Offshore
Photo
Quartr
Edge #69: Duolingo
How does a nagging green owl translate into one of the strongest subscription businesses in consumer tech?
Coming to your inbox in a few hours. https://t.co/C0UaWhfHSJ
tweet
Edge #69: Duolingo
How does a nagging green owl translate into one of the strongest subscription businesses in consumer tech?
Coming to your inbox in a few hours. https://t.co/C0UaWhfHSJ
tweet
Wasteland Capital
What exactly is the conclusion from the @michaeljburry GPU depreciation case? People will need to buy more (or less?) GPUs because they get older faster (or slower?) than current market expectations? What is his trade? I don’t get it.
tweet
What exactly is the conclusion from the @michaeljburry GPU depreciation case? People will need to buy more (or less?) GPUs because they get older faster (or slower?) than current market expectations? What is his trade? I don’t get it.
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Fiscal.ai
ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott:
"It used to be the Mag7. Now there's a new category. I'm calling this the Super 8. That's the Mag7 plus ServiceNow. That's right, the Super 8."
$NOW https://t.co/kts5UMF8Gx
tweet
ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott:
"It used to be the Mag7. Now there's a new category. I'm calling this the Super 8. That's the Mag7 plus ServiceNow. That's right, the Super 8."
$NOW https://t.co/kts5UMF8Gx
tweet
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