Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

ericttspikes

Members
  • Posts

    6,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ericttspikes

  1. started a small position in OPEN at 16.
  2. I put OPEN on my watchlist. Another hated sold off SPAC. They put up good numbers in a sellers market. Seems like the model is even more compelling in a buyers market. Only in 16 metro markets currently so room to grow there. Still kind of skeptical of ibuying real estate, but I can see this concept working. User reviews are good. Seems like their game is smaller margins on sales and bundling services. Guided $5.2B for 21. At the current share price, P/S is 2. Zillow is 5. A similar tech model like CVNA is also around 5. Intrigued.
  3. If you like anything today is your lucky day....or tomorrow....or next week....or next month
  4. Sorry, was talking 2023 which are just analyst projections that can be beaten I suppose. PLTR doesn't have projections for 2023 it looks like.
  5. Both are projected to be around 30% rev growth next year. We'll see what PLTR guides at.
  6. Lol. No Eloy, no Robert, no problem. I believe Giolito will turn it around. He's shown flashes. Really good pitching staff this year which makes the injuries so depressing. Looked to have all the pieces in place for a WS push early this spring. They've won with small ball in the past, but hard for me to believe the lack of power hitting won't bite them in the butt at some point. Jose should get better this summer. Moncada is playing better than last year. Madrigal is kinda amazing and Vaughn seems to have settled in a bit and is doing better. A huge positive for the Sox is the AL Central is trash. Cleveland is decent, but beatable. Best hope is they can hang around and hopefully get Robert and maybe Eloy back. Still looks like "next year" but anything is possible.
  7. I reloaded my trading shares I sold in Jan. Added 2x the amount of shares I sold. This is another one I'll sell bonds for if it gets down 10-12 range. PLTR is growing about the same rate as CRWD with similar rev projections. Maybe CRWD is still overvalued, but I like PLTR here.
  8. I wouldn't doubt it in this market. IF IPOE becomes SoFI and sells off at merge close to or under NAV, I'd easily sell my bonds and double up.
  9. I'm not an investment professional, but think SoFI is a slam dunk double from here. The biggest risk I see is that the SEC somehow doesn't allow the merger to go through, which I have no idea if that could be the case but are slow walking all the paperwork on these SPACS now. I have 3000 shares of IPOE and added the last time it got to 13. I plan to add if it gets to 12-13 where I feel more comfortable risk wise since I don't have a lot of faith in the SEC to anything right. IF IPOE becomes SoFI I truly believe it can be a 100B company in 5 years.
  10. Moderna, the US company, has already voluntarily given up IP months ago. Not sure what all the posturing is about. https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/statement-moderna-intellectual-property-matters-during-covid-19
  11. Yep. We're talking about a $20-$40 product to help stop severe illness and potentially death. This is fast food meal pricing for industrialized nations. I'm sure the wealthier countries and rich philanthropists would have no problem subsidizing and helping poorer countries. Forcing companies to hand over their IP doesn't address the supply issue at all. Making the people responsible for finding a solution the bad guys seems really, really dumb.
  12. I think it's all a moot point because I believe the WTO would need to unanimously agree, which seems tough, but I think the concern is that it's a slippery slope giving precedent to force companies to hand over IP for anything deemed for the greater good IMO. Cancer kills a lot of people. Billions, if not trillions of private money has been spent trying to cure cancer in my lifetime with no result. Hopefully one day somebody will figure it out. Should that company give up their IP for the greater good? If that is the expectation I don't know what practical motivation there would be to privatize all the risk and socialize the end result. I'd assume most of the focus of spending and research would simply go toward the status quo of developing and selling mega expensive cancer treatments. Unfortunately, I kind of believe that is already the case with cancer research. Much more lucrative to treat it. Curing cancer would put a lot of those treatment companies out business and I don't really see the positive in disincentivizing companies further in the quest for a cure of anything. BioNtech is mainly an oncology company who's primary focus has been the development of a platform using mRNA to target and cure individual cancers. They pivoted from oncology at the onset of the pandemic because they thought the technologies they were developing for cancer might work for COVID. I'd assume some the the IP they used in developing the COVID vaccine is part of the platform they've developed