OPEN is a complete hot air balloon… All this and more for just 20x sales!!! SELL is not a four letter word.

Summary: Short OPEN: AI hype masking an asset-heavy, perennial loss-making house flipper trading at 20x sales with no credible path to transformation.

With each passing day, it becomes increasingly obvious that $OPEN is a complete hot air balloon. Aspiring to become the most aggressive software company (argghhh), a buy it now button, the idea that chanting AI repeatedly is somehow going to materially transform an asset heavy, perennial loss making house flipper…where to stop? All this and more for just 20x sales!!!   SELL is not a four letter word.


Summary: Endorses bearish TSLA thesis: losses likely in 2026 per detailed breakdown of the numbers.

structural marker; pre-classified as canonical yfinance ticker

Run, don’t walk, to read and subscriber to a fantastic substack report on $TSLA from @BradMunchen
He does a masterful job of breaking down the numbers and shows why $TSLA will probably generate losses in 2026.

---

https://t.co/IFZlBKhuFI

---

https://t.co/Z0qvMGKDDo https://t.co/qoFnMgXzjn


Summary: Short SPOT.

industry='Internet Content & Information'


$OPEN should not even exist. The business model is not broken. Instead it NEVER worked. $OPEN has lost money EVERY year since inception. They are in a low margin business and can't scale. Book value is 86 cents per share. $1.50 price target would be generous.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: model never worked, loses money every year, low-margin unscalable business; PT $1.50 vs book value $0.86.

$OPEN should not even exist.
The business model is not broken. Instead it NEVER worked. $OPEN has lost money EVERY year since inception. They are in a low margin business and can’t scale. Book value is 86 cents per share. $1.50 price target would be generous. #bagjob #memestock #hotairbubble #garbage

Day 0 @opendoor. Let’s roll. https://t.co/9VfngGuWET


Summary: Bearish OPEN: never profitable, 8% gross margin, $10B EV on $400M gross profit, insider incentives misaligned — pure meme speculation with no fundamental basis.

$OPEN is in the business of flipping houses, which is a ruthlessly competitive industry with very low margins.
The company has NEVER made a profit. The business is very asset heavy and does not scale as it has a mere 8% gross margin.
No amount of hand waiving, comparisons to $CVNA, chanting AI and claiming $OPEN is a software company is going to change this.
The company has yet to outline a way forward to prosperity.
Book value per share is 86 cents.
$OPEN sports an enterprise value of $10B  for $400mm gross profits (essentially revenue)!
@nejatian is not exactly leaving money on the table. It is not the case that $OPEN stock has to rise significantly for him to score big.
If $OPEN is above $6.24 in five years
he stands to receive 40.9mm shares!

Good luck to all those who wish to speculate in a meme stock.
But please don’t fool yourself by pretending this has anything to do with fundamentals.
@dayetweets @m3_melody @UnicusResearch @Realtor_Stocks @iv2171


Summary: Price target of 10 set for BETR, implying upside from current levels.

@tvmetguy @ericjackson @cvpayne @natbrunell @WallStreetMav @WallStreetApes @wallstreetbets @dayetweets @DougKass First target for $BETR is 10.

@gnoble79 @ericjackson @cvpayne @natbrunell @WallStreetMav @WallStreetApes @wallstreetbets @dayetweets @DougKass https://t.co/FYiWumnhMX


Summary: OPEN wildly overvalued vs peers on every metric (net revenue, transaction volume, EV/sales, book); COMP also implicitly overvalued by same cross-check.

My calculation has zero errors.

You fail to grasp the difference in accounting between $OPEN and other companies.
Real estate brokers such as Compass  (an imperfect comparison to $OPEN but close enough) record only their commissions as revenues, (estimated $7b for 2025 on $267b transaction volume with an EV of $6.2b) whereas $OPEN records their transaction volume (estimated $4.9b for 2025 and $350mm in net revenues and EV of about $7b)
To make a like for like comparison I use net revenues. You could alternatively use gross transaction volume, but on that basis if $OPEN is $6.36, then that would imply a price of for $COMP of $678; last sale was $10.58. Clearly that is ridiculous. $OPEN is valued at 1.4x gross transaction volume while by the same measure $COMP is valued at .022x gross transaction volume.

Here is another way to think about it.
Imagine two ticket resellers. They each charge a 5% commission. Broker A books only his commission as revenues while broker B books the entire value of the ticket. In economic terms the transactions are identical, but broker B revenue will be 21x that of broker A. To blindly compare the stated revenue recorded on the income statement would be analytical malpractice. That is basically what @ericjackson does and why I have been so critical of him.

Finally, we can compare $OPEN to $OPAD, which is a publicly traded Ibuyer. OPAD is valued at EV to sales of .3 and 1.2x book. Applying those metrics to $OPEN would imply a share price of 16 cents and $1.35 per share, respectively.

No matter how you slice it, $OPEN is wildly overvalued. I hope that helps.


Summary: Author holds and recently doubled TSLA short position, average entry $465.

@abetterfuture42 Doubled my $TSLA short yesterday at $485. Average is now $465. https://t.co/JY0wlnFyAI

@gnoble79 So how deep is your short? https://t.co/l7Hwm5EVwW


Gold is an investment, not a trade. You can't own enough gold.

Summary: Decisively bullish on gold as a long-term hold; can't own enough.

GC=F is gold futures; GLD is standard ETF proxy

@MarioNawfal Gold is an investment, not a trade. You can’t own enough gold.


Summary: Bearish TSLA: forecasts a third consecutive year of declining sales in 2026.

SPOT ON. @BradMunchen nails it.
The fourth decline in sales for $TSLA will be stunning. Look for a further decline in 2026, making for a third consecutive year of declining sales.


Summary: Bearish OKLO on valuation concerns; expects significant downside if investors scrutinize it.

I shudder to think how much  $OKLO could fall if people start to look at valuation. https://t.co/zLgEjgqDpF


Summary: Endorses bullish thesis on mining stocks: P/E contracting as earnings outpace share prices; can't own enough.

XME US metals/mining; PICK global diversified miners

@TaviCosta has been on fire.
I totally agree. You can’t own enough.

For those who think mining stocks are expensive:

Despite their strong recent performance, P/E ratios have actually contracted — a sign that earnings are growing faster than share prices.

Initially, these stocks were priced based on very conservative earnings estimates.

And https://t.co/NFEZkS3d5l


Summary: Gold is a long-term investment, not a short-term trade; bullish holding stance.

John Roque has had the golden touch.
Gold is an investment, not a trade.
@daChartLife https://t.co/bscqCUiIMx


Summary: Reaffirms high conviction that TSLA will go much lower.

@Av8r07 @SawyerMerritt You epitomize everything that is wrong with $TSLA cultists. You are rude, financially illiterate and incapable of civil discourse. You worship at the alter of narrative and price.  Your ignorant response reaffirms my conviction that $TSLA is going much lower. BLOCKED.


Summary: Bullish on IonQ; directing readers to a full thread on the stock.

TRUTH @MartinShkreli @StockSavvyShay @doomerzoomer
READ ENTIRE THREAD.
@IONQ


TRUTH. All $OPEN shareholders take note.

Summary: Endorses bearish thesis on Opendoor: sellers get only 70-80% of fair value, growth targets require 35x current volume; implicitly warns shareholders.

@MollySOShea @rabois @nejatian @ericjackson It’s a meme. Thats the best thesis. Fact : sellers get 70 to 80 % of fair market value using open door. To get 10 % of the US residential housing market their sales would have to be 35x what they are currently.
Seller pays 5% and then add costs of repair plus title fees .


Summary: Endorses John Roque's bullish gold thesis with a $7400 target; long GLD, GDX, and gold.

John Roque has totally nailed it on gold. $7400 anyone? $GLD #gold $GDX https://t.co/mpsDndDA85


Summary: Endorses bearish TSLA view: collapsing sales/margins/EPS, negative FCF, no Optimus/FSD demand in 2026.

$TSLA is about to go through several quarters of collapsing results (sales + margins + non-GAAP EPS), and (likely) negative free-cash-flow. And, no... NO ONE is buying Optimus robots or FSD in 2026. Things are about to get (very) ugly for $TSLA.


Summary: Bearish TSLA; rejects parent's bullish 'future' thesis, sees bleak outlook.

@todd_mcartor The future looks bleak for $TSLA .
Case closed.

@gnoble79 Tsla about the future, not the past...case closed


Summary: Author remains short MSTR, expecting it to fall to parity (1x NAV) with BTC.

This headline is technically correct but very misleading.
@RealJimChanos was short $MSTR vs long $BTC, betting that the MNAV would collapse. The trade was very profitable as the MNAV crashed from 2.5 to 1.23. Bravo Jim!!!
As an aside, I am reliably informed that Jim ultimately expected the $MSTR to fall to parity. I share that view and remain short $MSTR.

🇺🇸 LEGENDARY TRADER JIM CHANOS JUST CLOSED ALL HIS $MSTR MICROSTRATEGY SHORT POSITION.

HERE WE GO 🚀 https://t.co/diTilEYoac


Summary: Endorses selling CVNA; bearish stance on the stock.

$CVNA eventually this will matter. Why it has been ignored since the bottom I don't know. https://t.co/X2MJpEztRF


Summary: Endorses bearish CDS-surge signal on ORCL, CRWV, AMZN, MSFT; 'look out below' implies further downside.

Gordon Johnson nails it. Look out below. @GordonJohnson19

1/2 #ArtificialIntelligenceCDSwatch - $ORCL, $CRWV, $AMZN, & $MSFT CDS (the cost to insure against default) explode higher by +15.4%, +7.2%, +8.1%, & +14.1% in trading today. A CDS of 603.6 for $CRWV, assuming a 40% recovery rate, implies a 41.3% probability for default. https://t.co/kEuuTyHyDL


Revenues and earnings are imploding. Unsupervised cybertaxis are not happening any time soon. I am short.

Summary: Short TSLA: revenues/earnings collapsing, cybertaxi timeline unrealistic.

@GrindeOptions Revenues and earnings are imploding. Unsupervised cybertaxis are not happening any time soon. Let’s see how long @elonmusk can keep the plates spinning. I am short.

Who in their right mind is selling $TSLA right now? https://t.co/BkGbYj4IDC


Summary: Short TSLA: expects collapsing sales and earnings, potentially turning to losses.

@markmillerdakar The trigger will be collapsing sales and earnings. $TSLA may well start losing money.

@gnoble79 You are making a massive mistake with your Short theory.  Never short a stock without a specific trigger, This is the worst mistake any hedgie can make.  Stupid can become stupid10x.  Shorting overvaluation is un intelligent without a trigger event that caps your loss.  Now you


Summary: Short TSLA; author says Musk is pumping ahead of bad California news, driverless taxis not imminent.

$TSLA Driverless taxis not happening any time soon https://t.co/iofZQ2NSP7

---

Fade the $TSLA hype. @elonmusk pumping the stock hard ahead of the bad news to come from CA. https://t.co/lYp2pupFkP


Summary: Bearish ORCL; calls it a total disaster heading much lower amid massive off-balance-sheet lease commitments.

@JackFarley96 $ORCL is a total disaster and heading much lower.

Oracle has entered into a quarter Trillion of lease commitments related to data centers

Not yet included as a liability on $ORCL's balance sheet but it sounds like a liability... https://t.co/T8ek7yQ3ni


Summary: Stay short OKLO at $76.92; reiterates bearish position.

