Andreas Schulz

That decline in $ZETA did not last very long, even though most of SaaS is still down big on the $IBM earnings collapse. Is the market finally starting to differentiate AI winners and AI losers in software? x.com/ASchulz888/sta…

I don't think the market appreciates the full implications of what David Steinberg is saying here. $ZETA is running circles around legacy SaaS and delivering companies the outcomes they would hope to get from AI. All powered by proprietary data. x.com/DG_Invests/sta…

@velesxbt Ed Thorp is the GOAT. Thank you for posting this - looking forward to watching the whole interview.

Ed Thorp beat blackjack. Caught Madoff seventeen years before the SEC. Predicted Buffett would be the richest man in America. Compounded twenty years without a losing quarter. He is 93. Everything he did came from one paper written in 1956. The paper is still free. Almost nobody has read it. Vegas, 1961. Thorp is 28. He walks into Claude Shannon's MIT office asking for five minutes. Shannon, famously impossible to see, gives him the five minutes and stays for two years. Together they build the world's first wearable computer to beat roulette. It works. 9:58 The Buffett lunch, 1968. Thorp reads John Kelly's 1956 sizing paper. Meets Warren Buffett once. Walks away and tells his wife Buffett will one day be the richest in America. Sixty years later, exactly that. Thorp did the math on a person applying compounding to time. Same math as Kelly. 31:20 The one thing Thorp added. Kelly's paper gives you the mathematical maximum bet. Bet Kelly, optimal growth. Bet more, you die. Thorp bet half. Half Kelly gives up a fraction of growth for a huge cut in drawdown. Full Kelly routinely produces 40-60% drawdowns. Half Kelly usually keeps them under 20%. Same edge. A fraction of the pain. Every serious quant who survives uses half Kelly or less. The ones who don't are the blowup stories. Princeton Newport, 1969-1988. Nineteen straight years. 19-20% a year. Not one losing quarter. Kelly's paper, Shannon's math, half Kelly's number, and discipline nobody else could imitate. Madoff, 1991. An investor asks Thorp to check Madoff's returns. Days later, he has proof of fraud. He hands the SEC a memo. They file it. Seventeen years later Madoff collapses. Sixty-five billion in losses. The memo had been on someone's desk since 1991. 48:10 Enough. Thorp shut down Princeton Newport at its peak in 1988. Still compounding 19% a year. He walked away. "You can have enough. And it's better than not having enough." This is the layer nobody sells. Every course, every AI swarm is built to make you want more. Thorp read Kelly, sized his bets, made his money, and stopped. Almost nobody in his field ever has. Half Kelly on the size. Full self-awareness on when to walk. That is the formula. 2026. Thorp is 93. He still writes. He still teaches. The math was the easy part, he'll tell you. The signal was never the edge. The sizing was. Half of it. The paper has been in the Bell Labs library since 1956. It's still there. It's still free. Madoff was the loudest receipt. The stack takes new tuition every quarter.

@mikeeisenberg @jimcramer In a couple of years, he will have to eat his words as $LMND will report rapidly growing GAAP profits. Hopefully we won't have to worry about a "Cramer curse" when that happens...

Can someone decipher what @jimcramer is saying about $LMND ?

Call me crazy, but $ZETA should be up on the $IBM news, not down. Dollars flowing from legacy tech to AI is a good and necessary thing for AI winners. And $ZETA is one of the clearest AI winners in the whole stock market.

Great job $LMND. The rapid pace of new state rollouts continues... x.com/shai_wininger/…

@bioinvestor24 I was just asking the question / repeating what I heard. I have not actually done real work on $PFE. You make a compelling argument to take a look, actually.

U believe they overpay more than others but they don’t. That is the whole debate. U r not looking at my examples of other deals by BP. Anyway. That is my opinion $PFE is way undervalued vs others now and this is long term thesis. I am not hedge fund worried about q to q.

If we live in pharma slump world I can understand , but with most pharma up and for $PFE to be < 50% of $NVS MC is mind boggling ? What is in NVS pipline so exciting to replace major LOE , which is larger than PFE .. Look at top LOEs from $MRK $JNJ $NVS $AMGN $BMY. All more than Pfizer $JNJ with > $600 B MC has to fill $40 B gap. They got to make big deals in oncology as CEO hinted The devil always in details but below figure gives u general idea. Thanks for who shared

Any particular reason for the shellacking in biotech today? The sector has obviously rallied a lot, and there need not be a reason, but I am curious if I missed something. Thank you for your thoughts.

Pretty impressed with @OpenAI GPT 5.6 so far. It seems like a bigger step forward than other recent model releases in terms of quality of reasoning. Has anyone else found the same thing? Or am I hallucinating this?

