⁠Quiver Quantitative
RT @PelosiTracker_: The Political Trading 2024 Wrapped is here

Because if you can't beat them, join them 🫡 https://t.co/NPrxVAaDGa
tweet

⁠App Economy Insights
$CRM Salesforce surged 11% after its Q3 print.

🤖 Agentforce early traction
👥 Hiring 1,400 salespeople
💰 $2B+ on new AI acquisitions
👩🏻‍💼 The AI talent war is heating up

Here's what you need to know. 👇
https://t.co/tGsXImfQeg
tweet

⁠Quiver Quantitative
Another day, another all-time high for Pelosi's portfolio.

She has made $10M in the stock market in the last week week, per our estimates.

We estimate that she is now worth $271M: https://t.co/1PWbRgKWvZ
tweet

⁠Investing visuals
Honest question for Palantir $PLTR shareholders: do you believe the current valuation is sustainable? https://t.co/T4Q7A5meGF
tweet

⁠Quiver Quantitative
I recently created a "DC Insider Score" by combining data on:

- Congressional trading
- Corporate lobbying
- Government contracts

It quantifies how closely companies are tied to the US government.

Here's the current top 15:

1. General Dynamics
2. Lockheed Martin
3. IBM
4. Microsoft
5. Accenture
6. Pfizer
7. Merck
8. FedEx
9. Northrop Grumman
10. Oracle
11. Abbot Laboratories
12. UPS
13. Honeywell
14. McKesson
15. AT&T
tweet

⁠Startup Archive
Paul Graham explains why you shouldn’t try to be a visionary

“Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with small things and grow them bigger. Want to dominate microcomputer software for decades? Start by writing a basic interpreter for a machine with a couple thousand users. Want to make the universal website and a giant vacuum for people’s time? Start by building a website where Harvard undergrads can stalk one another.”

Paul Graham continues:

“Neither Bill Gates nor Mark Zuckerberg knew how big their companies were going to get. All they knew was that they were onto something… Maybe it’s a bad idea to have really big ambitions initially, because the bigger your ambitions, the longer they’re going to take to realize and the long you’re projecting into the future, the more likely you’re going to be wrong.”

PG suggests starting with something small that works instead.

“I think the best way to do these big ideas is not to try and identify a precise point in the future and say, How do I get from here to there? Like the popular image of a visionary. I think a better model is Columbus who thought there was something to the West—I’ll sail westward. Start with something that works, that you know works, that’s small, and then when the opportunity comes to move, move westward. The popular image of a visionary is someone with a very precise view of the future, but empirically it’s probably better to have a blurry one.”
tweet

⁠Investing visuals
Adobe $ADBE: A leader in the creative industry for a reasonable price👌

What’s your take on this business? https://t.co/fxztikcLVg
tweet

⁠Stock Analysis Compilation
Hayden Capital on Applovin $APP US

Thesis: Applovin’s future hinges on executing its eCommerce ad strategy and capturing significant market share

(Extract from their Q3 letter) https://t.co/pfDid3mrqf
tweet

⁠Stock Analysis Compilation
Hotchkis & Wiley on APA Corp $APA US

Thesis: APA’s strategic focus on high-return assets and post-acquisition efficiencies positions it for a cash flow rebound

(Extract from their Q3 letter) https://t.co/vgoDcGRtBe
tweet

⁠Startup Archive
RT @then_there_was: I’m curious how this would contrast with the way Peter Thiel would describe Mark Zuckerberg.

I’m probably wrong here, but I would have thought Peter would describe Mark as very ambitious with a precise vision of the future. Mark did reject acquisitions early on after all.

Someone with that much conviction seems like they’d have a clear vision in mind.

Not to say you shouldn’t start small or without flexibility. Those seem to be important prerequisites. And most people aren’t Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. So perhaps they’re exceptions to the rule.

But sometimes I wonder if empirically the reason most startups fail is because they’re not maniacally ambitious enough. That seems unlikely. So perhaps Paul is speaking from the perspective of someone who has seen ambition lead many founders astray due to their stubbornness and grandiosity.

Paul Graham explains why you shouldn’t try to be a visionary

“Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with small things and grow them bigger. Want to dominate microcomputer software for decades? Start by writing a basic interpreter for a machine with a couple thousand users. Want to make the universal website and a giant vacuum for people’s time? Start by building a website where Harvard undergrads can stalk one another.”

Paul Graham continues:

“Neither Bill Gates nor Mark Zuckerberg knew how big their companies were going to get. All they knew was that they were onto something… Maybe it’s a bad idea to have really big ambitions initially, because the bigger your ambitions, the longer they’re going to take to realize and the long you’re projecting into the future, the more likely you’re going to be wrong.”

PG suggests starting with something small that works instead.

“I think the best way to do these big ideas is not to try and identify a precise point in the future and say, How do I get from here to there? Like the popular image of a visionary. I think a better model is Columbus who thought there was something to the West—I’ll sail westward. Start with something that works, that you know works, that’s small, and then when the opportunity comes to move, move westward. The popular image of a visionary is someone with a very precise view of the future, but empirically it’s probably better to have a blurry one.” - Startup Archive
tweet