Let’s go to the video tape. $OKLO: https://t.co/dX5QgBSvM7

---

$76.92 last. Stay short $OKLO https://t.co/NMSaFwHNHn

---

Shay Boloor please call your office @StockSavvyShay $OKLO https://t.co/qEq4A4Y4lW


Summary: Bearish OPEN: no fundamental case justifies even the current $7 price, let alone any higher valuation.

Also missing was a fundamental case that would even justify the current $7 $OPEN stock price. @nejatian would you kindly fill us in?

Also, while you are at it, please lay out the business model for an $82 share price - asking for a friend;)

We had our first Opendoor 2.0 board dinner last night.

Two things were in short supply:

1. Carbs
2. Pessimism


Summary: Bearish OPEN: 11 years of losses, cash burn from operations since IPO, inventory liquidation not a sustainable income source.

Accurate on never, as in annual.
That is the standard way to look at things, as one needs to consider seasonality.
They have been around since 2014, so not so young ; 11 years of nonstop losses. And no, they have net burned cash from operations since going public. No credit given for generating cash from inventory liquidation as that is not a sustainable source of income.  $OPEN
Any further questions?


Summary: Bearish TSLA into Q1 2026; forecasts losses on collapsing demand.

@TomTwr $TSLA will post losses 1q 2026 as demand collapses IMHO.

@gnoble79 Check back with us the end of 1st QTR


$OPEN is wildly overpriced... $OPEN is a SELL

Summary: Bearish OPEN: overvalued at 40x revenues, perpetual losses since inception, challenged housing market, guiding to losses until 2027.

$OPEN is wildly overpriced.

Classic example of a low bar.

A lame attempt to spin another upcoming loss making quarter.

What a disaster.
$OPEN 4q 2024 gross revenues were $1.1B. If they continue at this pace their revenue “beat” would constitute a decline of 35% from last year.

Recall that $OPEN is guiding to losses until 2027.

$OPEN is valued at 40x 4q revenues/gross profits.

KNOW WHAT YOU OWN, as Peter Lynch would always say.

Look at the record - $OPEN has lost money EVERY YEAR since inception.

Understand $OPEN unit economics - low margin, asset heavy, does not scale.

The outlook for housing
remains very challenged owing to poor levels of affordability.

Industry is extremely competitive.

Look at the valuation - 20/40x revenues (same as gross margin).

$OPEN remains a house flipper, regardless of how management tries to spin it.

Don’t confuse a speculative lottery ticket/meme stock for a serious investment.

$OPEN is a SELL

@nejatian @ericjackson @rabois @m3_melody @dayetweets @APompliano @UnicusResearch

$OPEN now $54.3m ahead of revenue guidance QTD vs expected.

Current as of today: $377m

Expected this time in the QTR: $322.7m

557 homes to sell at current avg sale price of $377k

41 days left to go. https://t.co/nOxHfvtzi0


Summary: Endorses Chanos's bearish view: TSLA AI/robotics leader thesis is unsupported by actual AI spending.

The $TSLA bulls have no answer for this. They just follow the narrative and stock price. @RealJimChanos

What’s so ridiculous about this view that $TSLA is an AI/robotics “leader”, is that you can quantify just how little Tesla is actually spending on AI. For the LTM it’s below $3B, or less than 1% of the Big Four hyperscalers. https://t.co/THIqHDvO7T


Summary: Author endorses bullish gold thesis: quant model remains bullish despite ETF holdings still below 2022 levels.

GLD is the gold ETF; direct pass-through

Despite the surge in gold prices this year, the amount of gold held in US ETFs is still below where it was in 2022. My quant model, which brings together dozens of leading indicators for gold prices, remains bullish. https://t.co/4f5XhEJZtB


Summary: Bearish TSLA: current quarter sales expected dreadful, 2026 seen as third consecutive year of declining deliveries.

@garyblack00 @BradMunchen @elonmusk Thanks Gary. I suspect the numbers for the month and quarter will be dreadful. I also anticipate that 2026 will be the third consecutive year of declining deliveries. $TSLA

@gnoble79 @BradMunchen @elonmusk No, $TSLA doesn’t disclose monthly sales. From other sources we can track China and some European sales, but rarely get interim sales before quarter-end.


Summary: Reiterates SELL on ABTC despite 80% decline; stay short.

$ABTC remains a SELL even though it has crashed 80% since I flagged it as a short on Sept 12.  Stay short. The staggering analytical malpractice of @ericjackson on full display for all to behold. $HUT

---

$1.65 last sale $ABTC


Summary: Bullish gold in response to dollar plummeting thesis.

@GeorgeGammon You can’t own enough gold.

URGENT: The Dollar Is Plummeting Right Now...Here's Why https://t.co/N0SsHYJFyD


Summary: Bearish OPEN: compares it to a lottery ticket with poor odds; expects investors to lose money on the position.

My post was impersonal. Instead, just as one realistically expects  to lose on their purchase of a long shot million dollar jackpot lottery ticket, the same should be said about $OPEN IMHO. No emotion here; just my assessment of the investment merits of $OPEN. If one loses money on such a lottery ticket without having properly studied the odds, then they “deserve” what they get. Ditto for $OPEN.

@gnoble79 I have an honest question for you.  What is it that I, have personally done to "deserve" to lose everything??  That's a pretty harsh post, just trying to understand what great evil it is I have committed.👇


Summary: Float expansion will massively weigh on BETR share price.

The prospective increase in the float of $BETR will be enormous and have a MASSIVE negative impact on the share price of $BETR

Thank you for your attention to this matter. @ericjackson with yet more analytical malpractice!!! https://t.co/oARDllhMqQ


Summary: Maintain short position in OKLO.

$OKLO stay short https://t.co/3oMmnkgDp5


Summary: Bearish OPEN: valued at 20x revenues, argues fair value is $1.50; urges bears to stay focused against bull narrative.

Stay focused on the fact that $OPEN is valued at 20x revenues and should be at $1.50. STAY FOCUSED. @ericjackson

📣 $OPEN Short sellers scream the loudest when they know they’re on the wrong side. @MartinShkreli @gnoble79 @CitronResearch

📉 History shows they’ve been wrong on several key innovators many times before.

🏠 $OPEN is no different to me.

🤝 #Opendoor is going to transform https://t.co/EDkRihTXMY


Summary: Float dilution from ATM program will weigh on BETR share price.

@danielsethlewis @vishalgarg1_0 @Mabiverse123 @KingKiTo33 @ericjackson @gnoble The enormous increase in the float of $BETR will significantly impact the share price. https://t.co/8h79a6BNBv

@gnoble79 @vishalgarg1_0 @Mabiverse123 @KingKiTo33 @ericjackson @gnoble — I can address this with some direct perspective, as this is the stock I bid for directly with the company. I think you are betting on near term technicals vs. dramatically shifting fundamentals.

Technicals: In September, the company disclosed an ATM program of up to


Summary: Author makes the case to avoid OPEN; decisive bearish stance.

I make the case as to why I would avoid $OPEN starting at 1:15.
Listen to @ericjackson
prevaricate, interrupt, deflect, change the subject, project and insult. Shots fired. @Realtor_Stocks @m3_melody @UnicusResearch

#FinanceDaily 8am ET. Let's go https://t.co/D8G67Bo5GM


Summary: Bearish TSLA: falling unit sales, possible quarterly losses, and Robotaxi approval risk may finally close gap to fundamentals.

@IBD_ECarson I certainly agree that the share price has been divorced from fundamentals for a long time. The reason I think that this may change is that unit sales are falling, they may post quarterly losses, and that the Robotaxi may not receive necessary approvals.

Repeating this warning for bears who argue $TSLA has been divorced from Tesla fundamentals for a long time. Even assuming you're right - I'm sympathetic - there's no particular reason why this would end *now.*


The stock is wildly overpriced IMHO. $OPEN is valued at 6x book and 20x estimated 2025 revenues. I estimate fair value at around $1.50.

Summary: Short OPEN: wildly overvalued at 6x book/20x revenues, fair value ~$1.50, loses money every year, lacks fundamental institutional sponsorship.

$OPEN has little ownership by fundamentally oriented institutions.
A few index funds and quant/trading shops own the stock, but there is not a lot of information content in that. The lack of significant sponsorship from fundamental shops should be a major red flag for all concerned. The obvious conclusion is that they do not think the stock is attractive.

Despite what management says, the company remains an asset heavy, low margin house flipper. They have lost money EVERY single year since inception. They will again lose money in 2026.

The stock is wildly overpriced IMHO.
$OPEN is valued at 6x book and 20x estimated 2025 revenues (one should look at gross profits here). I estimate fair value at around $1.50.

Ignore the narrative.

Instead focus on the fundamentals.

$OPEN army, you were repeatedly warned about @ericjackson

He is guilty of analytical  malpractice.

He bagged you.

You were exit liquidity.

Neither Eric nor Drake will save you.

The momentum is long gone.

You are on your own.

Do you really know what you own?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.

@dayetweets @m3_melody
@RHouseResearch @sweetdaddyZ


Summary: Bearish TSLA: Musk excels at hype but not cash flow/profits; stock price is the product (implying it's disconnected from fundamentals).

TRUTH. @elonmusk knows how to generate press releases and hype, but cash flow and profits - not so much. The stock price is the product. $TSLA

"it's questionable whether $TSLA will even be able to hit the lowball expansion figures Musk disclosed to $TSLA shareholders last week" - @theinformation https://t.co/m4wKx8rabP


Summary: Bearish on OPEN, TSLA, RGTI, OKLO; any bounce is temporary, all headed much lower.

@LloydReeves13B @nejatian @UnicusResearch @m3_melody @ericjackson @dayetweets @APompliano @rabois Win some, lose some. Things may bounce, but ultimately going much lower. $OPEN $TSLA $RGTI $OKLO among many others.

@gnoble79 @nejatian @UnicusResearch @m3_melody @ericjackson @dayetweets @APompliano @rabois Where have you been George, missed the banter.  As a short I'm assuming your bags are bursting after the past week.  Don't judge me if I try and take a little of that back.  Law of the jungle and all that 👍


If you are a $TSLA investor (short or long term, you should be very worried. It's difficult to justify TSLA's forward P/E of 200x+ in what is clearly a commodity business (unsupervised autonomy) where TSLA is one of many fighting for market share.

Summary: Bearish TSLA: unjustifiable 200x+ forward P/E, EV profits at risk, behind Chinese rivals in autonomous ride-hailing commodity market; implicitly bullish Chinese autonomous players BIDU/Pony/WeRide.

If you are a $TSLA investor (short or long term, you should be very worried.

 “ $TSLA bulls say it doesn’t matter that TSLA Oct global volumes are down -30-35% YoY, since the business is transitioning to unsupervised autonomy and humanoid robots. That’s a fool’s narrative with 70%+ TSLA profits from EVs.

With EVs, TSLA had first mover advantage and clearly had the best product on the market at a price that was also highly profitable.  Nobody else except BYD has made money on EVs.

TSLA bulls refuse to acknowledge that automous ride-sharing is a commodity business where TSLA is behind the Chinese manufacturers ( $BIDU $PONY and $WRD) who are already completing 450K paid fully autonomous rides per week and will license their technology to anyone who will pay for it.

