IL

@kevin__mak In such distribution of scenario (highly asymmetric), what system works best for positioning? Common method like (half) Kelly, as you wrote before, would expose the portfolio to huge downside risks (if luck isn't on our side) Or simply follow the max weighting rule?

@kevin__mak Another question I have is: do you think with Claude (or any LLM) being able to do modelling and research fairly quickly, is it becoming harder for your strategy (ie mispricing, special sits)?

@kevin__mak While it was great having you share the SPHR idea early on, it would be more valuable to learn the way you source and spot mispriced opportunities which include other tickers you wrote Would you consider writing one on this? Although some may think this is “giving away alpha”..

Update on $SPHR When/if you eventually see my 13F for Q2, you'll notice that my position in $SPHR is very small, around 1%, and it's fully hedged with July $150C's that I have written. Consider that at one point I had a portfolio of weight of 26% in Sphere (at sub $30). I had a sizable position in Sphere, early on, because I believed there was a large mispricing in the common stock. I believed I had "alpha", and wrote about it. The quick summary is: A) Nobody was modelling the business correctly (just literally basic excel sheets and unit economics were wrong). B) People didn't understand the concert business (expecting fewer than 50 concerts per year) C) People didn't appreciate the film business (with $35 ticket prices, and incorrect seating charts) D) People didn't trust James Dolan. Over the past two years, the market has "caught up" to my thinking (either because I had a lucky hunch, or because I had a smart forecast), and almost all of those facts are generally priced into the stock. In short, my "alpha" in SPHR is largely gone, I have a consensus-ish view. I love the business, and I love the venue. I've been there countless times and plan to keep going. I also think that the long term prospects of the business are very positive. I think over the next 10 years we'll see 6-12 Spheres built and it will be a global franchise. That view makes it, in my opinion, an investment worth holding for the long term. Something that resembles a "solid compounder" that returns above-index returns year after year since the business can generate cash and reinvest their capital at a high IRR/NPV. For my style of investing however, it doesn't suit my portfolio at its current price, with its current prospects. Hence, my current position reflects that. I say this because I think it's important for people who follow me to appreciate that I follow the same discipline that I teach. I was one of the largest supporters of the stock for the past two years, but price, or rather, expected return, always matters. Disclosure: Creek Drive and its affiliated funds may hold positions in securities discussed. Views expressed are current opinions for informational educational only, subject to change and are not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Investing involves the risk of loss and past performance is not indicative of future performance. See the disclosures link above for more important information.

@A_May_MD @medstudentinvst Just curious, have you added more at recent lows? Or is it facing more FDA uncertainties now because they see risks?

All 100% spot on IMO. It’s hard to believe how inefficient our market niche is, but it just is. Stick around and you’ll see it play out time and time again. We already have plenty of data to say this signal isn’t real/doesn’t warrant a black box and that this is going to be a gargantuan drug with its newfound better than best case efficacy….yet it’s still at a ~30% price cut to that data release. Should be a 30% or more premium at this point! Market is just spooked and inefficient. Opportunity for those able to process the data IMO.

