SomerHimpson
304 posts
Stocks are not risky.
They only become risky when your holding period isn't long enough.
English
@TradexWhisperer @FisherNas All you have to say is this time is different lol - on all honesty I’m not arguing with you I just want to know the deeper thinking that’s all
English
@dumjgr88 @FisherNas So I still don't understand why this could be the dumbest and most cosmetic. Do some research on HBM.
English
$MU 9x. $INTC 48x. $MRVL 78x. $ARM 134x.
One of these companies is sold out through 2026 and likely 2027, generating record margins, and supplying the most critical component in AI infrastructure, the Cognitive Capacity Layer.
It is the cheapest one on the list.
English
@TradexWhisperer @FisherNas Dumbest and most cosmetic as you actually can’t get more simple than that when valuing a business. You learn this is business school. I assume you have other reasons other than 9x is cheap.
English
@dumjgr88 @FisherNas "in retrospect, this was the dumbest and most cosmetic approach to valuing these businesses"
..... elaborate why this is the dumbest and most cosmetic? Just want to continue the conversation as I said it before. "Reason your thesis statement"
English
@TradexWhisperer A thesis requires data yes but not confirmation bias. Anyways, 9 is cheap - that’s my question. You are a data scientist. Does this go deep enough? That’s all I’m asking…
English
Yes, it requires data. Otherwise you are making baseless assumptions and wrong thesis statements. Not an investment thesis. A thesis statement. The kind you write at the top of your essay.
You asked a rhetorical question and expect me to answer. Rewire your brain. Not gonna fall for it.
Forward PE of 9. Cheap. How is that confirmation bias? Explain. I did not make up the number. I am just describing the data.
Now you bring up Efficient Market Hypothesis but you fail to understand it is still a hypothesis. A theory. A thesis. Not a law. Look at $SPCX. Zero profit. Valued at billions. Tell me what is efficient about that.
English
@FisherNas @TradexWhisperer I should have realized the word bias would be triggering to this crowd 🤦♂️
English
@dumjgr88 @TradexWhisperer Why bias? 9 P/E ratio is low.. you can argue that estimations are extreme etc.and assuming the ai demand for chips continue it sounds lucrative
English
@TradexWhisperer Confirmation bias doesn’t require data it requires a human. I’ve asked two simple questions now that you seem unwilling to answer: 1) superficial approach? 2) market inefficient at $1t mc cos? This is not rage baiting…
English
I am bullish because the data tells me I am bullish. I read dozens of research data. I see projections. I see data. Data driven. Let's focus on the real question. What data tells you that this is confirmation bias? why is this superficial? Reason through it. Defend your statement.
English
@TradexWhisperer I don’t need to explain confirmation bias right? Every human is subjected to it. You clearly are bullish these stocks so are impacted by it. Let’s focus on the real question - is this approach overly superficial? Are we saying the market isn’t good at valuing $1T mc companies?
English
@dumjgr88 What's so simple about it? I am asking where your reasoning behind pure confirmation bias is coming from since you brought those 3 words up.
English
@TradexWhisperer I don’t have a thesis. I see this a lot and I’m simply asking a question.
English
@dumjgr88 Bring me a thesis with some numbers why this is a confirmation bias if you want to start a honest conversation.
English
Don’t post stupid shit like “the real problem is the BASAL CELL” and you won’t have a problem. Tough for you to do that though, I know.
Also, do not forget (and for those new to the story) - YOU are the one who started shit talking ME completely unprovoked over the years. Sorry you can’t handle getting it sent back to you, but I’m not putting up with your braindead bullshit.
English
$ABVX
Anatomy of a cult stock
Get a good / great story and blowout the potentials out of proportion.
Get an army of devoted followers which will fight tooth and nail any dissent
I regularly post opinion about my stocks but never get such blowback
But ABVX - how dare I do it
Adam May@A_May_MD
“tHe PaRtIcUlArLy CoNcErNiNg CaSe WaS tHe BaSaL cElL cArCiNoMa 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤” It’s far nicer of me to consider this a troll account, because the alternative is saying that someone could actually be dumb enough to say the above statement and actually mean it. It would be a giant insult to take something this stupid seriously, so I won’t. Doing you a favor here, @Andre_AGTC
English
@origoinvest Have you run this through multiple AIs to verify math?
English
$SATS closed out Friday at a 45% implied discount to NAV after blowing out at close to 50% intraday
As it stands, $SATS share price of $114 is exactly equal to its shareholding in $SPCX (NET of any hypothetical CGT)
Of course, EchoStar also owns >$40B of spectrum assets (of which 78% already in the form of cash receivables)
Assuming zero OpCo equity value in its legacy businesses (still some optionality here), this yields an extra $73 NAV / share net of further HoldCo liabilities
NAV spread trades are always part art / part science and often hinge on being opportunistic – I think the intraday move on Friday was one such dislocation and ended up compounding back-in at <$110 for the first time since late 2025 purchases in the $75-85 range and some sales in the $130-140 area.
English
$NOW Will be a generational buy 👀
Just not yet. I'm still expecting one more low.
Support at the 0.786 fib is where I'm loading the boat.
Long term Wave 3 target: 739% 🚀
English
**Reply:**
FDA will review the full dataset closely in the NDA (targeted late 2024). The handful of BCC/SCC cases are small, mostly early-onset, in older patients, with prior skin cancer history or UC-related elevated baseline risk in several. BCC especially is common, indolent, and near-100% curable when treated—very different risk profile from serious malignancies.
Precedents (JAK inhibitors, etc.) show Warnings & Precautions labeling for skin cancer + sun protection/monitoring advice, not black box. Black box unlikely here absent a clear high-risk signal.
