illegitimate.
Being willing to see fragility in the system is situational awareness. You can be optimistic about human ingenuity and skeptical that this particular setup ends smoothly.
The opposite of doom is clear eyed realism plus the willingness to act anyway.
A Respectful Open Post to All the Doom & Gloomer Pussies
I’m 50 years old. As of two years ago, I had never spent time on any social media--none.
I just never participated.
Then I wrote a book called Quoz, about a future where AI and Quantum computing ruled the world, https://t.co/jLMdOPzkSr.
My distributor, @simonschuster, suggested I get on social media; so I did, never expecting anyone to follow me.
Within a year or two, I got over 35K followers somehow, I really don’t know why.
But here’s what I’ve learned. Fuck all the, “I’m optimistic at heart, but…” people.
Either you’re an optimist or not. Either you think we’re heading for better days, or you don’t.
I’m beginning to work on a longer, mini-manifesto that I call “The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly.”
The “good” is all the possibility that is around us at this moment in time. It’s AI, humanoids, the breakdown of racial/ethnic barriers to advancement (& I'm not woke but a DJT voter).
The “bad” is the undeniable setbacks that we need to overcome… and overcome them we will… things like large sovereign debt, social wealth inequality, etc.
But the most interesting to me, and the most important for success, is overcoming the “Ugly.”
The Ugly is all the people on social media and elsewhere that want to convince everyone that they are victims… victims of racism, sexism, generationalism, etc.
These are the people that constantly put out videos/pods on YouTube about the coming collapse, “Worse than the Depression,” the “Markets Set for Massive Meltdown” people, etc. And yes, @thoughtfulmoney, I'm talking about you. I will not hesitate to name names.
I know this is not a popular view. The popular view is that through some magic of the printing press, the powers that be have forced everyone into a death spiral that will end badly.
I want to push back against this narrative. Attitude is everything. If everyone starts believing they are just victims of circumstance, and that in the end, everything will end in collapse, then that belief becomes toxic.
I also firmly believe that that belief is categorically wrong.
I’m hoping to publish by Jan a well-reasoned and thoughtful piece that confronts all the bad attitudes out there. That promotes optimism without a but.
I was pretty down last week as my “optimistic” portfolio hit a snag.
Then, I had the best week, on an absolute dollar amount of my life, up over $300K.
Do not let the Doomers get you down. We are on an upward trajectory. It is only a matter of perspective.
All the Puritanical regret about wealth creation is an abomination.
It is a deep-seated attempt to make people feel bad about making money.
It is a denial of the world and the way it is, a hopeful wish for some puritanical world of fair and justness that simply does not exist.
Follow that philosophy at you're own peril! tweet