
RK Maruvada
1.6K posts












The difference in Strait activity from when #3 first arrived / began observing the strait about 4-5 days ago to today is stark. Traffic has meaningfully picked up - there are still “dark” runs and ships transiting without AIS turned on, but there’s a lot more going along the coast of Oman. At least 15 ships have crossed, including at least 3 VLCCs. When we arrived, virtually none were going through. Then a trickle through the Qeshm channel. It’s meaningful now, could be talking low double digit percent of pre-conflict volume. Meanwhile, expectations for a US operation involving “boots on the ground” within the next week or two are still high among locals. When analyst #3 first got to the strait we were hopeful we’d get a clear cut answer - bullish or bearish, open or closed, war or deal. It soon became clear that was the wrong framework through which to view this trip. On the same day that we learned it was the broad expectation of nearly everyone in the region - from locals to informed parties - that US ground troops would be launching an operation (“boots on the ground!”), we also observed multiple ships beginning to cross the strait. Soon they weren’t just limited to the Qeshm channel. It is clear to us that this isn’t as much a story in isolation as it is a story about the multipolar world and how it’s rapidly changing from what we’re used to. It’s a story about parallel warfare and diplomacy, US promises for the “Stone Age” in tandem with Allies’ seeking new venues for negotiation, and the changing global climate that necessitates this balance. Before, it would have been unlikely to imagine a world where Japan, the EU and other US allies were negotiating with a country the US is directly in conflict in to secure passage and work on agreements while the US still maintained footing for an escalation of kinetic warfare. Now, that’s simply how the world works. These countries must deal with the issues imposed, as the US won’t be sorting it out on their behalf. It’s undeniable the world is very different now and viewing this conflict through the lens of the past 50 years is a flawed approach. On Sunday, we will release our report that covers in depth what we’ve learned, how complex the situation is and what investment implications and nuances exist that have longer term implications than the next 100 points on SPX.












Make the Microsoft CEO search for an email on Outlook

The fastest way to expose whether a CEO actually uses their own product: make them do the most basic task on camera. Outlook has over 400 million active users. Microsoft’s productivity segment generated $77.8 billion last year. And the official Microsoft support page for “Outlook search not working” tells users to open the Windows Registry Editor and manually create DWORD values. That’s the fix. For a product used by almost every Fortune 500 company on Earth. Edit your registry. The reason Outlook search has been broken for years is the same reason it will stay broken: Microsoft sells to IT procurement, not to the person trying to find last Tuesday’s email. The buyer and the user are completely different people. The CIO signs a 3-year enterprise agreement based on security compliance, Azure integration, and per-seat bundling. Nobody in that purchasing decision opens Outlook and types “Q3 budget” into the search bar to see what happens. This is why Gmail search works and Outlook search doesn’t. Google built for the end user first and sold enterprise later. Microsoft built for the enterprise buyer first and shipped whatever search users would tolerate. 345 million paid seats. The switching cost is so high that Microsoft could ship Outlook with no search at all and most companies would renew anyway. Every CEO of an enterprise software company knows this. The product doesn’t need to be good. It needs to be locked in.