Post-approval: expect long-term safety commitments, enhanced malignancy surveillance, or extensions given chronic/lifelong use intent. Benefit-risk looks supportive with strong efficacy and otherwise favorable profile. Details in the new deck help contextualize.
English
$ABVX new corporate presentation
Released Fri AH - didn't they know this time slot is reserved for bad news
They are showing details about all cancer cases.
One is particularly troubling
45y old, no history of skin cancer, no family history of cancer
Developed BCC 5.5mo on Obe
Adam May@A_May_MD
$ABVX seems to have (in the last hour or so?) quietly released a new corporate deck with 3 important slides at the end. All, in my opinion, providing strong new information showing that these cancer cases were unrelated to drug and equivalent to expected background noise. Most important is the slide on the 2 non-nonmelanoma skin cancers. BOTH of these were more indolent, low/intermediate subtypes of their respective cancer (prostate and breast). Not only does this mean that the cancers are less threatening, it also means that THEY ARE SLOWER GROWING CANCERS. Why is this particularly important? Because it means that the development of the cancers very (very) likely PREDATES THEIR ENROLLMENT IN THE TRIAL. Look into the doubling times of grade 2 (Gleason 7) prostate cancer and grade 2 NST breast carcinoma. These are slow-growing tumors that very likely existed before these patients ever even had a dose of obefazimod. That relates to another key finding on this slide - the prostate cancer case was identified via PSA screening at 8.5 months into the study (remember earlier is better). In the Guggenheim conference they had said it was confirmed at day 367...they must have been referring to the biopsy confirmation of the subtype, not PSA confirmation of the prostate cancer diagnosis. This new information speaks to an earlier diagnosis. The breast cancer patient was diagnosed even earlier than that! Only 6.8 months of Obe exposure. Also, these new slides give us actual information on the prior drug exposures - before this afternoon we knew that they were on some prior treatments, but we didn't know what...THE PROSTATE CANCER WAS PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED TO ***5*** DRUGS WITH LABELED CANCER WARNINGS BEFORE ENROLLING IN THE STUDY! 3 OF THEM HAD ***BLACK BOX WARNINGS*** FOR CANCER RISK! -Humira (black box) -Infliximab (black box) -Rinvoq (black box) -Entyvio (warnings and precautions) -Stelara (warnings and precautions) We also just got new info on the NMSC cases (which matter far less but which spooked the market anyway). How you can look at the details of these skin cancer cases and think they are related to the drug is beyond me (but then again, these details just got released - quietly, for some reason). First of all, ***ALL OF THE 4 50MG CASES OF NMSC OCCURED IN 6 MONTHS OR LESS!!! Again, too rapid to be reasonably assumed drug-related. The fact that they all happened in the first half of this study is actually extremely exculpating evidence for $ABVX. Other details: -4/5 were 60+ years old (STRONGLY associated with skin cancer risk) -3/5 had PRIOR SKIN CANCER ALREADY(!!!!!) -4/5 had prior exposure to other drugs that are known to increase skin cancer risk. Finally, they also added a slide discussing that some studies have shown the elevated risks of these cancers for UC patients at baseline. -~5x higher risk of prostate cancer in IBD patients -~2x higher risk of breast cancer in IBD patients Why did $ABVX add these 3 slides to the corporate deck randomly, silently, on a Friday afternoon? IDK. Legitimately good news in those slides! I'd have pressed released this info as soon as I had it, because the details really help alleviate the (already statistically misguided) concern that these cancers could've been caused by Obefazimod. Here's the link: ir.abivax.com/static-files/e…
English
@dumjgr88 you're completely discounting the totality of events. 🤦 agree to disagree.
English
context matters.
omvoh: 29 cases scattered across 2600+ patients tracked over years (0.5% rate).
$abvx: 7 cases clustered in a single randomized treatment group of 195 patients over a 44-week window, while the structurally identical low-dose group had 1 case.
Mickeychiku@mickeychiku
$ABVX Now that you have details from Abivax for each patient, see how 23 non-NMSC and 6 NMSC cases were reviewed for omvoh resulting in conclusion that not induced by the drug as the rate was still within the background rate for UC patients. Also, FDA review below.
English
@financebully Stats dude. 1 vs 0 vs 0 at n≈195 each is statistically meaningless.
English
@dumjgr88 yet, no cases were discovered in the pbo or 25mg group.
English
@financebully Sure agree but colonic dysplasia is caused by UC itself
English
@dumjgr88 you can't just brush aside a premalignancy. it's a serious ae, esp when it occurs in the organ you are treating. don't let a few biased bulls convince you it's not concerning. it happened in the 50mg group alongside 6 other cases.
English
@financebully @TradingDoubles1 You’re using one argument that may or may not be true (promotion) and sneaking in a second that is not true (7:1 clustering). Cluster needs one tumor type, these are scattered. Promotion may or may not be true, but the arm count doesn’t speak to it; only the larger 50mg pool does
English
@TradingDoubles1 @dumjgr88 i think there is a possibility that the drug may be accelerating malignancies and premalignancies. i'm long, but i look at data objectively. i hope management can provide a definitive reason to rule this out, but right now the 7:1:1 asymmetry is a signal that can't be ignored.
English
@financebully Sure but we can but aside the dysplasia, which is not cancer and the cases of NMSC - so the real comparison is 2 cases vs 0.
English
@dumjgr88 i didn't make that number up on my own - $abvx dictated this. biox bulls don't make the rules. 😉
English
@Andre_AGTC You pick the one deemed “not related” as more troubling than “unlikely related”. Please explain.
English