Adam is exactly right. This new information really does matter. I don’t think you could find a breast or prostate oncologist in the Top 50 cancer hospitals in America that would be willing to state it is plausible a drug with obe’s profile caused either a clinically detectable 3+4 or a 4+3 prostate cancer, or a Grade 2 NTS invasive ductal carcinoma in 8.5 months and 6 months respectively, especially given the background medical history, drug history and screening history laid out here, and the lack of clustering, concomitant infection risk, or evidence of a mechanistic basis. And if that is true…then what exactly is the concern here? Look the reality is I am just over a year into biotech investing so my sample size is small. My background is in very different domains where a pricing inefficiency tends to require far greater information asymmetry or access to the opportunity than is found here with $ABVX post-Phase iii maintenance. Maybe this kind of disconnect / inefficiency despite the widespread availability of relevant information, and the tiny number of variables with any meaningful variance (the efficacy is the efficacy is the efficacy of the Phase III trial, double the most aggressive projection of prostate cancer growth and you still don’t have a story you can tell about how obe caused the prostate cancer, the Phase II safety data is the Phase II safety data is the Phase II safety data, the competitor on efficacy (Rinvoq) has multiple black box earnings and does what it does in revenue) happens with some degree of regularity in biotech bc there are just way smaller pools of capital that invest in the space, and you get funky price discovery mechanics that are way more sensitive to recent price movements than the underlying fundamentals. I do find it notable 13fs of Jane Street, AQR, etc always have the most random biotechs in there, and I have a hypothesis they’re playing off the some of those funky price discovery mechanics in a couple of ways (gotta go somewhere after the Indian derivatives markets!) However, the market inefficiency with $ABVX is just so large (as validated by the market itself in the few minutes after initial data release when the “cancer” slide was not yet out) and yet so readily understood with just a bit of research…really the question of whether prostate cancer in particular can plausibly be caused in 8.5 months requires nothing more than awareness of PubMed and a bit of time…that I am quite stunned. Interesting phenomenon to observe

@A_May_MD If the mgmt didnt think the updates in coming weeks will help address concerns but still run it, I’m out forever

There are going to be case studies written about this initial $ABVX reaction, and (if we can get it) the subsequent rapid snap back ( 🤞🏻 ). My HEAVILY BIASED opinion is that if the market comes to its senses and realizes this thing is not getting a black box warning we are going to >$150 in no time. In reality if the “malignancy overhang” can be completely dispelled, there’s no reason we couldn’t see it go back to the brief initial market reaction of ~$180. Personally I’m already convinced that the malignancy stuff is statistical noise, but let’s see what the company can show the market about these cases and the extra data to convince people. This could’ve been upfront if they were just ready to explain what they already had, but oh well. Once this black box warning stuff is put to bed, I can’t emphasize enough that the efficacy results here were at a level I literally didn’t even model for. Those endoscopic remission rates in particular are at levels I didn’t even think were possible for a single drug to produce. With a clean label and a hit in crohn’s (which is now much more likely given the *extreme* efficacy in UC), this is an $8-$10B/year peak sales drug...pick your multiple on that…🤷🏻‍♂️ Again, I’m heavily biased and there’s no such thing as a guarantee, but this all seems very clear to me already. Unfortunately it’s not my opinion that matters! Let’s see what Mr. Market has in store.

@A_May_MD I thought the market is pricing in the possible limitation on the drug sale or warning, hence the drop in peak sale and share price? Also, we are expecting a delay in commercialization and/or BO so people look for other opportunities. Curious to hear your take.