I have said for years that unsupervised autonomy is table stakes for anyone in the automotive business and that prediction looks more prescient every day.  Fully autonomous ride-hailing is already a crowded space and will only get more crowded as others solve for unsupervised autonomy. Few sell-side analysts’ TSLA models show significant future revenue or profits for autonomous ride-hailing (generally <5% of 2030 revs) and almost none show revs or profits for humanoid robots.  It’s hilarious that TSLA bulls cheerlead without even attempting to justify TSLA’s valuation.

Bottom line:  It’s difficult to justify TSLA’s forward P/E of 200x+ in what is clearly a commodity business (unsupervised autonomy) where TSLA is one of many fighting for market share.” - Gary Black

$TSLA situation:

If you are just a long term holder, imo there is nothing to worry about. All engines running and AI revolution is on track.

If you are also tactically trading, we don't know how bad it will get and short term, there is never a floor you can rely on once the


TSLA is behind the Chinese manufacturers ( $BIDU $PONY and $WRD) who are already completing 450K paid fully autonomous rides per week


Summary: Bearish OPEN as wildly overvalued on multiple metrics; bullish COMP as asset-light and profitable by comparison.

The comparison, while imperfect, is actually unfair to $COMP as it is asset light and very profitable vs $OPEN which is asset heavy and loss making!!! Despite that, $OPEN is wildly overvalued with that comparison.
$OPEN is also very expensive on book value or revenues when compared to the Ibuyer $OPAD .
Question for you, not meant to offend, but do you work in finance? How many accounting and finance classes have you taken?

@gnoble79 compared an agent model (Compass) to a principal model ( $OPEN ), mixed revenue and profit metrics.

He then applied asset-light revenue multiples to a business that is still capital-intensive and not yet sustainably profitable.

What a mixed up!!!


$COMP as it is asset light and very profitable vs $OPEN which is asset heavy and loss making


Summary: Bearish TSLA: energy storage narrative overblown, expects TSLA to lose money in 2026 vs $1.5T market cap.

@shortseller Got it. Energy storage has done a mere $10B in revenues over the last 12 months. $TSLA mkt cap is $1.5T and I expect they will lose money in 2026. But hey, grifters gotta grift.

doesn't matter... 2026 = $TSLA becomes an 'energy storage for the grid' play.....the narrative keeps shifting and that's all the grifter needs to do to keep his grift going


Summary: Bearish Tesla; expects a disastrous Q4.

@cyrkaur Was actually 87% as one must include services.

The fourth quarter will be disastrous.

@gnoble79 As of Q3 it’s 74% from autos (FSD, leasing, sales, etc) and saying collapsing earnings doesn’t mean it’s collapsing any more than calling a drizzle a thunder storm.

Fundamentals have never in the history of math predicted innovation or new market additions cause that’s not how


$OPEN remains a fundamental investment short. At 5x book and 40x sales, the valuation is so decidedly unattractive that it is an unambiguous SELL for me.

Summary: Short OPEN: asset-heavy, low-margin, intensely competitive industry; 5x book and 40x sales make it an unambiguous sell.

$OPEN remains a fundamental investment short. The vision of @nejatian for a “new” $OPEN business model does not even remotely justify the current valuation, let alone $82!!! They are in an asset heavy, low margin, intensely competitive industry. At 5x book and 40x sales, the valuation is so decidedly unattractive that it is an unambiguous SELL for me. I would only reconsider if they came up with a totally different model. Let me know when they do.

@BlueDot_Techs @gnoble79 @LloydReeves13B @gnoble79 George, are you short term negative or always negative? Real question: What do you need to see in order to turn bullish? We can comeback November 2026 to see if what you answer turns out to be true. I imagine a complete different company in 1 year. $open


Summary: Bearish OPEN: no credible scalable business model; 82 cents far more likely than $82.

That @nejatian is touting this as something important is laughable and very revealing. That it will be video on the $HOOD app - much ado about nothing. Expect some nebulous nonsense about tokenization of RE and a possible cooperation with $HOOD.
The FACT remains that $OPEN has yet to lay out a business plan for a robust, scalable profitable business model.
Until then 82 cents is more likely than $82 for open stock.

So. @opendoor’s Q3 Financial Open House is November 6 @ 2pm PT. We're doing things differently. Here's what's new:

→ Video instead of audio, so you can see and hear from us directly
→ Live Q&A powered by @robinhoodapp's Say Technologies platform, where YOU, our shareholders,


Summary: Bearish TSLA: expects double-digit auto sales decline in 2026.

@wojtekszkutnik Referring to 4q 2025. Sales will also fall double digits in 2026 IMHO.

@gnoble79 Not a big fan of $TSLA but you have to be wrong in the head to see this chart and say that their auto sales are in free fall https://t.co/EwjoSJjqOx


Summary: OPEN overvalued at 22x rev vs UBER's 4x; equivalent EV/sales implies $1.80 fair value for OPEN — bearish OPEN, implicitly positive on UBER's balance sheet quality.

Listen to @ericjackson first insult, and then flat out lie, starting at 1:26:50.

“Can you show me any published tweet where I have ever made a numeric comparison to $UBER ?”

---

https://t.co/Re3Xe7f1o0

---

Eric in his own words. Checkmate.

On a comparable basis OPEN is valued at 22x revenues while $UBER is valued at 4x revenues, just for the record. Also $UBER has a pristine balance sheet, $OPEN not so much. Equivalent EV/sales would put $ OPEN at $1.80.
@DavidDTawil @m3_melody @UnicusResearch @Realtor_Stocks @ericjackson


Summary: Bearish TSLA: $9 cumulative EPS since inception, collapsing sales/earnings, $1.4T valuation rests on undelivered promises from Musk.

$TSLA has earned $9 of cumulative EPS since inception. NINE DOLLARS!!!

LET THAT SINK IN.

So much for the $TSLA record.
As to the future, consider  that sales and earnings are collapsing.
14x revenues and $1.4T supported only by lies/promises of robotaxis, AI and robots.

From the same guy @elonmusk who LIED  about Tesla Cybertrucks , Tesla Semis, The Boring Company and Neuralink.

What could possibly go wrong?

Serious investors discuss fundamentals. Others instead focus on the stock price.
I will respond to the former, and block the ladder.

@GordonJohnson19 @BradMunchen

$TSLA bulls say it doesn’t matter that TSLA Oct global volumes are down -30-35% YoY, since the business is transitioning to unsupervised autonomy and humanoid robots. That’s a fool’s narrative with 70%+ TSLA profits from EVs.

With EVs, TSLA had first mover advantage and clearly https://t.co/tSJTv4LC18


it is absurd that a company with mere cumulative profits of $35B could be valued at $1.5T. And to think that in 2026 unit deliveries will decline for a third consecutive year. 14x revenues and 200x times earnings for a publicly traded science experiment. What's not to like?

Summary: Sarcastically bearish TSLA: $1.5T valuation absurd vs $35B cumulative profits, deliveries declining third year in 2026, 200x earnings.

As I have been saying, it is absurd that a company with mere cumulative profits of $35B could be valued at $1.5T. And to think that in 2026 unit deliveries will decline for a third consecutive year. 14x revenues and 200x times earnings for a publicly traded science experiment. What’s not to like? $TSLA @elonmusk @BradMunchen @GordonJohnson19

Tesla’s Cumulative Net Income (a.k.a. Retained Earnings) continues its upward trajectory. $TSLA 🎸🔊 https://t.co/CpPV6IyRLP


Has lost money every year. Is valued at 22x EV/revenues. Is in a fiercely competitive, low margin business. Has yet to present a credible plan to generate profits that would come remotely close to justifying the current valuation.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: persistent losses, 22x EV/revenue, low-margin competitive business, no credible path to justify valuation.

But we do understand that $OPEN
1) Has lost money every year
2) Is valued at 22x EV/revenues
3) Is in a fiercely competitive, low margin business
4) Has yet to present a credible plan
to generate profits that would come remotely close to justifying the current valuation.

Any questions @APompliano ?
Please give this matter your immediate attention so that they
can make a well informed investment decision.

It is shocking how many mainstream media outlets can’t understand that $OPEN is not a meme stock.

It is a company poised to be turned around by addressing one of the largest problems in society — buying and selling a home.

If you solve one of the biggest problems, history tells


Summary: Short BETR: balance sheet risks and ongoing share issuance will massively dilute the float, pushing stock to a much lower fair value.

Beware the $BETR balance sheet and the need for ongoing share issuance. The size of the float will massively increase and the stock will fall precipitously as fair value is MUCH lower. Looks like the @CedarStResearch “forgot” to mention this crucial detail. So much for the hyperbolic $12,000 price target from the financially illiterate @ericjackson .
@vishalgarg1_0 @dayetweets @m3_melody


Summary: OPEN is wildly overvalued on every metric — EV/revenue, EV/gross volume, and iBuyer comps all imply a far lower price.

My calculation has zero errors.

You fail to grasp the difference in accounting between $OPEN and other companies.
Real estate brokers such as Compass  (an imperfect comparison to $OPEN but close enough) record only their commissions as revenues, (estimated $7b for 2025 on $267b transaction volume with an EV of $6.2b) whereas $OPEN records their transaction volume (estimated $4.9b for 2025 and $350mm in net revenues and EV of about $7b)
To make a like for like comparison I use net revenues. You could alternatively use gross transaction volume, but on that basis if $OPEN is $6.36, then that would imply a price of for $COMP of $678; last sale was $10.58. Clearly that is ridiculous. $OPEN is valued at 1.4x gross transaction volume while by the same measure $COMP is valued at .022x gross transaction volume.

Here is another way to think about it.
Imagine two ticket resellers. They each charge a 5% commission. Broker A books only his commission as revenues while broker B books the entire value of the ticket. In economic terms the transactions are identical, but broker B revenue will be 21x that of broker A. To blindly compare the stated revenue recorded on the income statement would be analytical malpractice. That is basically what @ericjackson does and why I have been so critical of him.

Finally, we can compare $OPEN to $OPAD, which is a publicly traded Ibuyer. OPAD is valued at EV to sales of .3 and 1.2x book. Applying those metrics to $OPEN would imply a share price of 16 cents and $1.35 per share, respectively.

No matter how you slice it, $OPEN is wildly overvalued. I hope that helps.

@gnoble79 Your calculation has a few errors.

Treating contribution (or gross) profit as “sales” and then applying revenue multiples is a category error.

0.9× isn’t a fair comp because you’re not valuing revenue—you’re valuing profit dollars while calling them “net sales.” Those metrics


Summary: Bearish CVNA: peers imploding on stretched consumers and student loan garnishments yet CVNA trades immune; expects a major downside catalyst. KMX already showing cracks.

$CVNA
Tri-Color imploded, Carmax took a huge hit on increased loss provisions and awful numbers, but Carvana is immune? Consumer is stretched, student loans are back in play and people are being garnished. When this finally happens it is going to be epic.
@UnicusResearch what say you?


Summary: Own gold as a long-term hold, not a trade.

The song remains the same.
Gold - Own it, don’t trade it. https://t.co/TOcpNN6678

---

https://t.co/j3aqrqBv44


The warrants are just a cheap gimmick deigned to squeeze the shorts on a very short term basis. That will cause dilution. Ultimately the fundamentals will prevail - they always do.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: warrant distribution is a dilutive gimmick; short squeeze is transient and fundamentals will reassert downward pressure.