$ZETA Extremely bullish AthenaOS… “Voice is increasingly how I interact with AI… I'm now pretty convinced this will be a huge enterprise thing too.” – Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI

I really like both. To me $LMND is the easiest to have really long-term conviction on. I hope to still own $LMND in 20 years as they gradually take over insurance. But in the near term, $ZETA has a chance to outgrow $LMND by a lot. In the end $ZETA is software, so there is limitation on their growth from capital ratios. And I think $ZETA leapfrogged a bunch of very large SaaS players with their AI native platform and the rollout of Athena. $ZETA's competitors are probably tougher to go up against than legacy insurance carriers, but right now $ZETA seems to be killing them all...

@ASchulz888 The more I look into it. The more it looks like $LMND

Just dipped my toes in my first non- $LMND stock since 2024 I think. Bought 100% with margin. About 2.5% portfolio weight. So no selling. Welcome to the ride or die portfolio $ZETA 🍾🎉🍋

To put those 832 $PLTR enterprise customers into context, $ZETA ended 1Q26 with 189 super-scaled customers (with TTM revenues exceeding $1 million). This type of opportunity is how $ZETA beat and raised guidance all 19 quarters as a public company... x.com/wealthmatica/s…

@TheRealTci Do you think David Steinberg would actually sell for $10 billion at this point? I doubt it...

If I was any of these CEO's I'd be writing an Unsolicited offer for $10 Billion to Buy $ZETA TOMORROW

@bradsferguson There is a difference between risk managing a position that got too large following a large rally in a short time, and downgrading the stock. Let's see how his call looks after earnings.

@ASchulz888 So far, he’s looking good. When nearly everyone else was pounding their chests though the Lemon was up 10% on no news, he downgraded indicating a trim.

I thought that Bob Jian Huang at Morgan Stanley had finally caught on to the $LMND story. Apparently I was wrong, as he just downgraded the stock on valuation. I suspect this will turn out to be bad timing as $LMND is putting on an execution clinic right now. Oh well...

@ThomasD43450753 What you see filed is probably their capital services / asset management / ... which really represent Morgan Stanley clients. I doubt they have a meaningful principal position.

@ASchulz888 Morgan Stanley is one of the bigger institutions that hold lmnd I believe

@techinvestoor @matthew_sigel I agree. I don't know what happened to Jim Chanos. He used to be a serious guy. These days he says a lot of things that don't make a whole lot of sense...

@matthew_sigel Something happened to Jimboy in the late 2010s. Oh that's right, he kept losing money shorting $TSLA. Jim is a deranged lunatic that at one point blamed his losses on Trump. I don't know anything about $WULF but Chanos is a bad actor

TRIGGER ALERT On a podcast yesterday $WULF CFO admitted to getting triggered by this "model". It's worth reading his full response: "You just triggered something, so I'm going to go there on this. I just saw, Jim Chanos, who when I was growing up in finance, he was a king. I started in the business in 2000 and he was around and one of the early short-sellers. He just put out some nonsense on us last night. I read it and I was like, you're an idiot. And by the way, if you want to be short our stock god bless you, but at least call me up so I can tell you what you're doing wrong in your model because it literally is nonsense. And so one of the things he did on the model, which has triggered this, is that he's modeling maintenance capex of $1-1.5M/MW. On an annual basis! I looked at his model and he has $8B D&A on a $4.4B build. Hey genius! The last time I checked the tax code you can only depreciate about 80%, not even the full amount. [The asset] costs us $4.4B, about 80% is depreciable. So, where the hell are you coming up with $8b of D&A? And I think it's because he's assuming another $1-1.5M of maintenance capex. Which by the way is ridiculous. So, let's just level set on that point: I build the shell the and the power and water to the rack. I don't do anything else, that's it. So, to your question, what happens if the technology changes, that's my tenant's issue. It's their rack that they put together with their integrator: Dell, Supermicro idk. I provide power and water for 99.999% of the time. What about maintenance capex? If the technology changes in 3-5 years that's on the tenant. I'm still providing electricity and water. You're telling me on a $10M per MW data center build, I am going to spend $1-1.5M/MW on maintenance capex, oh and by the way I hope he listens to this. Jim, pick up the phone and call me bro. My phone number is out there or you can email me. But stuff like this, it reminds me: back in Bitcoin mining days I had a NY Times reporter reached out to me who wanted to do a story on our facility at Lake Mariner. I got on the phone and what I found was an ignorant person who didnt want to understand why they were wrong about what they were reporting. They literally didn't care that what they were writing was wrong; they just wanted to sell eyeballs. Which basically is what Jim Chanos just did, and I lost all respect. This was a guy I held in high regard. You're wasting my time and just trying to sell eyeballs and that kind of stuff really bothers me, so sorry to get triggered on it. If you want to learn something, pick up the phone and call me." $WULF +11% this morning

@rak0610 Maybe, but honestly I think the answer might be simpler. I think deep down he still looks at $LMND with the lens of a legacy insurance analyst. He had $LMND sell rated for years for that reason. He has been a pretty good contrary indicator before, FWIW...

@ASchulz888 May be they want to accumulate more before it rockets. These analysts are ill-famed for such manipulations and change their tone per the direction of tide.