shhughes1116

Did you guys mean XIFR, the new name for the bombed out Nextera Energy Partners?

I think there is a compelling investment case for high-powered lasers (CIWS, replacement for Phalanx) and missiles. The events in the Red Sea suggest that 85-95 VLS on destroyers are not enough and so we are likely to see ships equipped with larger volumes of missiles, along with lasers. I think we will see a similar evolution on land (more robust EW, high-powered lasers for close-in defense, and larger volumes of small missiles).

The combination of AEGIS and E-2 Hawkeyes make it almost impossible for someone to get close enough, undetected, to launch a salvo of hypersonic missiles. But let’s assume they are launched. Carrier group changes direction to increase distance and speed between the missiles. CAP aircraft get the first shots. The CG’s destroyer group gets the second shot with SM-3 and SM-6, and each destroyer has about 85-95 vertical launch cells. And if by some miracle the hypersonic missiles get past that, multiple Phalanx CIWS get a shot (likely with some debris damage to the flight deck if they successful hit the hypersonic missile). and all this assumes the enemy kill chain is fast enough to get hypersonic missiles into the air and headed to the right place where the carrier is. The Chinese make this look super easy when they repeatedly hit their aircraft carrier mock-up in the desert that does not move and does not fight back. if you are basing your assessment on the British destroyers in the falklands and their experience with Exocet missiles, you may wish to read about all the mistakes they made leading up to that point - mistakes that are unlikely to be repeated by a carrier group.

There is clear case to make for drones in the future of warfare - in that sense I agree with Elon. The experience in Ukraine highlights the impact of small drones around the line of contact and in the rear. But a majority of infantry casualties suffered by the Russians are not caused by drones, they are caused by DPCIM 155m rounds. And the naval drones are operating in the space of a green water navy, not a blue water navy. The future of warfare is likely a combination of manned vessels/vehicles, wingman-like drones operating from the manned vessels/vehicles, autonomous longer-range drones for ISR and A2/AD, and grunts that hold a position. I wonder if electronic warfare capabilities keep up with drone tech. I've been looking for reasonable investments in companies that make high-powered lasers for ships, vehicles, and air defense. With the proliferation of drones and the cost of missiles, I think we will see a move towards lasers which may be more effective at dealing with large volumes of drones.

I'm sure that approach will work great in the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean when China employs A2/AD around Taiwan. Marine Grunt: Where's our air support? Tech Bro Call Center: Sorry bro, those drones ran out of juice and fell into the ocean 1000 klicks to your west. Good luck.

CMCT. Combination of tax loss selling and people puking the common after a preferred conversion, which begets more tax loss selling.

It’s quite straightforward to fire poor performers. Done it multiple times over the last two decades. For Insubordination and for performance. Some hiring authorities like Title 42 and SBRBPS - hiring authorities routinely used at NIH - make it more straightforward. Once you fire the first one, your Branch/Division/Office gets a reputation and the shitty employees stay away. If a supervisor is saying it is impossible to fire poor performers, then in my experience in the Fed gov, it is the supervisor that is the poor performer and should be fired. I think re-shoring tech and other supply chain components will be the winning trade under Trump. I think DOGE will implode in a battle of egos between Vivek, Elon, Trump, and JD, which is unfortunate because I think they could bring some good ideas to government.

When I bought it, it was right under book value. At the time, there was a pretty steady stream of branch closures by the money center banks in Alaska which I thought would help the three listed Alaskan banks (FBAK, NRIM, and DENI). The Denali deposit mix was terrible and seemed like it could improve over time (it did) as customers moved from closed money center branches to Denali. Denali is also the smallest of the three by a lot, which makes it pretty easy to take-out at a premium. In the meantime it is a steady EPS grower and you get paid to wait around. My main issue - a recent one - is the increasing share of construction loans. Feels like they are growing this right into the peak of the cycle.

Lots of different reasons to own banks. Because I am constrained in the parts of the market I am allowed to invest in, I spend a lot of time looking at banks. I like FFBB, UNIB, SBNC, LRBI, DENI, BEOB, FRSB, NBN. All for different reasons. I routinely flog myself for not owning more NBN, SBNC, and BEOB.

Why not the Class B shares? 10% cheaper, same economic interest, and additional voting rights.

Peltz has a reasonable track record with activism and a reasonable track record in the UK. Not sure why folks would focus on the rear-view mirror when the activist investor is clearly not going to settle for the status quo of the last 5 years.

Are you referring to the antitrust case around ad tech? Or around the search monopoly? Regarding the search monopoly and payments between Google and Apple, and between Google and Samsung, I dont envision the court compelling Google to share search data with competitors. And I don’t envision DOJ requesting this as a remedy. This would be a pretty bad look for any court and for any administration to force one tech giant to share consumer data via search with other tech giants. The salient issue is Google paying to exclude competitors. This is reflected in the ruling. I think an injunction against this practice will be the remedy, and we will end up with some sort of “search provider choice screen”.

My forecast…. In Summer 2025, SUP uses a combination of cash and debt - maybe $100 million cash and $200 million in new debt - to redeem the preferred shares. Maybe there is some negotiation between SUP and TPG that brings it under $300 mil. But I can’t see any reason why TPG would settle for much less than $300 mil, especially given the debt stack was refinanced so there is not a going concern issue that would donut their holding of common. This reminded me a little bit of WHLR with the onerous preferred terms. However, I think SUP is a little bit better positioned to deal with the preferred.

Bought some Superior Industries (SUP).

People underestimate the experience and logistics necessary to execute military operations. Maybe they aren’t a paper tiger, but there is little evidence to suggest that they are capable of executing cross-service military operations outside of the Chinese mainland over a sustained period of time, or even a short period of time. Sure, they have a large military-industrial complex that can produce equipment. And sure, they have millions of military-aged men that Xi would be willing to march right into a meat grinder. But no one is invading China - they aren’t going to bring their resources to bear on a little tiny bridgehead on the coast of China. If they want to fight (and assuming no war with India), they have to take the fight to another land mass, across a significant body of water. I remain unconvinced that the Chinese can pull this off. I think their military capability is overestimated. And this is why I do not believe China will invade Taiwan.