The warrants are just a cheap gimmick deigned to squeeze the shorts on a very short term basis. The warrants do NOT enhance the value of a share, as all shareholders will receive warrants on a pari passu basis. That will cause dilution.
Ultimately the fundamentals will prevail - they always do. $OPEN


Summary: Opendoor wildly overpriced at $6.36; fair value ~$1 implying ~85% downside.

Opendoor Technologies trades as OPEN on NASDAQ

@didgedillier The stock is wildly overpriced based on the present. It should only be trading at a $1. The present price of $6.36 already assumes a lot.

@gnoble79 I understand how you arrive at this valuation from that perspective.
That framing is internally consistent.

That said, I’d like to offer another way to look at it.

I think the framing slightly misses where the market already is.

At this point, Opendoor is no longer being


Summary: Maintain short position on ORCL.

$ORCL stay short. https://t.co/a6kORz4x18


Summary: Bearish OPEN: trading at 25x sales yet won't be profitable until 2028, making current valuation unjustifiable.

From the recent $OPEN conference call:

“Our next question comes from Zach H, who asks, when will we see a dramatic change in profitability?

Kasra Nejatian
CEO & Director
Next year. The answer is next year, we're going to see a dramatic change in profitability.

Christy Schwartz
Interim CFO
Zach, let me walk you through some of the details. So as we shared in the prepared remarks, we are driving the company to adjusted net income profitability exiting 2026 on a 12-month go-forward basis.
The framework to achieve that goal requires us to rescale acquisitions. We guided to rescaling acquisitions, growing them by 35% quarter-over-quarter for Q4 2025, and we are driving to exit Q4 2026 by buying somewhere around 6,000 homes. You can track that -- our progress against that goal and hold us accountable to that goal at https://t.co/3L0WSM4zAe, which will be updated weekly.
On the margin side, we expect to get contribution margin of 5% to 7% as we approach the acquisitions with renewed rigor, decreasing tail homes, improving days in possession and therefore, holding costs. In addition, as we get more shots on goal and buy more homes, we get the opportunity to attach more products and drive margin from ancillary services.
We expect financing costs of 2% to 3% of revenue. These costs are highly sensitive to our turns and will benefit from our faster resale velocity. We're targeting adjusted OpEx of 3% to 4% of revenue. We expect to leverage our existing fixed OpEx structure, as Kaz mentioned, to invest slightly more in marketing, but with the discipline that Kaz discussed earlier, and we expect to scale operations marginally as we rescale volumes. That's a framework.”

So $OPEN will lose money again in 2026 and is guiding to break even in 2027.

So 25x sales (same as gross profits) for a company that will not make money until 2028.  Is that about right @nejatian ?

Serious investors focus on fundamentals. Alternative views welcome. On the other hand, financial illiterates who engage in ad hominem attacks and alternatively focus only on the stock price and narratives will be blocked. Every clown who has been blocked is guilty of the latter.


Summary: Short TSLA; expects earnings to collapse, calling current price-to-earnings a huge disconnect.

@steven_kravets I have been short before and been wrong. Timing is everything. Ultimately the stock price will follow earnings. Presently there is a huge disconnect. I expect earnings to collapse. $TSLA

@gnoble79 Financial graveyard is full of Tesla shorts. What makes you think you can do better?


Attention all $OPEN shareholders. SELL is not a four letter word.

Summary: Decisive sell instruction to OPEN shareholders; bearish stance.


Summary: Bearish OPEN: narrative-driven to $7 but fundamentals imply $1 fair value; market has priced in too much improvement.

@sukhanal @ericjackson Narrative has pushed the stock to $7.
Fundamentals say $OPEN is only worth $1. The market has already discounted an enormous improvement.

@gnoble79 @ericjackson I care less about Eric Jackson wrt $OPEN at this point, we have A+ players at the helm of the company who are set to disrupt an industry that’s been too cumbersome for too long. @gnoble79 why not look at $OPEN from a fresh perspective and do away with the blood sucking RE agents?


Summary: Bearish OPEN: asset-heavy model, never earned a profit, book value $0.86/share; fair value at most $2, implying significant downside.

Completely disagree with you. Completely.
The comparison to Compass, while very imperfect, is far more relevant. You are silly/irresponsible to think otherwise. $OPEN has been unable to even generate “credit card” profit margins!
Also as they in the business of flipping houses, theirs is an asset heavy model and and so their flywheel can only move slowly. Book value is a mere $0.86 per share - earning 17 cents per share would equate to a 20% ROE, snd that is for a company that has never earned a profit! MAYBE a fair stock price is $2 today. And that is being very generous!

@gnoble79 2a. As mentioned prev, Compass as a comparable does not apply.  Open is a reseller, Compass is a broker and is a lot closer to the credit card co.  As you mention in your op, that's silly/irresponsible comparison.


Summary: Bearish OPEN; dismisses results and warns of downside ahead.

@MURATFIRAT1978 I am less interested in the $OPEN results and more interested in the hype that @nejatian serves up.
Look out below.

The winner is Mr. @gnoble79 👏🏽
$OPEN
#opendoor #earnings

https://t.co/6XChAhTog9


Summary: Short TSLA from $445; expects losses this quarter, collapsing earnings, and falling deliveries in 2026; valuation unsustainable at 15x rev / 270x earnings.

Short $TSLA from $445 yesterday.
$TSLA will start losing money this quarter. 15x revenues and 270x collapsing earnings. Auto deliveries will fall again in 2026 for the third consecutive year.

“Optimus (which $TSLA will sell none in 2026-27) robotaxis and FSD autonomy fantasies that have yet to generate any real profit. It’s less a car company and more a faith-based initiative in perpetual beta.” - Gordon Johnson

The bulls cannot defend the valuation or deny that earnings estimates have gone from $8 to $1.65.

Ultimately, the stock price will follow earnings.

@gnoble79 Announces He Is Shorting @Tesla Because “The Company Is Not Fundamentally Worth It’s Valuation, & @elonmusk Will Never Get Paid…” https://t.co/IuGSElIYb3


Summary: Bearish Opendoor; fair value ~$1 vs $9 current price, fundamentals will ultimately prevail.

@AsVladThinketh They have to articulate a plausible roadmap to profits that would even generate the current share price of $9, forget about $82. Fair value is more like $1.00. Ultimately the fundamentals will prevail. They always do.

@gnoble79 3.  What other resellers can you think of that can be applicable here?  I think your main disagreement is the current valuation is way too high based on the past.  Yet we know that markets value based on the future. No surprise that OPEN is currently high.  Just look at SPX.


You will get a lower price as 'The army' will bail on $OPEN once they come to understand that their general is guilty of analytical malpractice. $AMC 2.0 here we come.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: retail army will sell once they realize the thesis is flawed; predicts AMC-style collapse.

@SolyFinT You will get a lower price as “The army” will bail on $OPEN once they come to understand that their general is guilty of analytical malpractice. $AMC 2.0 here we come.

@gnoble79 Can you please short it?  We need more at a lower price.


Summary: Short OPEN: stock is grossly overpriced, price target implied around $3.

Sounds about right. $OPEN is grossly overpriced. https://t.co/VdDPV9hCgI

---

Let’s split the difference. $3 is in the middle. $OPEN https://t.co/97kFjkk7Wj


Summary: Stay short TSLA; expects price to be cut in half from current levels.

@steven_kravets I expect $TSLA to get cut in half. Stay short.

@gnoble79 Care to disclose your next move? Covering? Waiting and for what? Shorting further?


Summary: Short BETR.


Buying $OPEN shares here is more or less buying ownership in these homes at an 800% premium to their underlying value... $OPEN is the posterchild for a failed concept - iBuying has been tried multiple times... and has never worked.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: trading at 800% premium to underlying home values, iBuying is a failed unscalable model, and capital destruction is likely.

OpenDoor $OPEN is a home-flipper... A real estate owner with a net $800MM of homes on its balance sheet, trading at a $7B market cap. Buying $OPEN shares here is more or less buying ownership in these homes at an 800% premium to their underlying value. Insinuating that $OPEN shorts want to "make home ownership harder" is economically illiterate.

$OPEN is the posterchild for a failed concept - iBuying has been tried multiple times, by various different entities, with all sorts of bells and whistles ("muh AI"), and has never worked. The business simply doesn't scale as local markets are nuanced and volumes and values are cyclical.

$OPEN generated $568MM of operating losses during the rip-roaring real estate market of 2021. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

All else equal, home affordability would actually improve if $OPEN was wound down with the remaining capital re-cycled into actually economically productive uses. But I'm sure the mgmt. team will find a way to incinerate what capital's left, and you'll be there cheering along the way.

(This is a test of the X algo - h/t Rittenhouse Research)

There are two types of people in the world:

Those who want to invest their capital in making it easier for American home ownership by seeing $OPEN succeed and those who want to profit by shorting the company and making home ownership harder.

Choose wisely.


Summary: Bearish TSLA; expects an epic crash, conditional on lack of regulatory approval for unsupervised robotaxis.

@jwolfgram @elonmusk @GordonJohnson19 @BradMunchen @RealJimChanos The party is just getting started. The $TSLA crash will be epic. Wake me up when $TSLA receives regulatory approval for unsupervised robotaxis.

@gnoble79 @elonmusk @GordonJohnson19 @BradMunchen @RealJimChanos If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you’re enjoying the final days of these moronic posts… I can’t wait to see what you dream up next to make dumb comments on when Tesla scales to make Waymo look like a rounding error in the market. 🤣


Summary: Bearish MSTR with a sell instruction; waiting for 20% NAV discount before re-engaging.

I was reliably informed this would not happen. $MSTR. Wake me up at 20% discount to NAV. SELL.

$MSTR -34% in 6 months. https://t.co/FLkJkA6Woo


Summary: TA suggests 80% upside to $770-780 for TSLA despite overvalued fundamentals; Buy-rated via greater-fool framing.

WHO WANTS TO PLAY GREATER FOOL THEORY?

                Tesla, Inc. is rated Buy.
                TSLA's fundamentals are overvalued as always, but technical analysis suggests an 80% upside to $770-780 is possible.  $TSLA @GordonJohnson19 @BradMunchen https://t.co/AVYfJmJZeP


Summary: Bearish BETR with a first downside target of $10; calls prior buy thesis analytical malpractice.

EVERYONE who bought $BETR as a result of the analytical malpractice of @ericjackson is now underwater. You were warned. First target is $10.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated. @cvpayne @natbrunell @WallStreetMav @WallStreetApes @wallstreetbets @dayetweets @DougKass @m3_melody @DavidDTawil @business @jimcramer

$BETR…stay tuned. You won’t believe what the Toronto guy did.


Summary: Bearish TSLA: insanely overvalued, detached from fundamentals, CEO over-promises and under-delivers.

TRUTH. $TSLA represents everything that is wrong with markets - a stock that is detached from fundamentals and insanely overvalued, narrative chasing shareholders who are oblivious to valuation and a promotional, self aggrandizing CEO who is constantly over promising and and under delivering  (to put it mildly).

