The Long Investor
RT @dubinvest: BREAKING:
Senator @TTuberville just traded.
He bought $HUMA, A company that benefits directly from international war efforts due to their development of implant technology.
Tuberville is on the Armed Services Committee.
You can copy trade Tuberville on dub.
tweet
RT @dubinvest: BREAKING:
Senator @TTuberville just traded.
He bought $HUMA, A company that benefits directly from international war efforts due to their development of implant technology.
Tuberville is on the Armed Services Committee.
You can copy trade Tuberville on dub.
tweet
Brandon Beylo
RT @kingdomcapadv: Had a good time catching up with @marketplunger1, covered coal stocks, ate some crow on $PLCE, and discussed why we both like $GENK. Thanks for having me on!
https://t.co/RNOmcRJ8dj
tweet
RT @kingdomcapadv: Had a good time catching up with @marketplunger1, covered coal stocks, ate some crow on $PLCE, and discussed why we both like $GENK. Thanks for having me on!
https://t.co/RNOmcRJ8dj
tweet
Giuliano
Why do I expect legal finance to keep growing?
It mostly reduces to the reason why it emerged.
Companies utilize liquidity to fund their own operations. Management want to allocate capital and time in business-related activities. That's where their circle of competence resides. Funding legal departments or paying law firms impedes this.
At the same time, there's a mismatch in the desired methodologies of payment. Companies tend to prefer to pay on a contingent basis, while law firms prefer to be paid on an hourly, or fixed basis. Due to the latter's cost structure, it's likely for this mismatch to persist.
Legal finance solves this at no risk. The financier, generally, would only receive money if the case resolves favorably. Hence, this mechanism removes downside from cost yet keeps some upside for businesses.
In addition to this, there are two interesting advantages from an accounting perspective:
1. Legal expenses flow through the p&l, being recorded as operating expenses. They invariably reduce the earnings and cash flow a company produces and reports. The problem is not only the money that's needed, but the market value cost it implies.
If the company spends 100M in legal fees and trades at PE of 20, the cost in market value terms is of 2 billion dollars.
2. When companies have an ongoing litigation, there might be the possibility of them generating cash flow in the future. However, this is not recorded as an asset. Hence the market assigns little to no value to such a thing.
Legal finance recognize the asset's value and allows corporations to monetize their claims, by offering cash upfront in exchange for a share of the potential proceeds plus a return on the funded cost. Again, only if the case resolves favorably will the financier receive money.
It essentially offers cash now to a manager that can employ it in their operations and to which the market assigns value.
Legal finance is a solution to a problem I expect will continue in this enormous industry. More importantly, it's a tool I suspect most managers will be happy to utilize.
tweet
Why do I expect legal finance to keep growing?
It mostly reduces to the reason why it emerged.
Companies utilize liquidity to fund their own operations. Management want to allocate capital and time in business-related activities. That's where their circle of competence resides. Funding legal departments or paying law firms impedes this.
At the same time, there's a mismatch in the desired methodologies of payment. Companies tend to prefer to pay on a contingent basis, while law firms prefer to be paid on an hourly, or fixed basis. Due to the latter's cost structure, it's likely for this mismatch to persist.
Legal finance solves this at no risk. The financier, generally, would only receive money if the case resolves favorably. Hence, this mechanism removes downside from cost yet keeps some upside for businesses.
In addition to this, there are two interesting advantages from an accounting perspective:
1. Legal expenses flow through the p&l, being recorded as operating expenses. They invariably reduce the earnings and cash flow a company produces and reports. The problem is not only the money that's needed, but the market value cost it implies.
If the company spends 100M in legal fees and trades at PE of 20, the cost in market value terms is of 2 billion dollars.
2. When companies have an ongoing litigation, there might be the possibility of them generating cash flow in the future. However, this is not recorded as an asset. Hence the market assigns little to no value to such a thing.
Legal finance recognize the asset's value and allows corporations to monetize their claims, by offering cash upfront in exchange for a share of the potential proceeds plus a return on the funded cost. Again, only if the case resolves favorably will the financier receive money.
It essentially offers cash now to a manager that can employ it in their operations and to which the market assigns value.
Legal finance is a solution to a problem I expect will continue in this enormous industry. More importantly, it's a tool I suspect most managers will be happy to utilize.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Giuliano
$BUR's recent disclosure on competitors' debt and funds raised. https://t.co/9KbksYPRlf
tweet
$BUR's recent disclosure on competitors' debt and funds raised. https://t.co/9KbksYPRlf
tweet
Brandon Beylo
Here's a simple strategy in a world where nobody cares to re-rate your cheap stocks, and they stay cheap forever.
1) Find companies that nobody cares about that are trading at ridiculously low valuations.
2) Ensure that those companies will keep earning profits at some sustainable level.
3) Buy the ones explicitly saying,"“we will return most of our earnings to shareholders through dividends, buybacks, or both"”
It is painfully simple but significantly narrows the investable universe of "cheap" stocks.
Also reveals how important capital allocation is even amidst the cheapest stocks.
tweet
Here's a simple strategy in a world where nobody cares to re-rate your cheap stocks, and they stay cheap forever.
1) Find companies that nobody cares about that are trading at ridiculously low valuations.
2) Ensure that those companies will keep earning profits at some sustainable level.