for other diseases. They have a multiple sclerosis vaccine in development, along with some cancer vaccines. I highly doubt they will be compensated for all the money they burn if those vaccines fail to work, yet should be compelled to give up IP on the one product that did work and whose profits would be used for further research and development of other diseases? mRNA technology has been researched and trialed for over 25 years without any money being made from it until now. Who paid for 25 + years of working on that? In the end, if the companies involved want to give up their IP it should be entirely on them to give it, not have it taken. Moderna indicated in October that they would in fact give IP related to their COVID vaccine so really not sure what more Biden and the WTO wants here other than political posturing which I believe is what it's all about sadly. https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/statement-moderna-intellectual-property-matters-during-covid-19
  13. Could always move to India. Not much vaccinations going on there.
  14. They couldn't find the time in over 2 months to approve the mRNA vaccines, yet rushed out their homegrown "Covaxin".
  15. How is giving away IP an answer to the supply problem? Pfizer submitted the vaccine to India for approval months ago and they still have not approved it or ordered any. That's not a supply issue. At best that is a terrible politics issue. I mean, they are burning bodies in the streets and they haven't approved mRNA vaccines yet? A cynic might say there is some other reason they haven't approved the vaccines yet, but want the IP. Giving away IP isn't going to solve the lipid nanoparticle shortage. Creating mRNA vaccines is a highly technical and specialized process, India isn't going to just get a recipe and magically start cranking out supply. This isn't like making a generic pill. They will have to first build out specialized infrastructure to make it, hire or train specialized workers and then compete globally for all the ingredients that are in short supply. Compete to buy up the vials and specialized needles. Those are the current bottlenecks constraining supply. The larger concern is "what's next" IMO. China and Russia have been hacking these mRNA companies to steal IP and now Biden just wants to give it away? If COVID wasn't a bio weapon, I guarantee the devastation it caused got enemy states to ramp up bio weapon programs. Seems like protecting IP of these companies and creating partners with them would be better than going after them. Regarding India, just spitballing here; how about they first approve the vaccine. Then seek help from other nations in building labs capable of producing mRNA vaccines and training staff. License the IP and bring aboard the innovators to help with the process. I mean, we're talking about a $20-$30 product that looks to be highly effective in preventing serious illness. I don't see any "Pharma bro" price gouging going on here. In fact, I believe Pfizer already indicated it would sell for cost to poorer nations. Having a hard time figuring out what giving away IP actually solves here other than making $ for Indian companies, which is completely &^%$ed if that is the reason.
  16. So what is the deal with Seychelles? The most vaccinated place on Earth is getting hit hard with basically their first wave. Is it because the Sinopharm and AZ vaccines aren't good?
  17. BNTX on a monster run. Crazy 1 month chart. Love it.
  18. They've been around for 28 years and have only 3M in rev. Not really sure how they've stayed in business that long, let alone be valued at over $2B. I remember they had a big pump and dump in the early 2000's. I think it was over their pico projector. There very well could be another pump is in the cards, but not a stock I'd want to be stuck with when the music stops.
  19. Only NFTs of rock hard bubble gum.
  20. Potentially massive recurring revs. Years and years of MLB releases and skimming 6% off each secondary market sale? Damn. Imagine if they were able to do that for the past 83 years with traditional cards. Forget the cardboard, just go NFT. Gotta believe Star Wars NFT upcoming.
  21. I read a Seeking Alpha opinion piece yesterday that said Topps gets 6% on every secondary market sale of NFTs in perpetuity? If that's true it's a potentially huge ongoing revenue stream that I don't think is fully appreciated.
  22. Something happening. Crazy volume mid day. 1 million shares in 11 minutes? Not sure retail buying a rumor can do that volume.
  23. I was wondering why aliens had the same lights as airplanes.
  24. I'm a noob at NFTs, but had fun with the Topps release. Ate some edibles the other night and tried to corner the secondary market on the Tim Anderson, Luis Robert and Eloy Jimenez "cards". It was addictive and fun. I was a huge baseball fan and card collector as a kid but haven't even thought about baseball cards for 30+ years. Spent about $600 that I'll chalk up to learning about NFTs and had a blast.
×
  • Create New...