@JCOviedo6 Now he’s saying he needs to build a huge semiconductor fab to meet the demand for millions of Optimus robots. Obvious nonsense. He needs to raise capital  to sustain #tesla through  the massive cash burn that will start this quarter and  go on until it runs out of cash. The


Summary: Bearish on OPEN; author expects it to crash, dismissing the CEO's tweets as trivial and vacuous.

The more I’m reading these posts the stronger my belief becomes that $OPEN will crash. Amazed by the triviality and vacuousness of the tweets by @nejatian . There, I fixed it for you. @dayetweets

@nejatian The more I’m reading these posts the stronger my belief gets in OPEN. Love the transparency and the courage that’s being displayed by Kaz.


Summary: Endorses Chanos's bearish view that TSLA's AI/robotics narrative is overstated given its minimal AI spend vs. hyperscalers.

For those of you who believe that $TSLA is not a car company, you may want to consider what @RealJimChanos has to say.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION THIS MATTER.


Summary: Implies OPEN heading to $1-2, a sharply lower price target.


a large increase in the float will have on the share price... will now exacerbate the present decline

Summary: Bearish BETR: float expansion will exacerbate the ongoing price decline.

You fail to comprehend the impact that a large increase in the float will have on the share price. One needs to focus on the float, not shares outstanding. The low float was a major factor in the share price rise a few months ago, and will now exacerbate the present decline. Do you not understand this? $BETR

@leocibean My friend there are 16 MM or so shares outstanding. He is using the wrong denominator on purpose to be inflammatory and provocative. I view investors on X like my customers. And we are a customer first company. I would never enter the frey typically on something like this. But,


Summary: Bearish TSLA: AI/FSD optionality already over-discounted; auto core worth ~$60B vs $1.7T market cap implies massive overvaluation.

@emycarlu You fail to comprehend that is
already more than discounted in the share price if $TSLA!!! The auto business is only worth maybe $60B yet the market cap is $1.7T!

@gnoble79 So what?
1) Software/AI products (FSD) already generate cash.
2) Robotaxi and autonomous mobility services are live and expanding.
3) Tesla has massive data and computational infrastructure fueling its AI roadmap.
You don’t need revenues from Optimus tomorrow to acknowledge that


Summary: Strongly bullish gold: fiat debasement continues unabated; gold rising despite overbought conditions, peace news, and risk-off — will go much higher.

VARIANT PERCEPTION ON GOLD.
Consider the following;

1) Peace in the Middle East this week
2) Yesterday was a big risk off day
3) Gold is “overbought”
4) Many are yelling “SELL”. Even a number of gold bulls are calling
for a “healthy correction”

Despite all of the above, gold was up yesterday.  $GLD #GOLD

But in the background the inexorable trend of fiat money debasement continues unabated. Don’t lose sight of the plot. Gold will go MUCH HIGHER. THIS:
@LukeGromen @TaviCosta @DonDurrett @htsfhickey @LynAldenContact

Imagine taking profits on your gold and silver just prior to a monetary collapse


Summary: Strongly bullish gold; expects much higher prices from current levels.

Amazing disconnect. Gold will go MUCH higher IMHO. https://t.co/NdxHT3cbFR


Summary: Short CRWV below IPO price, CIFR to $7, and IREN to $15.

$CRWV short, will go below IPO price https://t.co/y6QkVyD8jl

---

$CIFR short to $7 https://t.co/pQyBq9nf0V

---

$IREN short to 15 https://t.co/bwaqRcu0OU


Summary: Short TSLA on deteriorating fundamentals, loss of tax incentives, and extreme valuation; short OPEN on no path to profitability, poor unit economics, and 22x EV/sales for house flipping.

Thank you for that question. That is the best question that anyone has EVER asked me about $TSLA . I had to think hard about a good answer.

$TSLA has consistently undershot expectations in terms of fundamental performance.
I have been correct on the fundamentals, but wrong on the stock. Investors have been chasing narrative over cash flow. The $TSLA story has captured the imagination of investors. Normally stock prices follow earnings. Not in this case. Never did I imagine that a company generating $97b in revenues and $5.5 of profits (both 2025 consensus estimates) would be valued at $1.3 T!
Going forward I believe that things will get much worse for $TSLA as tax incentives go away and competition intensifies. Despite eternal promises from Musk, the non-automotive businesses are still incidental to the overall company. Also color me very skeptical on FSD. Tesla remains a car company IMHO.
Tesla is valued on 13x sales and 240x earnings. This compares with perhaps 1x sales and 9x earnings for the typical auto company. On a comparable basis $TSLA would only be worth $25 per share. I expect the stock to do very badly in the coming years. I would note that $TSLA is the same price as it was four years ago, having materially underperformed the market since late 2021.

As regards $OPEN , yes narrative and speculation may continue to drive the stock up, just as was the case for $AMC (but we all know how that ended). The share price may well continue to rise in the short run. I have no idea. That is also why I am not short.

Fundamentally $OPEN remains extremely challenged. In 14 years they have NEVER made money. Theirs is a low margin business in a fiercely competitive industry. 22x EV/sales for house flipping . No thanks. I struggle to see how they can generate profits to even remotely justify the current $9 share price - forget about $82. Hand waving, eliminating 1200 employees reflexively chanting 5x revenues, citing AI and mobilizing  “the army” is not going to sufficiently move the needle. Sorry general Eric.

I am waiting for someone to make a back of the envelope case for the unit economics of their business going forward. Until then, I just don’t see it.
I am reminded that book value per share is $.90 . Other valuation analysis  yield a similar number.

This is not about being a growth investor or a value investor or a technology investor. Peter Lynch would always tell us that In the long run and on average, stock prices follow earnings. While in the short term, earnings and stock prices may diverge, over the long term I still believe this is the case.
I could have written a lot more, but this is enough for now. Again thanks for such a great question. I may well do a space on this topic.
@BradMunchen @GordonJohnson19 @Realtor_Stocks @1TradingDee @dayetweets @DavidDTawil @rusty__tillery @m3_melody @UnicusResearch @mcgill_s @OHare888 @APompliano @DougKass

@gnoble79 @MichaelMOTTCM @MichaelKantro @davevermilion @APompliano @cvpayne @UnicusResearch @Realtor_Stocks @m3_melody @dayetweets george, what do you think you got wrong for years when analyzing tesla, and how do you know that won't be the case with Opendoor?


I struggle to see how they can generate profits to even remotely justify the current $9 share price - forget about $82


Summary: Expects TSLA to be cut in half within a year; bearish counter to bull's 4-5x call.

@MickyBigWords @wojtekszkutnik Will do. Any equally you can come back to me next year once $TSLA gets cut in half.

@gnoble79 @wojtekszkutnik Yes, today. You started this by saying the stock is overpriced. Stocks are priced for the future. It's what we all expect to happen, not what is happening.

Remember your post and come back to it in a couple of years when TSLA is 4 or 5 times higher than it is today.


Summary: Explicitly short TSLA; expects the stock to collapse.

@ironman20054 @pradracos @Tesla_Optimus @elonmusk That won't work when: (a) FCF is negtv, (b) earnings are negtv, (c) they can't sell 1 Optimus robot/FSD subscription (Musk will delay both to '27E), & (d) qtrly auto sales are falling at a 10-20% y/y clip in 2026E. The bull case is literally: everyone will continue believing


$OPEN IS TOTAL GARBAGE. The company has lost money every single year since its founding. The business model does not work and has atrocious unit economics. $OPEN is valued at 22x EV/revenues, has a lousy balance sheet and is perennially loss making.

Summary: Bearish OPEN: broken business model, atrocious unit economics, 22x EV/rev with no path to profitability; warns investors not to pretend there is a fundamental case.

$OPEN IS TOTAL GARBAGE.
The company has lost money every single year since its founding. The business model does not work and has atrocious unit economics.
Cost cutting will not move the needle. Go ahead and speculate if you wish, but don’t DARE pretend that there is a fundamental case. $OPEN is valued at 22x EV/revenues, has a lousy balance sheet and is perennially loss making.
By way of comparison, Compass ($COMP) is valued at .9x EV/revenues,  has a strong balance sheet and is profitable. Ignore the siren calls of the “ARMY” and DYOR.  I have no position and am just trying to educate investors so that they don’t get bagged in this POS as was the case with $AMC. @Seawolfcap @VD718 @m3_melody @Realtor_Stocks @iv2171 @UnicusResearch @dayetweets @APompliano @wsu311


Summary: Author argues OPEN is overvalued and tries to warn individual investors; bearish stance with fundamentals expected to prevail.

@xultulpeper @nejatian The valuation of $OPEN already assumes a lot. I am trying to help individual investors understand how overvalued the stock is.

---

@xultulpeper @nejatian In the final analysis what I say or think does not matter. Ultimately the fundamentals will prevail. Everyone can make their own decision.


Summary: Remains short Opendoor Technologies despite bullish parent thesis.

@pappygist @Anderson_2155 @ericjackson @mikealfred @nejatian Good luck. I remain short $OPEN.

@Anderson_2155 @gnoble79 Even if they cut the margins in half!

$OPEN end 2026:

High: $28.4

Low: $16.11

But sure, @ericjackson @mikealfred are “grifters”. I’d say they’re “gifters” @gnoble79. They don’t need to share their conviction with us, but we have a world class CEO now! @nejatian


Summary: Decisively bullish gold; Fed rate decisions are noise, accumulate as much gold as possible.

@GeorgeGammon Much ado about nothing. The Fed just usually follows the market. You can’t own enough gold.

Fed Rate Decision REACTION LIVE https://t.co/naM2BDo4BA


Summary: Short HOOD.


Summary: Bearish TSLA: no moat and deliveries forecast to decline for a third consecutive year in 2026.

@JerryCohen85748 I have been doing this for longer than you and have forgotten more about autos than you will ever know. $TSLA has no moat and deliveries will decline for the third consecutive year in 2026.

@gnoble79 This is why it was alienated by the left on a global level this is why they shorted the stock to try to inflict as much pain on Elon Musk and his supporters. So George bring me something new I've done this for almost four decades.


Summary: Bearish TSLA: expects earnings to fall in 2026, possible net loss on third year of unit sales decline; stock at 270x earnings is grossly overvalued.

Consensus $TSLA EPS estimate is $1.65 for 2025.
I expect earnings to fall again in 2026. $TSLA may even generate a loss as unit sales decline for a third consecutive year.
At $456, $TSLA is valued at 270x earnings and 14x revenues…what could possibly go wrong? @GordonJohnson19 @BradMunchen @MichaelMOTTCM


Summary: Bullish precious metals complex including GDX and GDXJ; rally far from over.

John Roque has been relentlessly bullish on the previous metals complex. Is the rally over? Not even close. “It ain’t over until ‘til it’s over.” @daChartLife @Seawolfcap @gave_vincent @VD718 @davevermilion @DonDurrett @htsfhickey https://t.co/xZqhrT1AV5

---

https://t.co/gM0ot4OyGR

---

Up and to the right. $GDX $GDXJ https://t.co/f7ES4jmDR7


Is the rally over? Not even close. "It ain't over until 'til it's over."

GLTR tracks broad precious metals basket


Summary: Expects BETR to continue falling from current levels.

You have some nerve. I owe you nothing, You can do your own research. The info is all there in the public domain.

