GM
General Motors Company
stock NYSE

Bears won the championship in 1985. Kansas City Royals also won the World Series that year. Check to see who the GM was that year of KC and this half “naked” Blooper will make sense.

Agree with this. It would be prudent to diversify. Amazon is about as close to a blue-chip stock as you can get but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible (remember GM?).

tl;dr "I mean... You're sitting on a money printer here, but OK. The Trade: Liquidate HRB/OPEN → GM March/April $90 Calls."

GM quant bro

GM

GM

What the post is getting right
1. Valens ($VLN) balance-sheet strength
• Net cash position (~$90M+ cash, no debt) is broadly accurate.
• Inventory balance exists and is meaningful.
• This does cap near-term dilution risk and argues against imminent distress.
2. Gross margin profile
• High margins in machine vision / industrial SerDes are real.
• Automotive drags blended margins, but 60%+ GM is still strong for a fabless analog/PHY company.
• This places Valens Semiconductor above commodity analog peers on quality.
3. Customer credibility
• Mercedes, Mobileye, Siemens, Samsung, Logitech are real customers or ecosystem partners.
• These logos validate product relevance; they do not guarantee revenue scale, but they matter.
4. Relative valuation vs peers
• On EV/Revenue, Valens does trade far below:
• Lattice Semiconductor
• MACOM Technology Solutions
• A sub-3× EV/Revenue multiple for a cash-rich fabless semi is objectively low.
⸻
Where the thesis breaks down
1. “Ticker collision algorithm error”
This is the weakest claim.
• There is no credible evidence that Bloomberg, FactSet, Capital IQ, or StreetAccount are modeling Valens off a Toronto-listed ticker collision.
• These systems do not ingest raw tickers blindly; they key off CUSIPs, ISINs, LEIs.
• A persistent $82M phantom “inventory burn” across platforms would be a systemic data failure — which would already be flagged by:
• Sell-side
• IR
• Exchange compliance
Conclusion:
Highly unlikely. This reads as a narrative inference, not a documented data error.
⸻
2. “Algorithms haven’t corrected yet”
• Quant models do not rely on single-line inventory deltas.
• They price:
• Revenue growth
• Customer concentration
• Automotive exposure
• TAM uncertainty
• Operating leverage
• If there were a true financial misprint, human analysts would have front-run it already.
⸻
3. Peer multiple selection bias
• Lattice and MACOM are not clean comps:
• Larger scale
• Higher visibility
• More diversified end markets
• Valens is still:
• Sub-$120M revenue
• Automotive-weighted
• Niche PHY-focused
A fairer non-bull multiple is likely 4–6× EV/Revenue, not 10×+ without execution proof.
⸻
4. The $8.40 price target math
• The math itself is arithmetically fine.
• The assumption (instant rerate to 10× EV/Revenue) is not.
• Rerates in semis occur after:
• Sustained revenue acceleration
• Design-win conversion
• Margin stability in auto
⸻
The real reason Valens is cheap (simpler explanation)
No conspiracy required:
1. Small-cap semis are broadly discounted
2. Automotive PHY is cyclical and slow-burn
3. Revenue growth visibility is limited
4. AI enthusiasm favors compute, not connectivity
5. Cash-rich ≠ growth-rich (yet)
This creates a value + optionality setup, not a broken market.
⸻
Bottom line
• Undervalued? Yes, likely.
• Algorithmic pricing error? Almost certainly no.
• Asymmetric upside if execution improves? Yes.
• $8+ without fundamental acceleration? Unlikely.
A cleaner thesis would be:
Valens is a high-margin, cash-rich fabless connectivity company priced like a no-growth analog supplier. If machine-vision and automotive SerDes inflect simultaneously, the multiple expands materially.
That stands on fundamentals — without needing a ticker-collision story.

Bears won the championship in 1985. Kansas City Royals also won the World Series that year. Check to see who the GM was that year of KC and this half “naked” Blooper will make sense.