I keep hearing people referring to "7" cases of cancer in the high dose arm for $ABVX. I get it - that's what they technically showed in the table, but in observing a lot of conversation about this I gather that people don't actually realize what really matters there. I am strongly of the opinion that there are really only 2 malignancy cases that matter for adjudication - the prostate cancer and breast cancer cases. I initially started talking about these cases as "the 2" cases from the very beginning because I assumed that everyone would be on the same page that these were the only 2 that mattered...but I've found that people really are considering this as a case of *7* full blown malignancies in the 50mg arm...This is just not correct. Let's break this down. First of all, they're counting "colonic dysplasia" in this table as one of the "malignancies". I cannot stress this enough: Colonic dysplasia is, by definition, LITERALLY not cancer. This is actually an unequivocal point that I don't understand how it could even be up for debate. "Dysplasia" is a "precancerous" lesion. Cervical dysplasia, colonic dysplasia, melanocyte dysplasia. Terms exist for these PREcancerous findings because they are, by definition NOT CANCER (otherwise, if they were cancer, we'd call them cervical cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma)... Dysplastic lesions, not being cancer, often regress on their own or simply never evolve into cancer, staying in the "dysplastic" state until death. However, if they *do* become cancer, they do so through a process that is called "malignant transformation". Literally, something that is NOT malignant TRANSFORMS into something that is. Why did the ABVX management team include this in the list of "malignancies"? Honestly, I don't know. I think it is an evident mistake, and a strong piece of evidence that they didn't think they'd actually have to explain away a "cancer signal" in this dataset because their analysis of the data told them that there isn't one. If they were worried that the market was going to interpret these data as a catastrophic malignancy risk (which, make no mistake, is what the current low $70s price tag is assuming), they would've likely adjudicated this more thoroughly and left the "malignancy" that is by definition NOT malignancy off of the "malignancy" table... So that is tossed out easily IMO. 6 cases left now. 4 of those are NMSC (non-melanoma skin cancer). I gather that people are dramatically overestimating what a diagnosis of NMSC means. Far be it from me to minimize NMSC (since it is what I treat for a living as a dermatologist), but guys....this is NOT in the same category as ANY other malignancies. NMSC is a milder category of its own, and I don't mean that as a matter of opinion. Literally, "non-NMSC malignancies" is a distinct endpoint used to gauge risk of "serious" malignancies in clinical trials. NMSCs are left out of that category because they almost never are "serious" - certainly almost never life threatening. Here's an exercise anyone can do to drive this point home. Google, or ask an LLM "what are the 10 most common cancers in the United States?". They are all going to give you the same answer: Breast & prostate will be the top 2 at slightly >300,000 cases/year. So breast and prostate are the #1 and #2 most common cancers according to every source...except, those sources either ignore completely or footnote at the bottom that there is a type of cancer 15x more common...NMSC!!! The point? Ubiquitously, NMSC isn't even included on the list of "most common cancers" because they're frankly in a separate category altogether from cancers like breast and prostate. It actually is controversial whether or not it is even possible for basal cell carcinoma to metastasize, and (aside from transplant patients), CSCC is almost never fatal unless left ignored/untreated for years (people ignoring a giant bleeding skin cancer is perhaps more common than you'd think, but not happening in any clinical trial patients). These 4 50mg NMSC cases (vs 1 in the placebo group) are a not representative of serious malignancy risk even if the market is acting as if they are...they are absolutely in milder a category all their own, and lumping these all together is a mistake. Again, if people think these 4 NMSC cases are some scary life threatening event, they're just flat out wrong. There are >15x more cases of NMSC than breast cancer in the US/year, yet >10x more breast cancer deaths occur in the US per year. Again, not to minimize my own career too greatly, but almost *always* NMSC are removed by VERY simple, ~10 minute procedures under local anesthesia. Cutting out (or scraping away) the lesion typically takes me around 60 seconds, and the bulk of the procedure is actually spent stitching the patient back up. Drive yourself to the office, drive yourself home, local anesthesia, under an hour, you're cured. Hell, in many places in Europe it is actually standard practice to not even "treat" a basal cell carcinoma! On many body locations they are simply biopsied, and once diagnosed they are considered cured by the biopsy itself! It has become very clear to me that people are thinking that these NMSC cases are highly relevant cases of severe, potentially fatal cancer. They simply are not. There are *millions* of these in the US per year and most are treated with <15 minute procedures. These are in a TOTALLY different, far less serious category of "cancer". So again, why wasn't $ABVX prepared to discuss/explain this? I legitimately think they did not expect to need to. They may have overestimated the market's knowledge here and underestimated its potential for a knee-jerk reaction to the "C-Word". It's a mistake, yes, but it ultimately doesn't change the profile of the drug. So, I think we have compelling cases to write off the colonic dysplasia (literally not cancer) and NMSC cases, as I have usually found to be standard in these situations. That leaves the breast and prostate cancer cases. Again, the otherwise #1 and #2 most common cancer types...funny how that worked out! I sincerely do not believe that these two cases alone represent a signal against 0 in the placebo arm. This is textbook small sample statistical noise, ESPECIALLY for a drug with no mutagenic risk AND no immunosuppression (literally, HOW would this drug even be causing cancer then???). However, clearly the market will want more info here on these two cases. Hopefully the market will wake up to the points above (that $ABVX and I mistakenly thought were obvious) highlighting that the colonic dysplasia and NMSC cases can be almost completely written off. After that, hopefully $ABVX can give us more info on these two "legit" cancer cases (breast and prostate). Yes, they should've been ready to do so on the call. they messed up, but let's see what the details show. Some are saying we will see updates sooner than the October conference like they initially guided for on the call (at which point they clearly did not expect the market to be freaking out at all). After that, we also need to see the data from the 50mg "escape/placebo" arm that was not part of the primary efficacy analysis. That's is own topic of conversation, but that could significantly rewrite the narrative (now that $ABVX is aware a narrative needs to be rewritten after it got away from them). I think the market thinks they are hiding these "escape/placebo" arm 50mg patients' data. I believe they were just totally caught off guard by the market's reaction to the "cancer signal" here and didn't think they'd need to have that dataset ready to prove there's no cancer risk (they thought the initial dataset spoke for itself...I agree, but so far the market clearly doesn't). There should be several hundred patients worth of extra 50mg patients in that group. Ideally they can move up the release of that dataset to help qualm the market's fears and try to prove they aren't trying to hide anything there. Depending on the sample size there, we should very likely expect a few "cases" there too, but if the rate comes in lower than the original 50mg data we got, this narrative could snap back rapidly. Let's hope!