BETR is down 37%  and will keep falling IMHO. No need for me to say more. I am very happy with the way things are playing out. And @danielsethlewis is an arrogant blowhard who does not deserve a response. I will just let the stock price do the talking for me,

@gnoble79 @danielsethlewis Make the argument.  I read Daniel’s responses and none of them were arrogant.  You never articulated a well thought out response George.  This is your chance.


Summary: Long gold as true safe haven vs geopolitical/dollar risk; short Bitcoin as a correlated speculative asset, not digital gold.

Gold since April 2025: +60%
Bitcoin since April 2025: -30%

Gold since its January high: still near all-time highs.
Bitcoin since its October high: -48%.

5 consecutive red months for Bitcoin. A 0.55 correlation with the S&P 500 as of March 1st.

And people still call it "digital gold."

Let me explain why that framing will cost you money:

When the Middle East escalated, gold surged above $5,300. Bitcoin dropped.

When equities sold off, gold held. Bitcoin sold with them.

When uncertainty spiked, gold hit all-time highs. Bitcoin bled.

This isn't an accident. It's the nature of WHAT these assets actually are.

Gold is an asset that isn't somebody else's liability. It's not correlated with the general level of risk assets. It doesn't shift identities depending on what the market needs it to be that week.

Bitcoin does.

Sometimes it's digital gold. Sometimes it's correlated to NASDAQ. Sometimes it follows the dollar. Sometimes it follows liquidity. It depends on whatever narrative is convenient at the time.

And narrative always follows price. That's the way it works.

When Bitcoin was ripping to $126,000 in October, everyone called it a store of value.

Now that it's trading at $66,000 with 5 red months, NOBODY talks about the digital gold thesis anymore.

Gold doesn't have that problem.

Central banks bought 863 tonnes of gold in 2025. Accumulating at the fastest pace in decades. China is buying like crazy for months.

Nobody's buying Bitcoin for their sovereign reserves. Nobody's rewriting the gold thesis every quarter.

I said this on back in April last year when Bitcoin was reclaiming $90,000 and everyone wanted me to be bullish on crypto:

"If NASDAQ takes a header, if risk assets take another leg down, you want to bet Bitcoin goes up or down? I'd vote down."

NASDAQ took a header. Risk assets took a leg down. Bitcoin went down. Gold went up.

It's not complicated.

Gold is insurance against irresponsible policies from central bankers and government officials. It protects you against the falling dollar.

It's been doing this for 5,000 years.

Bitcoin is a speculative instrument that acts like protection only when everything else is going up too.

And in the environment we're heading into (geopolitical risk at generational highs, the dollar under pressure, central banks still buying, the Fed boxed in on rates) you want the real thing.

Not the imitation.

GOLD SURVIVED EMPIRES

BITCOIN SURVIVED TWITTER

---

If you want more early ideas and insights I DON'T share on X...

Sign up for The Noble Update and become a founding member to get a FREE TICKET to the March 11 Best Stock Idea Summit.

Join thousands of investors navigating the market:

https://t.co/W5q1RR6zC3 https://t.co/fW9Py3HvOn


Bitcoin is a speculative instrument that acts like protection only when everything else is going up too.


Summary: Strongly bearish TSLA; stock to collapse as price catches down to imploding fundamentals, no narrative can save it.

My good friend @GordonJohnson19
totally nails it with this brilliant thread.

Car crash in progress.

$TSLA is about to completely collapse as the stock catches down to the imploding fundamentals.

No narrative will save the stock this time.

The destruction in market cap will be epic.

BRING IT. THIS WILL BE EPIC.

🧵 THREAD: What truly sucks about being a $TSLA skeptic/bear is that you can spend literally hundreds of hrs building detailed delivery models, triangulating regional registration data, parsing supplier checks, & modeling qtrly earnings — get the fundamental call exactly right —


Summary: Gold correction over; structural bull intact — core long gold/silver, bearish USD/DXY on de-dollarization; gold not Bitcoin as reserve asset play.

THE GOLD CORRECTION IS OVER

If you sold during the January crash, you just watched a 75% recovery without you.

A few weeks ago, gold plunged 9% in a single day. The worst since 2013.

Silver crashed 31%. The worst since the Hunt Brothers collapse in 1980.

The trigger? Kevin Warsh's nomination as Fed Chair.

Markets interpreted it as hawkish. The leveraged longs panicked. Margin calls cascaded. $15 trillion in market cap evaporated in 48 hours.

Gold went from $5,595 to $4,400 in 3 days.

And then something remarkable happened:

US-listed gold ETFs posted INFLOWS on January 30. The same day gold crashed 9%. Not a single day of net selling from institutional investors.

By February 4, gold was back above $5,000.

Today it's trading at $5,168. Up 75% year-over-year.

The correction wasn't fundamental. It was mechanical.

Goldman Sachs explained it perfectly: "massive forced rebalancing in levered ETFs" with $3.5 billion forced selling in SLV and $650 million in GLD.

Translation: algorithms liquidating, not investors capitulating.

The structural drivers never changed.

Central banks bought 863 tonnes of gold in 2025. They're on pace for 950 tonnes in 2026.

China has added gold for 15 consecutive months. Total holdings now exceed 2,300 tonnes.

Global central banks net sold $48 billion in dollar reserves in January alone. The dollar's share of reserves just hit 58.2%, a new low since 1995.

For the first time since 1996, gold now represents a LARGER share of global central bank reserves than US Treasuries.

Read that again.

The world's central banks trust a shiny metal more than American IOUs.

The ETF flows tell the same story:

January 2026 saw $19 billion flow into gold ETFs. The largest monthly inflow on record.

Global gold ETF assets hit $669 billion. Holdings reached 4,025 tonnes, an all-time high.

India's gold ETF inflows exceeded equity fund inflows for the first time in January. Indian investors put $2.65 billion into gold ETFs in a single month.

Asia drove 51% of global gold demand. Chinese and Indian retail investors are buying every dip.

And the dollar is telling you the same thing too:

The DXY has dropped 11% over the past 12 months. The largest decline since 2020.

BRICS nations just announced plans to increase internal trade settled in local currencies from 35% to 50%.

Federal debt exceeds $37 trillion. That's over 130% of GDP.

De-dollarization isn't just a theory anymore.

The bank targets for gold keep rising.

JPMorgan: $6,300 by Q4 2026.

Deutsche Bank: $6,000 "achievable this year."

Goldman Sachs: $5,400.

UBS: $6,200 by mid-year.

Even the bears admit $4,500 is the new floor.

Technical support held PERFECTLY.

The 50 EMA at $4,550 caught the selloff exactly where it should have. The late-2025 highs at $4,550 became support.

Classic Fibonacci retracement. Textbook correction.

Gold recovered 97% of its losses in 3 weeks.

This is what happens in structural bull markets.

1970s gold: rallied 2,300% with multiple 30%+ corrections along the way.

2000s gold: rallied 650% with six corrections exceeding 15%.

2020s gold: up over 150% from 2020 lows. This was the first major correction.

Bull markets don't die on corrections. They die on exhaustion.

And there's NO exhaustion here.

ETF holdings are still below pandemic peaks. Central bank buying is accelerating. Institutional allocations remain under 1% versus the 5-10% historical norm.

My positioning remains unchanged:

Gold and silver remain core holdings.

The correction created a buying opportunity. The smart money used it.

$5,000 is the new $2,000 in a post-pandemic regime.

The dollar's 80-year reign as the world's reserve currency is facing its first serious challenge. Central banks are responding by accumulating the only asset that doesn't require trust in a government.

That asset is gold.

And not Bitcoin.

---

The Noble Update PREMIUM Substack is LIVE, including:

- Exclusive access to selected research reports that institutions pay $25k+ for
- Best stock picks multiple times per month
- FREE access to our Best Stock IDEAS SUMMIT if you sign up for the founding member plan

And so much more!

Join here:
https://t.co/84R6JwvxlM


Gold and silver remain core holdings. The correction created a buying opportunity.


Summary: Implicitly bullish SLV: endorses the extreme short-sales-volume signal as a contrarian buy cue.

SLV ETF ALERT

SLV Short Sales Volume just went to heaven. There is no other way to describe the volume of short selling activity on January 30, 2026 https://t.co/XrppsX3zfW


Summary: Bullish on energy stocks for decent returns going forward despite being out of fashion.

@JohnSpelman17 @DivesTech @MichaelMOTTCM @WallStreetApes @wallstreetbets @MacrostrategyP I repeatedly highlighted precious metals last year. I would not chase them presently as I think you will get a better entry point.
While presently out of fashion, I expect energy stocks will provide decent returns.

@gnoble79 @DivesTech @MichaelMOTTCM @WallStreetApes @wallstreetbets @MacrostrategyP As always, where do you want to invest going forward


Summary: Strong structural bull case for silver: China export controls, COMEX inventory drain, 5-year supply deficit, backwardation, and inelastic industrial demand point to major repricing above $150.

For decades, the global silver market operated on a simple assumption:

Nobody would actually demand delivery of the metal they owned on paper.

That assumption just collapsed.

In the first seven days of January, 33.45 million ounces of silver were physically withdrawn from COMEX for delivery.

That's 26% of COMEX's registered inventory gone in a single week.

Traders who had March futures contracts were paying premiums to ROLL BACKWARDS to January, demanding immediate delivery weeks early.

They weren't willing to wait. They wanted metal in hand.

Here's the China problem you have to understand if you're buying silver:

On January 1, 2026, Beijing implemented export controls that fundamentally changed global silver supply.

This wasn't a minor tweak. They reclassified silver as a strategic material, putting it in the same category as rare earths.

To export silver from China now, companies need government licenses. Only 44 firms qualified.

They must have annual refining capacity of 80+ tonnes and credit lines exceeding $30 million.

Why does this matter? China controls 60-70% of global refined silver exports.

The world's dominant refining hub just effectively ring-fenced its supply for domestic use.

The physical-paper divergence:

Here's where it gets uncomfortable...

In Shanghai, physical silver trades at 12-13% premiums over Western paper prices.

In Dubai, premiums hit 40%.

In Japan, secondary market premiums reached 60%.

Meanwhile, the paper-to-physical ratio on COMEX sits at 356:1.

For every one ounce of deliverable silver, there are 356 ounces of paper claims.

The system worked because nobody called the bluff. But now they're calling it.

The supply deficit reality:

The silver market has been in structural deficit for five consecutive years.

Cumulative shortfalls from 2021-2025 total roughly 820 million ounces. Nearly an entire year of global mine production.

Mine production peaked in 2016. Roughly 71% of mined silver comes as a byproduct from gold, copper, lead, and zinc mines.

So even if silver prices double, miners can't easily ramp production. Their operations are driven by base-metal economics, not silver prices.

The industrial demand trap:

Unlike gold, silver isn't primarily a monetary metal. Industrial demand now represents 59% of total consumption.

Solar panels. EVs. AI data centers. Semiconductors.

This demand is price-inelastic.

Factories don't stop production because silver got expensive... They pay whatever it takes to keep lines running.

So what does this mean?

Silver is now in backwardation. Spot prices above futures prices.

That's rare. And it's significant.

Backwardation tells you buyers want metal NOW, not paper promises for later.

The last time silver showed this kind of sustained backwardation was before the 2011 spike to $49.

The gold-silver ratio has compressed from over 100:1 in recent years to around 50:1 now.

Historically, that ratio has traded as low as 15-20:1 in extreme moves.