3) Buy the ones explicitly saying,"“we will return most of our earnings to shareholders through dividends, buybacks, or both"”
It is painfully simple but significantly narrows the investable universe of "cheap" stocks.
Also reveals how important capital allocation is even amidst the cheapest stocks.
tweet
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
“The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to impact society, or how much it could grow, but rather, determining the COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE of any given company and, above all, the DURABILITY of that advantage.”
— Warren Buffett 🗣️
#stocks #investing
tweet
“The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to impact society, or how much it could grow, but rather, determining the COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE of any given company and, above all, the DURABILITY of that advantage.”
— Warren Buffett 🗣️
#stocks #investing
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Brandon Beylo
This man needed three monitors to edit one of the greatest movies of this decade.
But sure, please tell me how you need six monitors to trade your $500 Robinhood account.
tweet
This man needed three monitors to edit one of the greatest movies of this decade.
But sure, please tell me how you need six monitors to trade your $500 Robinhood account.
Video editing setup of a Joe Walker who edited Dune: https://t.co/SxFG0fDENN tweet
Brandon Beylo
RT @JeffSawick: $AFM dividend 📈
tweet
RT @JeffSawick: $AFM dividend 📈
Here's a simple strategy in a world where nobody cares to re-rate your cheap stocks, and they stay cheap forever.
1) Find companies that nobody cares about that are trading at ridiculously low valuations.
2) Ensure that those companies will keep earning profits at some sustainable level.
3) Buy the ones explicitly saying,"“we will return most of our earnings to shareholders through dividends, buybacks, or both"”
It is painfully simple but significantly narrows the investable universe of "cheap" stocks.
Also reveals how important capital allocation is even amidst the cheapest stocks. tweet
X (formerly Twitter)
Brandon Beylo (@marketplunger1) on X
Here's a simple strategy in a world where nobody cares to re-rate your cheap stocks, and they stay cheap forever.
1) Find companies that nobody cares about that are trading at ridiculously low valuations.
2) Ensure that those companies will keep earning…
1) Find companies that nobody cares about that are trading at ridiculously low valuations.
2) Ensure that those companies will keep earning…
Offshore
Video
Q-Cap
« My psychological short is doing great. »
« Also, I am making 208% on my $DJT short although math tells me the max I can make is 100%. »
This app is a gift and a curse I swear
tweet
« My psychological short is doing great. »
« Also, I am making 208% on my $DJT short although math tells me the max I can make is 100%. »
This app is a gift and a curse I swear
I’m up 208% since I shorted $DJT Trump Media stock.
Thank you MAGA. https://t.co/bCP9PV22Ye tweet
Offshore
Photo
AkhenOsiris
RT @ScroogeCap: Barclays out with a note today on $ZS saying it's a good spot to buy the pullback, backs it up with checks.
Further, Baird met with management and their tech sales is providing color on their top idea:
'From a GTM restructuring point, ZS noted, Mike Rich (new CRO from ServiceNow) is prioritizing experienced sales leaders (largely from $NOW) to build trust with CIOs and other decision-makers in the industry. On GTM productivity, ZS acknowledges that new salespeople will not be fully productive from day one but that is fully baked in the guide, noting, "They will have a ramp period. And that's what is already getting reflected in the 3Q and 4Q guide. That's what we're assuming, people to continue to slowly ramp and overall, you have to give 9-12 months for a sales rep to be fully productive." Hiring will continue to balance new additions and improving productivity, but there is an increasing focus on getting more productivity out of existing salespeople. On Federal, they mentioned "business as usual,” despite broader comments of weakness in the sector. Thunderdome is one of the many programs they are engaged on and they like their opportunity in all of the programs.'
tweet
RT @ScroogeCap: Barclays out with a note today on $ZS saying it's a good spot to buy the pullback, backs it up with checks.
Further, Baird met with management and their tech sales is providing color on their top idea:
'From a GTM restructuring point, ZS noted, Mike Rich (new CRO from ServiceNow) is prioritizing experienced sales leaders (largely from $NOW) to build trust with CIOs and other decision-makers in the industry. On GTM productivity, ZS acknowledges that new salespeople will not be fully productive from day one but that is fully baked in the guide, noting, "They will have a ramp period. And that's what is already getting reflected in the 3Q and 4Q guide. That's what we're assuming, people to continue to slowly ramp and overall, you have to give 9-12 months for a sales rep to be fully productive." Hiring will continue to balance new additions and improving productivity, but there is an increasing focus on getting more productivity out of existing salespeople. On Federal, they mentioned "business as usual,” despite broader comments of weakness in the sector. Thunderdome is one of the many programs they are engaged on and they like their opportunity in all of the programs.'
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Hidden Value Gems
An interesting UK small-cap idea - Kitwave $KIT.L by Bargain Stocks Radar @equitybaron
£254m mkt cap, wholesale grocery distributor founded in 1987. Predictable, growing sales and earnings (PBT £25m).
ROIC >20%.
12x PE.
CEO owns 15%. https://t.co/6ikcWWg8cZ
tweet
An interesting UK small-cap idea - Kitwave $KIT.L by Bargain Stocks Radar @equitybaron
£254m mkt cap, wholesale grocery distributor founded in 1987. Predictable, growing sales and earnings (PBT £25m).
ROIC >20%.
12x PE.
CEO owns 15%. https://t.co/6ikcWWg8cZ
tweet