@finn_hulse LFG!

in the future, casinos won't make money a single (huge) crowdfunded pool will power millions of near-fair bets across apps and AI agents all house profits will flow back to everyone's buy-ins automatically providing the best yield in the world to its owners testnet now live

@ZeeContrarian1 "that’s exactly why I’m closing my positions." positions meaning you expect a prolonged drop? Or you meant closing your $CL and $VIX positions?

Is The ‘War’ With Iran Over? I was asked whether I think the situation with Iran is over. My answer: no, and that’s exactly why I’m closing my positions. When it’s truly over, you’ll see it clearly in the market. $VIX below 23. Oil below $75. You won’t need a headline to tell you. Price will tell you. The real skill is understanding when something is functionally over - even if it hasn’t been officially declared. Think of it like a lion and a gazelle. The moment the gazelle’s leg is broken, the outcome is decided. It may take days or weeks before the lion finishes the job. But the result is no longer in doubt. The same principle applies here. Once one side has complete air superiority, the endgame is no longer about if, but when. By the time the news says “it’s over,” markets will already reflect it - equities higher, oil lower, volatility crushed. You don’t wait for confirmation. You recognize when the balance of power has already shifted.

@KevinLMak Understand this is not the whole book, but $LKNCY? Or pink sheet excluded in 13F?

@KevinLMak I'm asking this coz the top tickers in your past year's list have been realized and you must have already "replaced" them with new ideas (pipeline) This is a challenge for true retail investors after 1/2 hit (usually in areas we are familiar with)

@KevinLMak Curious to see the latest, if you're allowed to share - given the larger reader base you've successfully grown in the past yr! One question I have is, how do you generate the pipeline of (and what's your main source of) special sit. ideas? Is there a process you employ? Cheers!

@pdavisjones @Waymo @takaichi_sanae How would JPY, USD and interest rate policy affect your view?

