Favorite team:LSU 
Location:Vero Beach, FL
Biography:Graduated from LSU in '86
Interests:LSU Football, Basketball, and Baseball
Occupation:Technical Consultant
Number of Posts:27233
Registered on:1/30/2005
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

I think investors are also looking at a likely negative free cash flow, being skeptical on their stated CAPEX.

So earnings before ITDA is great but the fear around companies investing in this industry is real.


Generally speaking, the analysis that I've read that lean bearish always mention execution as a sticking point. Can they execute?

At some point, they have to believe it, because this stock was selling at $65/share back when the YE ARR was supposed to be $900M - $1.1B. Now it is $7 - $9B, and the stock is only $25 more per share. They will have to see that NBIS is meeting and exceeding their projections.
quote:

As an American manufacturer, as I expand, I look at every way possible to add machines and compute power without adding people. People are a headache, and technology allows me to bypass that headache.


I don't have any problem with that, but I don't want you to have the option of hiring an illegal alien at $12 an hour for the employees you do hire. I want you to hire people who are here legally and pay them the market wage and keep costs down with automation, computers, and AI.

The illegal immigrant population is dwindling, the baby boomers are retiring, and more manufacturing jobs are coming to the US. We will need more automation.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/12/26 at 11:45 am to
quote:

Disagree. The majority like the sound of made in America, but want someone else to pay for it. The majority of consumers are price driven. When they have a choice of similar quality items, they choose the lower cost one.


Most people don't think about things like child labor, unemployed American workers, or even where their medicine, electronics, or furniture comes from. I think if they did, they would prefer to buy American. That is just my opinion. I think that people tend to buy the cheap stuff when they don't think about it. Not everyone, but most.

That's why I like tariffs. Maybe the cost of widgets will go up a bit, but maybe that also makes the Made In America product the most affordable.

Back when we made more products in America, people cared about it. Nowadays, they don't, because most things are made overseas, now, and many types of products don't have an American option. We need to change that, to the extent that we can. I just don't think being a consumer driven economy without making anything is sustainable.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/12/26 at 11:16 am to
Trump went after the tariffs aggressively. He deported people aggressively - people don't even talk about the self deportations that occurred because of his policies. He went after lowering drug costs aggressively. He aggressively pursued lower gas prices. In doing so, he created a lot of churn. His poll numbers are lower.

He understands we have another 8 months before people have to make up their minds on who to vote for. All of his policies are causing short term churn and should give a long term gain.

By the time the election comes:

1.) Our deficit should be down because of tariffs and increased tax revenue due to more manufacturing in the US
2.) Wages should be up because of more manufacturing jobs and less cheap, illegal labor
3.) Inflation will be a mixed bag because energy costs will be down, tariffs up, wages up, drug costs down

At any rate, Trump is envisioning an economy that is better for America, especially if we can make a serious dent in the deficit (which is down 21% year over year).

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/12/26 at 10:39 am to
quote:

Prices have went up. This comes just after the hit American consumers took from COVID inflation. Consumers are tired of it. They want it to stop.


Nobody expects prices to go DOWN. Just like they don't expect to earn the same amount of money next year as they earn this year. What people want is for the rate of inflation to go down. That is happening. They also want wages to go up more than inflation does. That is also happening. It did not under the Biden administration.

Inflation is lower. You can take some things, like gas, and see that they are lower than they were a year ago. Other things may be much higher, like beef. Overall, things are slightly higher, as to be expected. Nobody wants negative inflation.

quote:

Who is benefitting the Trump system of personally being involved in every deal and doing special carve outs? I don't need to tell you it will be those in government. Use your head here.


There are always carveouts. Nothing new here. What Trump is trying to eliminate is trade agreements that go against the interest of the US, foreign aid giveaways, policies that encourage US companies to manufacture goods overseas, and wasteful domestic programs. All of the money that gets wasted ends up in somebody's pocket. We need to look at all of that and ask questions.

Trump is a businessman. In business, a good deal is one that benefits BOTH sides of the agreement. We have two many instances where we have deals, programs, policies, etc, that benefit only one side, and it is not the United States. Why? Is there any reason other than corruption? Stupidity, maybe? Anti-American sentiment? What is it?
quote:

Just hit green for the day....


