First Crown Research🇺🇸

5.9K posts

First Crown Research🇺🇸 banner
First Crown Research🇺🇸

First Crown Research🇺🇸

@First_Crown

nano cap, distressed, hong kong, arb unwinds

شامل ہوئے Ağustos 2013
707 فالونگ1.1K فالوورز
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Cassandra Unchained
Cassandra Unchained@michaeljburry·
Must read - this is free and not me. @georgenoble/note/c-226667679?r=4repfn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">substack.com/@georgenoble/n… This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least…
English
351
1.4K
7.8K
988.2K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Jeremy Raper
Jeremy Raper@puppyeh1·
Markets blowing up. As usual lots of interesting stuff. Will just drop a cpl notes. I expect a few more days of pain before TACO big time, this isn’t a firmly held view but it’s unlikely Trump can just sit and endure $110 oil for more than a week. In any case I think these prob work regardless…
English
20
1
148
57.5K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
John Arnold
John Arnold@johnarnold·
The data center buildout has allowed Loudoun County to lower property tax rates by 38% since 2010, translating to average savings of about $3,400 per year for homeowners.
John Arnold tweet media
English
171
424
3.4K
533.5K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Kakashii
Kakashii@kakashiii111·
CoreWeave moved their ER from the usual mid-month slot to Feb 26, the day after Nvidia’s earnings today. What’s the arrangement between Intrator and Jensen? The coordination here is too perfect to be a coincidence.
English
6
6
99
26.1K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
boaz weinstein
boaz weinstein@boazweinstein·
The way the wheels are coming off the car in the equities of private credit managers, (and the investors who hold them - look at LNC today), public credit looks absurdly rich. This might surprise, but Saba Capital is long stock in BX, ARES, APOL, and also OWL! We sold down a lot of CDX HY at the same time. Something has to give… see below from my sage partner Kieran.
Kieran Goodwin@kieranwgoodwin

I have many biases based on my experiences. So I fully admit that I am structurally bearish on credit priced at par. That view comes from having a front row seat of the GFC. In 2008, liquidity didn’t “fade.” It vanished. Spreads didn’t drift. They gapped. When you’ve seen how close the system came to breaking, you stop treating par as safety. You start treating it as volatility in hiding. Post-GFC: • Banks pulled back • Regulators discouraged >6x EBITDA lending (2013 guidance) • PE rebounded Leverage didn’t go away. It just moved off bank balance sheets. Risk migrated. Capital followed. Discipline didn’t always keep up. In PE, Fund II requires exits. In private credit, “no defaults” was often enough. Loans marked at par. Spreads tight. AUM compounding. Then came evergreen funds. Illiquid loans. Quarterly NAV. Periodic liquidity. We told ourselves this was product innovation. In reality, it’s duration mismatch wrapped in yield. Private wealth flows are pro-cyclical. They love income when volatility is low. They demand liquidity when volatility spikes. And when spreads widen, investors don’t debate underwriting nuance. They ask: “Should I stay or should I go?” If they go: • Gates get tested • Marks get tested • Conviction gets tested Credit is correlated in stress. You don’t lauded for being “slightly better” when the whole asset class reprices. Add in: • Sponsor relationships that are serial • Competitive underwriting drift • Internal marks • Public GPs optimizing fee growth In good times, these are features. In bad times, they’re pressure points. To be clear: I don’t think private credit is bad. The best managers — real underwriters, real restructurers, firms with true trading DNA — will likely gain share in the cleanup. Dislocations create opportunity. But today’s scale + liquidity promises + behavioral flows have never been stress-tested together. Private credit hasn’t faced a true systemic liquidity shock at this size. And when the cycle turns: “If I go there will be trouble… And if I stay it will be double.”

English
33
47
623
238.2K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
savage daughter
savage daughter@DonnaPrissyrn1·
West Virginia’s coal fired power plants are saving the eastern electric grid this morning
savage daughter tweet media
English
118
1.1K
9.9K
421.2K
First Crown Research🇺🇸
First Crown Research🇺🇸@First_Crown·
-193.5K for CFTC Natural Gas speculative net positions 🤷‍♂️ stay safe out there everyone #UNG
English
0
0
0
91
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Massimo
Massimo@Rainmaker1973·
AI glasses can now recognize anyone, anywhere. A Dutch journalist just tested a pair of AI-powered glasses that can instantly identify strangers on the street.
English
190
803
3.2K
538.4K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Clark Square Capital
Clark Square Capital@ClarkSquareCap·
Great words of advice from the all-time GOAT
Clark Square Capital tweet media
English
3
7
47
6.1K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Theresa Fallon
Theresa Fallon@TheresaAFallon·
🇯🇵 PM Sanae Takaichi comments mark a historic turning point in🇯🇵 security policy. She clearly stated that if Taiwan faces a military attack, accompanied by actions such as a naval blockade w/ warships, the🇯🇵govt may regard this as a "national survival crisis situation," allowing the Self-Defense Forces to exercise collective self-defense rights accordingly.
矢板明夫@Yaita_Akio

日本首相高市早苗今天在眾議院預算委員會上的答辯,標誌著日本安全政策的一個歷史性轉折。她明確指出,若台灣遭受武力攻擊,並出現以戰艦進行海上封鎖等行動,日本政府可能將此視為「存亡危機事態」,自衛隊可以據此行使集體自衛權。她強調,台灣局勢已進入極為嚴峻的階段,政府必須以最壞的情況為前提做好準備。這番話的意義在於,日本首度由現任首相正式承認,若台海爆發戰爭,自衛隊可能介入。 根據日本現行安全法制,只要與日本密切相關的國家遭到攻擊,而此舉被認定為威脅日本存亡,則即使日本本身未被攻擊,也可行使集體自衛權。換言之,若中國對台發動軍事行動,日本政府可能認定這是「日本的事」,進而採取實際行動。這樣的表態,延續了安倍晉三前首相在卸任之後發表的「台灣有事就是日本有事」的理念,而且進一步賦予了政策實質。 長期以來,日本被稱為「單肺國家」——由於和平憲法的束縛,只能依靠經濟和外交手段維持國際地位,無法以軍事力量支撐國策。然而,如今的日本正逐漸擺脫這種被動狀態。高市的發言,不只是安全政策上的宣示,更象徵日本國家意識的復甦。二戰敗戰八十年後,日本正準備重新以「正常國家」的姿態,回到國際政治舞台的中央。 對台灣而言,這是利多。若中國考慮動武,不僅要顧忌美國的反應,也必須防範日本的介入。這將大幅提高北京的攻台成本,使其武力冒險的可能性下降。 高市早苗的態度象徵著一個新的日本正在形成。面對台海的風雲詭譎,她以務實的危機意識推動防衛政策的轉變。日本正在對自身角色重新定位——從被動的和平主義者,轉向積極守護自由與安全的行動者。

English
111
327
1.2K
174.9K
First Crown Research🇺🇸 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Ronbo
Ronbo@Ron284Ron·
$MSVB Announces updated range of per share consideration in dissolution & payment record date. $17.45-$17.75 in cash, record 11/10. Expects the process to take up to 2 years, and any remaining (nominal) funds will be donated to charitable otcmarkets.com/stock/MSVB/new…
English
0
1
4
525
First Crown Research🇺🇸
First Crown Research🇺🇸@First_Crown·
lots of hate from the arbs for $STAA looks like .... clearly its undervalued, vote will fail, as it should .. any quick dip for a failed vote i'll pick up, but deff not my battle overall. Respecting Broadwood though, compelling proxy
English
0
0
2
435