If gold holds and the ratio compresses further, silver will go beyond $150.

It's math.

My take:

Silver is no longer just an industrial metal with monetary characteristics.

It's becoming a triple-identity asset: industrial input, monetary metal, and strategic material.

When China weaponizes export controls, when Western inventories drain, when paper claims vastly exceed physical supply, and when industrial demand is non-negotiable, you get exactly what we're seeing...

A structural repricing.

Pullbacks will be sharp. The CME has already raised margin requirements.

But the underlying dynamics aren't speculation. They're geology, geopolitics, and supply-demand math.

Physical silver in your possession has no counterparty risk.

Paper claims on silver that may or may not exist? That's a different bet entirely.

If you don't hold it, you don't own it.

---

Sign up for my substack as I will be posting higher value added content there.

Focus is on actionable ideas, both long and short. No endless talk about the Fed and the economy.

Making money will be the objective.

Join below:

https://t.co/W5q1RR6zC3


Oracle's $553 billion backlog is more than half OpenAI... If OpenAI cannot fund the contracts it has signed, every one of those numbers gets re-cut

Summary: Bearish AI infrastructure complex: OpenAI CFO's financing concerns threaten $1.4T in contracts, putting ORCL, NVDA, AMD, CRWV, AVGO, MRVL and S&P500 AI valuations at risk.

OpenAI's OWN CFO just admitted they cannot pay their bills.

Let me walk you through what just leaked, because the implications are bigger than you'd expect:

Sarah Friar, the Chief Financial Officer of OpenAI, has been warning OpenAI's leadership that the company may NOT be able to pay for the computing contracts it has already signed if revenue does not start growing a lot faster than it currently is.

Read that sentence again, because it is the single most important thing you'll read about AI infrastructure this year.

The person whose actual JOB is signing the checks is telling the people around her that the checks may not clear.

Sam Altman and Friar issued a joint statement calling the report "ridiculous" and insisting they're aligned on buying as much compute as possible. Of course they did.

Sarah Friar is steering this company into an IPO with a reported $852 billion valuation. The last thing they need 6 months before printing the S-1 is the CFO publicly questioning whether the entire infrastructure thesis is solvent.

But the denial doesn't change what WAS reported. And the reported facts are devastating:

OpenAI missed its internal target of 1 billion weekly active ChatGPT users by the end of 2025.

ChatGPT's share of generative AI web traffic collapsed from 86.7% a year ago to 64.5% in January. In the same window, Google's Gemini rose from 5.7% to 21.5%.

They missed MULTIPLE monthly revenue targets earlier this year.

They are losing ground to Anthropic in coding and to enterprise customers more broadly. Subscribers are leaving.

Now hold that picture in your head and look at what they have committed to spend:

Roughly $1.4 TRILLION in data center, GPU, and memory contracts. $300 billion to Oracle. $250 billion to Microsoft. $38 billion to Amazon. $90 billion to AMD. Tens of billions more to Broadcom, CoreWeave, and Nvidia.

And Deutsche Bank estimates $143 billion in cumulative negative free cash flow between now and 2029.

The CFO is not "worried" because she is conservative by nature. She is worried because she is doing the math.

Here's the part the market hasn't yet processed:

OpenAI is the marginal buyer for the ENTIRE AI infrastructure complex.

- Oracle's $553 billion backlog is more than half OpenAI.
- Nvidia's 2027 revenue assumptions lean heavily on OpenAI deployments.
- AMD's "$90 billion in cumulative hardware revenue" claim from its OpenAI deal IS the OpenAI deal.
- CoreWeave is essentially a leveraged bet on OpenAI's ability to pay.
- Broadcom's custom silicon roadmap was built around OpenAI demand.

If OpenAI cannot fund the contracts it has signed, every one of those numbers gets re-cut. Every Mag 7 capex slide gets re-cut. Every analyst model that uses "AI infrastructure demand" as a justification for trading the S&P 500 at 26x forward earnings gets re-cut.

This is exactly what I've been calling the counterparty risk problem.

You can't have a $1.4 trillion supply chain whose ultimate customer expects to LOSE $143 billion before it generates a dollar of free cash flow, and then pretend the suppliers carry no risk.

Pre-market this morning told you the market is starting to figure it out:

Rambus down. Marvell down. Oracle indicated down 4.5%. Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom under pressure.

The chip complex understands that "OpenAI's CFO is worried" is not noise. It is the first crack in the financing structure that the entire AI trade rests on.

This is just like the junk bonds in 1989, Telecom in 2000, or Subprime CDOs in 2007. The pattern is always the same:

Outside skeptics raise the alarm and get ignored. Then someone inside the building tells the truth and the building empties. Sarah Friar just told the truth.

The Mag 7 are literally priced for OpenAI delivering what its OWN CFO says it may not be able to pay for.

Below is a video from February of last year - everything is aging TERRIBLY...

---

There's so much value out there, but I don't have the TIME to consume all of it.

And I know I'm not the only one.

So we built something to fix it.

It pulls the best podcasts each week across whatever topics you follow, strips out the noise, and gives you the actual ideas, arguments, and takeaways in a few minutes of reading.

No fluff. No filler. Just straight to the point.

It's free right now. I'm sharing it because I genuinely think it's useful - and I want feedback from people who care about their time as much as I do.

Join today and save 40h+ per month:

https://t.co/RLsDhCcSI9


Nvidia's 2027 revenue assumptions lean heavily on OpenAI deployments... every one of those numbers gets re-cut


AMD's "$90 billion in cumulative hardware revenue" claim from its OpenAI deal IS the OpenAI deal... every one of those numbers gets re-cut


CoreWeave is essentially a leveraged bet on OpenAI's ability to pay


Broadcom's custom silicon roadmap was built around OpenAI demand... every one of those numbers gets re-cut


Summary: Repositioning: trim US large caps, add gold and silver amid institutional unpredictability from US-Europe tariff credibility war.

THE GREENLAND TARIFF THREAT ISN'T ABOUT GREENLAND

It's about what happens 10 months before midterms when domestic policy hits a wall.

And Europe just turned it into a credibility war.

Starting February 1, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland face 10% tariffs.

Rising to 25% by June unless they agree to sell Greenland.

But here's what changed overnight:

The EU is activating its "trade bazooka."

$108 billion in counter-tariffs. Plus restrictions on US services, procurement access, regulatory approvals, and IP protections.

This hits Big Tech, financial services, and the digital economy where US dominance actually lives.

The Greenland mineral story is complete nonsense:

Greenland holds 1.5 million tonnes of rare earth reserves.

The US already has 1.9 million tonnes.

We have MORE.

Even if we controlled Greenland's deposits, we'd still send ore to China - which controls 90% of global refining.

Zero rare earth mines operate there. Infrastructure would cost $100-180 billion over 10-15 years.

So what's this actually about?

Midterms are 10 months away.

When domestic policy gets boxed in by Congress, foreign policy becomes the only arena where executives can still move unilaterally.

You can sequence. You can initiate. You can force others to react.

Congress can't vote down a Greenland push. Courts can't enjoin tariff threats in real-time.

The executive branch acts first. Everyone else responds later.

Treasury Secretary Bessent said it yesterday: "The national emergency is avoiding the national emergency."

That's not trade logic. That's maintaining initiative when domestic wins become impossible.

But here's what changed:

Europe isn't negotiating. They're retaliating.

This isn't Liberation Day 2.0 where everyone eventually cuts deals.

Denmark can't sell Greenland. 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the US.

There's no negotiation path. So this becomes a credibility contest.

And once tariffs become about credibility instead of economics, you can't model it.

Smoot-Hawley wasn't about optimal tariff rates. It was retaliation spiraling into doom loop.

World trade fell 66% from 1929-1934 not because tariffs made economic sense, but because backing down carried political cost.

Europe just signaled they're not backing down.

The ACI wasn't designed for US allies. It was designed for China-level coercion.

Using it means Europe views this as existential NOT transactional.

€1.68 trillion in bilateral trade is now hostage to whether Denmark sells territory it doesn't want to sell.

And the Supreme Court still hasn't ruled on whether Trump can use IEEPA for tariffs.

Two opportunities to rule came and went last week with no decision.

If the Court strikes down IEEPA authority, Trump has backup options - but they're more limited in scope and duration.

That creates maximum uncertainty right as Europe is preparing maximum retaliation.

Meanwhile, gold hit $4,600 and silver hit $90.

Not because of Greenland minerals. Because markets are pricing institutional unpredictability.

Smart money is repositioning:

Trimming US large caps. Adding gold and silver. Building positions that don't require transatlantic trade stability.

Again: NOT because Greenland matters...

But because when foreign policy becomes a domestic political release valve, and trade partners respond with credibility wars instead of negotiations, you're in uncharted territory.

Markets price economics. They don't price political necessity colliding with geopolitical retaliation.

And that's exactly where we are.

What's your take?

---

Sign up for my substack as I will be posting higher value added content there.

Focus is on actionable ideas, both long and short. No endless talk about the Fed and the economy.
Making money will be the objective.

Join below:

https://t.co/W5q1RR6zC3


Summary: Bullish copper: catastrophic supply disruptions, structural deficits, and inelastic AI/data-center demand make $13,000 the floor, not the top.

Copper surged 43% in 2025 - its best year since 2009.

It already broke $13,000 per ton in early January 2026.

And the fundamentals suggest this is just the beginning...

The supply situation is catastrophic.

In September 2025, a mudslide at Indonesia's Grasberg mine - the world's second-largest copper producer - killed seven workers and buried critical infrastructure under 800,000 tons of wet debris.

Goldman Sachs estimates 525,000 metric tons of lost supply. That's roughly 2.6% of global annual production wiped out.

Full operations won't return until 2027.

But Grasberg wasn't alone:

Chile's El Teniente - a tunnel collapse in July killed six workers. Production guidance slashed.

DRC's Kamoa-Kakula - seismic flooding in May forced shutdown. Stockpiles depleted by Q1 2026.

Chile's Quebrada Blanca - guidance cut by 20% due to tailings dam issues.

Before Grasberg even happened, analysts estimated 497,000 tons already lost to disruptions through August 2025.

J.P. Morgan now forecasts a 330,000-ton refined copper shortage in 2026.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence raised its deficit projection from 72,000 tons to 400,000 tons.

These aren't marginal misses. These are structural deficits.

Now here's where it gets interesting:

Trump's 50% Section 232 tariff on copper products created a two-tier global market.

COMEX inventories in the US have surged past 500,000 short tons - a seven-year high - as traders front-ran potential tariffs on refined copper.

Meanwhile, LME inventories in London have plummeted 80% this year alone.

Available stockpiles now cover less than a single day of global demand.

The LME went into deep backwardation - spot prices trading $345 premium over 3 month futures. That's the widest spread since the 2021 squeeze.

The US is hoarding copper while the rest of the world goes short.

 This is supply chain fragmentation in real-time.

And NOT normal market dynamics.

But here's what truly changes the game:

Data centers are now consuming copper at unprecedented rates.

S&P Global's new study shows copper demand will rise 50%+ by 2040 - from 28 million to 42 million metric tons.

AI data centers use 27-33 tons of copper per megawatt of installed capacity.

A single 100-megawatt hyperscale facility consumes thousands of tons before you even account for grid connections.

The IEA projects data center electricity demand to more than double by 2030.