Agree with this. It would be prudent to diversify. Amazon is about as close to a blue-chip stock as you can get but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible (remember GM?).

tl;dr "I mean... You're sitting on a money printer here, but OK. The Trade: Liquidate HRB/OPEN → GM March/April $90 Calls."

GM quant bro

GM

GM

What the post is getting right
1. Valens ($VLN) balance-sheet strength
• Net cash position (~$90M+ cash, no debt) is broadly accurate.
• Inventory balance exists and is meaningful.
• This does cap near-term dilution risk and argues against imminent distress.
2. Gross margin profile
• High margins in machine vision / industrial SerDes are real.
• Automotive drags blended margins, but 60%+ GM is still strong for a fabless analog/PHY company.
• This places Valens Semiconductor above commodity analog peers on quality.
3. Customer credibility
• Mercedes, Mobileye, Siemens, Samsung, Logitech are real customers or ecosystem partners.
• These logos validate product relevance; they do not guarantee revenue scale, but they matter.
4. Relative valuation vs peers
• On EV/Revenue, Valens does trade far below:
• Lattice Semiconductor
• MACOM Technology Solutions
• A sub-3× EV/Revenue multiple for a cash-rich fabless semi is objectively low.
⸻
Where the thesis breaks down
1. “Ticker collision algorithm error”
This is the weakest claim.
• There is no credible evidence that Bloomberg, FactSet, Capital IQ, or StreetAccount are modeling Valens off a Toronto-listed ticker collision.
• These systems do not ingest raw tickers blindly; they key off CUSIPs, ISINs, LEIs.
• A persistent $82M phantom “inventory burn” across platforms would be a systemic data failure — which would already be flagged by:
• Sell-side
• IR
• Exchange compliance
Conclusion:
Highly unlikely. This reads as a narrative inference, not a documented data error.
⸻
2. “Algorithms haven’t corrected yet”
• Quant models do not rely on single-line inventory deltas.
• They price:
• Revenue growth
• Customer concentration
• Automotive exposure
• TAM uncertainty
• Operating leverage
• If there were a true financial misprint, human analysts would have front-run it already.
⸻
3. Peer multiple selection bias
• Lattice and MACOM are not clean comps:
• Larger scale
• Higher visibility
• More diversified end markets
• Valens is still:
• Sub-$120M revenue
• Automotive-weighted
• Niche PHY-focused
A fairer non-bull multiple is likely 4–6× EV/Revenue, not 10×+ without execution proof.
⸻
4. The $8.40 price target math
• The math itself is arithmetically fine.
• The assumption (instant rerate to 10× EV/Revenue) is not.
• Rerates in semis occur after:
• Sustained revenue acceleration
• Design-win conversion
• Margin stability in auto
⸻
The real reason Valens is cheap (simpler explanation)
No conspiracy required:
1. Small-cap semis are broadly discounted
2. Automotive PHY is cyclical and slow-burn
3. Revenue growth visibility is limited
4. AI enthusiasm favors compute, not connectivity
5. Cash-rich ≠ growth-rich (yet)
This creates a value + optionality setup, not a broken market.
⸻
Bottom line
• Undervalued? Yes, likely.
• Algorithmic pricing error? Almost certainly no.
• Asymmetric upside if execution improves? Yes.
• $8+ without fundamental acceleration? Unlikely.
A cleaner thesis would be:
Valens is a high-margin, cash-rich fabless connectivity company priced like a no-growth analog supplier. If machine-vision and automotive SerDes inflect simultaneously, the multiple expands materially.
That stands on fundamentals — without needing a ticker-collision story.

AT&T (T), Chevron (CVX), Deckers Outdoor (DECK), Expedia Group (EXPE), General Motors (GM), Merck (MRK), Omnicom Group (OMC).

I like ABAT for their full circle approach watch the January 2025 investors meeting. . Also, LAC 38% owned by GM and backed by the U.S government. Both projects need 24-48 months. So build your shares.

If you ever step into any American car showroom like Ford or GM, they are quite bad and maybe not much different from Indian showrooms. German and Japanese are in different league