Jinxing is a real thing...
quote:

They run the business extremely conservatively.
But sooner than later, 30bn in actual revenue will be impossible to ignore.


I have said that the $7-$9B ARR by the end of this year will be impossible to ignore. The stock will be undervalued at $200/shr.
quote:

I think it's a valid question, but what's the bad metric?


Obviously the earnings miss is what people are feeding into. That's going to take the stock down 10% from its previous close. It will recover, but I think it will take more time to get back to triple digits...

If aren't so tight lipped between earnings reports, they might be sitting at $110 or $120 going into earnings, and then a 10% drop doesn't hurt as much.
quote:

Cash + Clickhouse = 8.7bn

I mean, c’mon…


Unfortunately, I feel like this baby is going to screw the pooch short term.

What do you think of the strategy of playing it close to the vest until earnings? They seem to want to bundle all these nuggets of positive information into a single announcement, and then one bad metric negates all of them.
Whoever wished for volatility sure got it pre-market. Probably got to head in one direction after open... :lol:
Gotcha. I'm already in meetings, so I haven't had a chance to look in depth.

With that kind of drop, I was looking for a dilution announcement.

Looks like people are expecting huge growth with no capex...

re: Spec Play - HGRAF

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/11/26 at 4:37 pm to
quote:

I can't take anything he says seriously after reading that.


I dont think anything is off the table, but he said that tongue firmly in cheek.

I've said that I dont know where all the big (1000s of tons) customers are going to come from, but I also don't know all of the applications are going to be. There could be stuff we have no idea about.

I live in Florida. Could graphene be used in storm windows and shutters? What about in stucco and Hardy Plank?

Plastic seems like a huge use. Car batteries. What is insurance companies made it mandatory to put graphene in concrete for new construction, driveways and such? What is they start using it in steel for cars and airplanes?

This thing could be everywhere...

It's not going to all happen in 2026, though. 10 bucks a share would be good. 20 would be great...
I think the psychology may be that they are in Denmark and it would be REALLY late if they had it after the market closes...
quote:

Thinking $110-$115 is in the realm of possibility this week.


I notice they have been playing it close to the vest recently. No dollar figure on the Israel deal, for example. Also, no details on MO, AL, or IN facilities. I hope that indicates that they are planning a shock and awe during earnings...

re: Spec Play - HGRAF

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/11/26 at 3:58 pm to
quote:

3 to 5 years someone will find a way (Chinese) to go around the current patents, that's the reality of business.


I would hope they sanction China for violating the patent laws. Probably won't prevent them from selling internally, but we might prevent products using knockoff graphene from entering the US.
quote:

Now im Loaded up on puts


I ain't touching this earnings period. It could go bigly in either direction.
Remember when we used to have a nice run up to earnings, as people anticipated a good earnings report would cause the stock to blow up?
quote:

I want tariffs and a national sales tax, but no income taxes.


The Fair Tax plus reciprocal tariffs would be good. :cheers:

re: Spec Play - HGRAF

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/11/26 at 11:02 am to
quote:

I will say that I would sell it in the $600's on the way to 1k.


I always wondered about that. Did Kevin Bambrough say this would to to $1000/share, or did he say it would be a 1000 bagger? He probably bought a lot of his shares at $0.10/share, so a 1000x would be $100/share.

That being said, I will not wait until $600 before I start selling. Depending on when it takes off, I will start selling bit by bit. If given the choice of selling off my stock at $100 share in 2 years or waiting 5 years for it to reach $600, I will probably sell the majority of my shares in the $30-$100 range and then let 25% of my shares ride.

re: Tariffs cost states $200 billion

Posted by Jax-Tiger on 2/11/26 at 10:46 am to
quote:

They are a tax. They take money out of the hands of American consumers with which they would have been able to purchase more goods and services. They reduce your standard of living. Just like a tax increase does.


I guess the bottom line is whether you would rather ship all of our manufacturing overseas in order to get the prices down or would you rather pay a little extra and make more things here in the US?

I think most people would prefer the latter.

A lot of people are saying that AI is going to reduce the number of jobs in the US. That has to be offset, somewhere, so Trump is seeking to add more manufacturing jobs and deport cheap illegal labor. I like the strategy.