Went long $TM today with a sizable position. Thesis: - already all-in on robotics (has a partnership with Boston Dynamics already) - partnership with @Waymo announced Q3 of 2025 - @takaichi_sanae is going to keep stimulating the Japanese economy, and Toyota is obvs a big player there - Trump has said they can import their cheaper pickups, and I think they'll crush it here - Toyota has always successfully navigated US-based manufacturing and their CEO is friendly with Trump - Toyota's P/E is ~8.5 (vs $AMZN ~32, $TSLA ~300), it's cheap based on earnings

@ashleevance Start an X subscription and start talking about founders / CEOs you met

I am regretting being ethical enough not to buy Rocket Lab stock

@KevinLMak Assuming the 2021 market happens again (do you think it will?), and shitco valuation tanks again, what’s your strategy for your shitcos portfolio (asts, rcat, bksy, etc.) Genuine question to learn from your perspectives.

@KevinLMak If the strategic loan got approved it will be a huge news.. DoD is supposed to support companies like them with that

@KevinLMak Also, noting that the Palantir collaboration is "requested / connected through a mutual customer (likely DoD)", what do you think about the dynamics between two companies. As in, it really doesn't help Palantir biz dev, but rather, $RCAT needs it more?

@KevinLMak Do you think CEO's response to your question "DJI and Autel will be banned within a year" a bit exaggerated? I know it is highly likely DJI will be deemed a risk, but he knows that is not a correct claim. Also, how do you see their fundraising needs?

@peonyKingOF I like how the narrative now moves from $ACHR being in the passenger game to defence tech, with Anduril being the new defence prime. Do you know how important is VTOL to the military and how $ACHR is going to create value?

If you consider where $ACHR raised today as the new floor at 6.6 (not like going below that is an impossibility though) - looking at ~10% to the downside - and algo+wsb madness on the upside. Worth noting that emerging defense tech is esp culty and has no upward bounds if $PLTR is any indication. Another one of the reasons why I tapped out of $ACHR was if the whole story was passenger - had to maintain a hyper chain if the only catalyst is a series of successful pilot flights. In the slides, $ACHR emphasizes their ability to produce powertrains, electric engines, and high performance battery cells. I think this is a big deal and hints at what is to come. I think the game here is no longer to a solo passenger evtol product - they seem to be indicating they are looking to be partner will all kinds of defense or other contractors - by manufacturing components for other systems. This opens the door for a totally different cadence of contract announcements. Also - this raise and the past one by $ACHR are fucking brilliant. They really all. I can see them following this model with other major defense player. They launch a product with them - and use them as a round of funding in the process. To me, the $JOBY model seems to be that they want to own everything. $ACHR seems to shrewdly looking to grow the pie massively through substantial partnership, and sharing the pie with others. I think the market is so vast here and so much capital needs to be poured into meeting it - $JOBY model is inferior. What is also baked into this deal is that they are massively reducing the risk - this financing is going towards an entirely different hybrid project. In theory this reduction of risk means it should trade at a higher level. Lastly, I have heard some concern about noise levels vs $joby (ht @EricTheUmpire) or perhaps that the tech was inferior in other ways to $JOBY. As that being a reason is trades at half the market cap. The fact that anduril seems to be putting serious skin in the game - seems to me a useful data point suggesting that may not be the case. At the same time, the momo trade is choppy. And they could indeed need more cash. For this reason, at the moment largely playing via commons. Don't see any reason to turn a great trade into a bad one bc of some short-lived rotation or the need to raise more funds.

@Space_Horton So perhaps that's why. And it's not just space stocks. What I called "futuristic themes" are all rallying hard, quantum, nuclear, space... It's 2021 all over again when ppl keep digging and promoting "next 10x" stock.. look at $JMIA and $SQ, these are 2021 fintwit honey..

@misterivanl Thanks Ivan - S&P

Are there any stock market experts that understand what’s going on with Space Stocks right now? According to data from eToro ( etoro.com/people/space-i… ) the level of risk in my portfolio is going down, but according to Y-T-D data from Bullaware ( bullaware.com/etoro/space-in… ) my Beta is going up. Surely that would only make sense if the volatility in the broader market was going down, I mean is it? (Yes this is a humblebrag so I’ve attached a copy of the annoying grin on my face which the market might take away tomorrow)