mloub

Sorry, just caught a typo there. Meant to say full-cycle AECO gas price of $2.50/mcf. That full-cycle price is just my rough guess of the average price over a peak to trough AECO cycle in the next few years. As for the rest of the math, it is even less scientific. I just plug in the dry gas price, times my expected daily production (which I expect to rise modestly over the next 1-2 years) add in the NGL's price estimate and production, minus opex, and capex, and then slap a multiple on the FCF based on historic multiples. M.

Bump. Peyto is looking very interesting. They are one of the lowest NG cost producers anywhere in North America when you normalize out some of the fudge items other NG producers throw into the mix. They also own all their processing and collecting facilities outright, and have a processing capacity of 740mmcfe/d relative to their current gas/ngl production of 460mcfe/d. So incremental growth in production will come at a lower capex cost than growth in the past, which required spending to build out all that processing capacity. They seem out of favour because of their leverage relative to their peers, but here too, not all is at it seems. For example, Advantage Oil & Gas, another well-run gas heavy producer in the Western Canadian Basin, recently signed a take-or-pay arrangement with Topaz, for 50mmcf/d @ $0.66/mcf of processing capacity for an upfront payment of $100m (and paid down debt by the same amount). Other players have done the same, but Peyto has not. So if needed, Peyto could pull that lever too and lower debt on the balance sheet and push it out into other long-term commitments tied to their actual gas flows. As I see it, the current state of the NG market is a case of a bear strolling into camp. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the other campers, and Peyto seems to have a pretty good chance of doing that with it's low operating costs, great asset base, and significant capacity in terms of unencumbered processing and distribution assets. There are few other nuggets in the foot notes, but none major enough to tip the scales. I would set the IV based on a full-cycle AECO gas price of $2.50 at $15 per share. Hat tip to those who were ready to strike when it hit ~$1 in March. M.

thanks for this. however, I dont see 1. as being a big problem. everyone with RA that is successfully treated by biologics (millions of people) get injections or self inject every week or two weeks, with delivery of medicine in cold packs and keeping medicine in fridges. this is no big deal. as well, the manufacture of these biologics is a difficult process, but not so difficult so as to prevent pumping out millions of doses. as you say, this dosing would have to be repeated, but I could see this as being a complement to various other therapies/vaccines being worked on...assuming that this is not a big scam Agreed, Humira is a great drug. But all the issues I outlined in (1) means it costs about $3,000 per month. That might work for a relatively rare disease affecting less than one percent of the population, but scaling it would be very hard. The typical vaccine on the other hand costs less than $100 per dose. With Ebola, it was the vaccine that turned the tide, not these biologics. The Ebola vaccine is 97.5% effective at a fraction of the cost. More importantly it prevents the disease. The Ebola biologics only treat you after you get it. https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/12/the-data-are-clear-ebola-vaccine-shows-very-impressive-performance-in-outbreak/ All of which is moot, because Sorrento's "treatment" is only effective at blocking binding in cell cultures. It has not been tested in Humans and there is a long way to go to prove its efficacy. You'd think we would have learned to reserve judgement after Chloroquine, and Remdesivir, but why not. Everyone is desparate, let's add $2bn in market cap to this textbook pump and dump name. M.

Yeah, this is on the face of it bunk. Here are the reasons why: 1) An antibody is a protein that is unstable. (For a great analogue, take a look at Humira, an antibody that is used to treat inflammatory diseases like Crohns). Because it is unstable, it needs to be refrigerated, has a short shelf-life, and needs to be injected (it can't survive the digestive system) frequently as its effect wears off. 2) Antibodies that you inject are ultimately cleared by your body and so they only have a temporary effect (think weeks) versus a vaccine which confers active immunity for years. Antibodies are used as a treatment, for example, when someone who is not immune to tetanus is exposed to it. They get the antibody to get them over the acute exposure. Then the body clears the antibodies and then they are back to square one, only in the meantime hopefully the antibodies gave them some short term protection. Now people generally know when they are exposed to Tetatnus - "Doc I just stepped on a rusty nail!" - but Covid-19 exposure is often invisible. How do we make sure the right people get the antibody in time? 3) Antibodies are very hard to produce at scale. You essentially have to set up these bioreactors of genetically altered cells that spit out these antibodies. It is very finicky and any contamination at any step in the process destroys the whole line. Think of the clean rooms for manufacturing microprocessors, only harder. 4) This antibody has not been tested on humans yet, apparently. (Should have listed this as point 1). This is not a small deal. Antibodies bind to proteins and either gum up how those proteins work (like Humira) or help target them for destruction by the immune system. There is a lot that can go wrong between seeing this binding effect in a lab culture and having it work as expected in a human. There are a limited number of proteins in a lab culture, in a human there are all sorts of proteins hanging around that can screw things up. "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip". These guys aren't even in the same room as the lip yet. So with 1-4, I would be very wary of promotional claims like this - "Given the very effective data that we've seen, how potent this antibody is, we are very confident this could actually work out". But you know, hucksters be huckstering. M.