This demand is price-inelastic. Microsoft isn't canceling data centers because copper hit $13,000.

Here's the math problem nobody's solving:

Global copper production peaks in 2030 at 33 million metric tons.

By 2040, demand hits 42 million.

That's a 10 million ton supply shortfall.

Building a new copper mine now takes 12-18 years from discovery to production. Up from 6 years in 2000.

Even at $13,000 per ton, the breakeven for next-generation copper mines exceeds current prices.

J.P. Morgan targets $12,500 by Q2 2026. UBS says $13,000 by year-end.

Goldman sees $15,000 by 2035.

The AI buildout isn't stopping.

The grid expansion isn't stopping.

The mine disruptions aren't stopping.

And new supply takes 15 years to develop.

Copper at $13,000 isn't the top.

It's the market finally pricing in physical reality.

---

Sign up for my substack as I will be posting higher value added content there.

Focus is on actionable ideas, both long and short. No endless talk about the Fed and the economy.
Making money will be the objective.

Join below:

https://t.co/W5q1RR6zC3


$OPEN remains an outstanding short. I am short from $7.50. Fair value is $1.50.

Summary: Short OPEN from $7.50 with fair value target of $1.50; 14x revenues and 5x book seen as overvalued.

@VolaarRide @Stocktwits @open_army_japan @iamjohnbaiano @CapitanSteveo @APompliano @ericjackson @nejatian @philrosenn @rabois @natbrunell @andrewrsorkin $OPEN is  still on 14x revenues and 5x book. Fair value is $1.50.
I am short from $7.50
$OPEN remains an outstanding short.

@gnoble79 @Stocktwits @open_army_japan @iamjohnbaiano @CapitanSteveo @APompliano @ericjackson @nejatian @philrosenn @rabois @natbrunell @andrewrsorkin You’re valuing $OPEN like it’s a static flipper.
Institutions are pricing operating leverage ,financing plus  platform scale.
Different model.
Different math.


Do you know that $OPEN expects to lose money again in 2026? Did you know that any turnaround will take years but that the stock is up 13x from the lows of last summer? Do you know that $OPEN is presently valued at 6x book value? Do you know that $OPEN is valued at 20x EV/sales?

Summary: Bearish OPEN: asset-heavy low-margin house flipper losing money every year since 2014, cumulative $4B losses, expects more losses in 2026, yet trading at 20x EV/sales and 6x book — deeply overvalued.

Opendoor Army,

It was only a few months ago that the momentum was powerful and the FOMO was palpable.

It was a glorious time. “Number go up” they said. $82 was inevitable and then onward to $500. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, your general has deserted you.

He deceived you.
He committed analytical malpractice.
He sold you a bill of goods.
Quite candidly, he bagged you.

Now you are on your own.
Do you really know what you own?

Do you own $OPEN because of careful study or FOMO?

Do you know that that $OPEN remains an asset heavy, low margin, house flipper?

Do you know that house flipping is a fiercely competitive industry where profits are scarce because of information asymmetry?

Do you know that $OPEN has lost money every single year since its founding in 2014?
EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Do you know that cumulative losses to date are approaching $4B?

Do you know that cofounders
@rabois and @ericwu01 (who have just returned) were responsible for 90% of those losses?

Do you know that @nejatian ,
while undoubtedly a smart guy,
knows little about real estate.

Do you know that most tech bro
have struggled or failed in real estate
as tech is vastly different from tech?

Do you know that $OPEN trailing 12 month revenues (or what they call gross profits) are only $378mm but that the enterprise value is $7.5B?

Do you know that $OPEN expects to lose money again in 2026?

Did you know that any turnaround will take years but that the stock is up 13x from the lows of last summer?

Do you know that $OPEN is presently valued at 6x book value? (1.5x book would be generous if profitable)

Do you know that $OPEN is valued at 20x EV/sales?

Do you know that the leading real estate broker $COMP is valued at .9x
EV/sales?

Do you know that very few fundamentally oriented institutions or hedge funds own $OPEN ?
The only large holders are quant shops and trading firms.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

PS - Please sign up for my substack as I will be posting higher value added content there.

The focus will be on actionable ideas, both long and short. No endless talk about the Fed and the economy. Making money will be the objective.

I will be phasing out my posts on X.

https://t.co/0z4XWvrTTT…

When you strip out the story and look at the numbers, Opendoor’s valuation raises hard questions. @gnoble79 walks through the math.

#Opendoor #Valuation #Investing #StockMarket https://t.co/msViSXf7zU


Bitcoin failed its most important test. Gold is telling the truth. Bitcoin is telling a story.

Summary: Bearish BTC (failed safe-haven test, trades like leveraged tech); bullish gold ($5,020, up 60%, held by central banks).

Jim Cramer is a FRAUD.

This guy really just went on CNBC and said the government is buying Bitcoin at $60,000.

Let me tell you why his narrative (and Bitcoin) is COMPLETE NONSENSE:

Friday, Bitcoin crashes to $60,000. Down 52% from its October high. Over $1.2 trillion in value evaporated. Panic everywhere.

And right on cue, Cramer goes on CNBC and says: "I heard at $60,000 the President is gonna fill the Bitcoin Reserve. You better cover."

No source. No evidence. No documentation. Just "I heard."

This is the same Jim Cramer who told you Bear Stearns was "FINE" five days before it lost 90% of its value.

The same Jim Cramer who called Silicon Valley Bank "compelling" weeks before it became the second-largest bank failure in American history.

The same Jim Cramer whose stock picks were so consistently wrong that Wall Street created an actual ETF to bet against him. Filed with the SEC and everything.

A Wharton study found his portfolio returned 4% annually from 2000 to 2017. The S&P returned 7%. You'd have done better flipping coins.

Now let's look at the facts he conveniently left out:

Treasury Secretary Bessent testified on February 5th that the federal government has NO legal authority to buy Bitcoin with public funds. None.

The March 2025 executive order says the reserve can ONLY hold Bitcoin from criminal seizures. No taxpayer purchases authorized.

Blockchain firm Arkham confirms government wallets haven't moved in over a month. 328,000 BTC sitting there. Unchanged.

Zero on-chain evidence. Zero official confirmation. Zero legal authority.

So why does a TV personality with the worst track record in financial media go on national television and tell you to "cover" at the exact moment of maximum panic?

When someone with a megaphone tells you to buy during a crash with no evidence, you don't ask IF there's an agenda. You ask WHOSE.

Meanwhile, here's what's actually happening in the real world:

Bitcoin is down 52% from its high. Gold just hit $5,020 an ounce - up 60% over the same period.

China's central bank has bought gold for 15 consecutive months. Saylor's Strategy is sitting on $6.5 billion in unrealized losses.

Bitcoin was supposed to be "digital gold." The ultimate safe haven.

Instead it's trading like a leveraged tech stock in a risk-off environment. Because that's what it always was.

The "digital gold" narrative didn't survive contact with actual crisis.

Real gold did.

Cramer is giving you a story to keep you from asking why Bitcoin failed its most important test.

Peter Lynch taught me something I've never forgotten:

When someone tells you to buy during a panic, ask what they own. If they can't show you receipts, they're showing you the exit.

Gold is telling the truth. Bitcoin is telling a story.

I know which one I'm holding.

---

Sign up for my substack as I will be posting higher value added content there.

Focus is on actionable ideas, both long and short. No endless talk about the Fed and the economy.
Making money will be the objective.

Join below:

https://t.co/W5q1RR6zC3


Gold just hit $5,020 an ounce - up 60% over the same period. I know which one I'm holding.

Gold commodity; GLD is standard ETF proxy


$54 if you're generous. $25 if you're not. The stock is $387. The difference is literally $1.2 TRILLION. That is what the market is currently paying for Elon Musk's promises.

Summary: Detailed sum-of-parts valuation puts TSLA fair value at $54 (generous) to $25; stock at $387 implies $1.2T in unwarranted premium — strongly bearish.

I just sat down with @GordonJohnson19 and we did something that apparently nobody on Wall Street wants to do anymore:

We valued Tesla like an actual BUSINESS.

Not a narrative or a promise about what might happen in 2030. We took each of Tesla's 4 business segments, assigned them the valuation of the best comparable company in each category, and added it all up.

I want to see how the Tesla cult argues against what we found out...

Segment one: Optimus robots.

Tesla's humanoid robots are teleoperated. There are videos of them falling over at exhibitions. They can barely serve popcorn.

But let's be generous.

Let's give Tesla the valuation of Figure AI - a company that actually has working AI robots you can buy today. Figure AI is valued at $39 billion. On Tesla's 3.75 billion shares outstanding, that's $10 a share.

Segment two: FSD and robotaxis.

Waymo has completed over 127 million fully autonomous miles without a driver behind the wheel. They did 15 million paid rides in 2025 alone. They operate commercially across 6 US cities.

Tesla has done effectively ZERO reported fully autonomous miles at scale.

But let's give Tesla Waymo's valuation of $100 billion anyway. That's $27 a share.

So far we're at $37 for the two businesses the bulls say justify the entire market cap.

Segment three: The auto business.

Ford sold 4.5 million cars in 2025 and grew sales. Tesla sold 1.6 million and it was the second consecutive year of declining deliveries.

But let's give Tesla Ford's market cap of $51 billion. That's $13 a share.

Segment four: Energy.

LG Electronics did $14.5 billion in gross profit last year. Tesla's energy business did $3.8 billion.

But let's give Tesla LG's market cap of $14 billion. That's $4 a share.

Add it all up:

$10 + $27 + $13 + $4 = $54 a share

That's being GENEROUS. That's assuming Tesla is best in class in every single segment.

Better robots than the company with actual working robots. As good at autonomy as the company with 127 million autonomous miles. Worth as much as a car company that sells 3x more vehicles.

$54.

The stock is $387.

The difference is literally $1.2 TRILLION.

That is what the market is currently paying for Elon Musk's promises. Promises that he literally just pushed out again on the earnings call two days ago.

And when the stock price finally breaks - the lawsuits are going to cascade.

Right now, the stock price is keeping those lawsuits at bay. People don't sue when they're making money.

But when the stock drops to $100, $80, $60 - those same owners are going to want a lot more than their FSD money back.

The positive reflexivity that carried this stock runs in reverse. Cash flow goes negative. Market share keeps declining. The SpaceX IPO pulls attention and capital away. Momentum investors move on. And then the math that Gordon and I just walked through becomes the ONLY thing left.

$54 if you're generous. $25 if you're not.

Last night was the biggest disaster in the history of Tesla.

Let me walk you through what actually happened on that earnings call, because the headlines are doing you a disservice:

Elon Musk got on the call and admitted (his words) that Hardware 3 "simply does not have the https://t.co/f0V8Za3yri


Summary: Bearish TSLA: delivery estimate of 1.5mm vs parent's 2.1mm; assumptions deemed wildly unrealistic.

@scheiwiller You are expecting 2.1mm deliveries this year. I believe $TSLA will be lucky to achieve 1.5mm.
You are assumptions are wildly unrealistic in my opinion.

@gnoble79 Click on my profile, see even more...

For example Tesla valuation models that are based on the company itself, it's performance & potential!

I'm not saying my model is perfect or even good, but it's for sure better than making inadequate comparisons to other/old companies lol. https://t.co/jaPgm2jj9Q