Elon's life definitely seems to be mirroring that of the original Tesla in some painful ways. Elon's financial backers might want to take a second look at JP Morgan's -the man, not the firm's - dealings with the original Tesla. Financially backing unstable geniuses has its own unique set of risks. Understanding the Nikola Tesla story helped me put Elon's prolific output - the Boring Company, SpaceX, Starlink, and Tesla the auto maker - and bizarre behaviour into some context. Amazing minds can achieve amazing things, but that does not always translate into financial success. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-rise-and-fall-of-nikola-tesla-and-his-tower-11074324/ M. EDIT: Forgot to add Neuralink, and Hyperloop to the list of Elon Musk's projects.

Okay, here it goes: Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not buy SHOP at these prices. Think of your children, think of your spouses, think of poor Charlie. The price may oscillate, it might even go up a lot in the short-term, but buying this company's shares today, at these prices, is a terrible, terrible idea. Hopefully, that was productive enough. See you all in 2030! M. PS. You should probably stay away from Lightspeed too.

I'm not short SHOP. And my longs aren't worth discussing. If that changes, I'll make a post. But as you can tell, my posting comes in spurts once a decade. M.

given that your contribution to board analysis and ideas (outside of the thread I refuse to read) appears to be 8-10 year old posts on such long term compounders as Rainmaker Entertainment, Pinnacle Airlines, and TEPCO, how about "Negative Nancy Capital Management Partners Global Limited"? we get it. you don't like fast growth tech. what do you like? You missed my 11 year old posts about ATSG, and 9 year old posts on Gyrodyne. The March, 2009 post on ATSG brought a tear to my eye. But I realize that is all gargabe now. Which awesome growth company should I start with first to regain the board's trust? Zoom, SHOP, "a company to be formed, for a purpose to be determined at a future time"? What I used to like doesn't exist anymore, so no point talking about the past. M. EDIT: And for the record, my post on the Rainmaker thread on July, 2012 was simply to define the acronym TIA for someone who did not know what it meant. I was never an investor or porponent of Rainmaker. And I did not inhale, and all that other stuff...

Double Exponential Capital. Slogan: “Compounds so powerfully the base doesn’t matter.” Dibs! Dibs! Dibs! I trust you're all gentle men and women here and no one will try to steal the domain out from under me. M.

Lightspeed's only selling at ~18x sales. How quaint. Call me when its up to ~50x. No time for minnows in this once in a lifetime bull market. M. dude, why are you posting like a smug little child? People are trying to discuss this stock and you are adding no value. Hey man, I'm on your team. No need to get defensive. I'm new to this game, and just getting the hang of the lingo. What I meant to say is 18x sales and no profit is super awesome. But you can do better. Just look at SHOP. M.

Quick, I need a new name idea. Something that evokes a searing fire, so that my firm is associated with almost unbelievable growth, like an out of control wildfire.... Something like "Combustible Capital", "Explosive Dynamic Partners"...a little help please. M.

Damnit! Spoke too soon. These beautiful geniuses beat me to it. http://accelerantcapital.com/ M.

But can't you see, I'm chastened after my years of terrible returns. I see the light, and I am ready to change. And that is why, after a great deal of introspection and study of the current market, I'd like to announce here on COBF, the formation of my new Venture Capital Fund, Accelerant Capital Partners, because "Every Capital fire needs an Accelerant" . M.

No sweat! I mean, they've been compounding at 82% per year so far, right? (Checks notes). I mean scratch that...Look over here. Bobbleheads! https://www.bobblesgalore.com/ M.

This is actually a key part of how certain equity indexes like the S&P 500 did so well, at least in recent years. They basically bought the FANGMANs and co. early and held on. They also owned a bunch of mediocre/bad stuff too but the winners were successful enough that the basket as a whole did quite well. Now whether this strategy will keep working well going forward is another matter... Exactly! Just like the nifty-fifty, only much, much better. The nifty-fifty ended in tears, when it is plain for all to see that this time is different. People were so simple back then. Polaroids and Xerox copiers. What a hoot. M.