Odd Lots: How a Geopolitical Analyst Predicts the Outcome of War
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What does it mean IDF's laser will be fully deployed within four months?
Israel's enemies have known that 85%-95% of their short-range rockets would be shot down by Iron Dome. But they also knew some would get through. In dual revelations on May 28 and June 4, the IDF and Rafael said they have developed three laser platforms to use for air defense, and that one of the platforms shot down about 40 Hezbollah drones last fall. They also confirmed earlier announcements that the laser would be fully and regularly deployed by the end of 2025, which is now only four months away. How will this change Israeli security and life on the home front? There are several aspects that need to be addressed to answer that question. The most important one, cost, has been the most covered so far. Iron Dome interceptors currently cost Israel $40,000 to $100,000. Before the war, Hamas spent an estimated $300 to $800 on its cheaper rockets, with costs less well-known regarding some of its better rockets. Iron Beam, Iron Beam M (mobile), and Lite Beam cost almost nothing, since each time they fire, it is equivalent in many ways to turning on a light with a brief burst of electricity. Less covered has been how Israeli lasers will project greater power to intimidate enemies from even bothering to fire short-range rockets and drones. These lasers can shoot down threatening projectiles much faster and earlier in their trajectory, because a laser moves basically at the speed of light. They can also fire multiple laser beams at once to provide wider defense coverage than one defensive shot by Iron Dome. How motivated will a Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist be to keep firing rockets when he sees the rocket shot down just over his head shortly after it leaves its launcher and long before it gets into any position of being able to be a threat? Israel's enemies have known that 85%-95% of their short-range rockets would be shot down by Iron Dome. But they also knew some would get through, and they got to watch their rockets sail off into the distance, with the moment they were shot down usually being too far off for them to see. This change of hitting the threatening rocket or drone much earlier in their trajectory could also extraordinarily change life on the home front. Until now, as soon as Israel's enemies' rockets lifted off, IDF warning sirens had to go off in a number of areas to give civilians enough time to reach safe rooms and bomb shelters should the rocket succeed at striking a residential area. If the lasers can shoot down the rockets earlier in their trajectory, there may be no need to activate the air-raid sirens. The psychological war, in which Israel's enemies feel they have accomplished something by getting two million Israelis to run into safe areas in the middle of the night, even if they do not kill anyone, could be removed, thereby decreasing the motivation for firing such rockets. Terrorist organizations have been shown to adapt But Hezbollah and Hamas have shown they can learn and adapt. After all, the tunnel, rocket, and drone threats were all adaptations to use asymmetric, cheap weapons against Israel in areas where the Jewish state's defenses were costlier and less hermetic. One alternative would be for these groups to switch to the Iranian and Houthi ballistic-missile threat. Their problem would be that ballistic missiles are a much more complex operation to build, set up to fire, train firing teams, conceal before firing, and pay for. But if they can gain ballistic missiles, the lasers would likely still be useless for now, with a range limited to about 10 kilometers and focused on following much slower targets. The Arrow 2 and 3 missile-defense systems shoot down ballistic missiles much higher in the Earth's atmosphere, a place where lasers are not even close to reaching. Lasers lose their intensity over distance, especially if they have to travel through clouds and other inclement weather. No one knows how long it will take to provide lasers that can shoot down long-range threats such as ballistic missiles, but no one is even really working on that yet. Given how long it took to develop Iron Beam, a 10-year waiting period could be a realistic prediction, and a lot can change in war and security in 10 years. There is another time factor that could delay Iron Beam's effectiveness. Each shot is cheap, but producing enough laser batteries for it to be used on a large-scale basis, like Iron Dome, will be very expensive. Iron Dome was first deployed in 2011, but there was a limited number of batteries. The real number is classified, but over time, public reports have placed the number of Iron Dome batteries as high as 12. How long will it take to produce enough Iron Beam batteries to cover what 12 Iron Dome batteries can cover? While it will probably take less than 10 years, it will also probably take more than a year or two. Make no mistake, the Iron Beam is a game changer, but it still may take some time for that change to be fully felt. Solve the daily Crossword
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Here's What a Late-Career Layoff Looks Like in America, in 5 Charts
Getting laid off is challenging. Getting laid off later in life is especially so. People in their 50s often have mortgages, college bills and other significant financial responsibilities. And those who lose their jobs can find it harder to get new ones that match their old paychecks.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SPACs Are Back - You Should Be Worried
SPACs aren't new. Their rise and fall are a clear case of market memory loss. From 2020 to early 2021, special purpose acquisition companies exploded into the spotlight. Hundreds launched, raising over $160 billion. They were sold as a faster, more flexible alternative to IPOs, a way to take private companies public without the regulatory drag. But underneath the surface, most were hype machines. Celebrities joined the party. Shaquille O'Neal. Jay-Z. Even former House Speaker Paul Ryan. Their names were plastered on term sheets while pre-revenue companies were rushed into the market and pitched as the next Tesla or Amazon. Few investors stopped to ask the obvious: why were these companies avoiding the standard IPO route? By late 2022, the bubble had burst. SPACs that once traded at premiums dropped below their $10 NAV floors. Goldman Sachs reported that 77% of post-merger SPACs from the 2020–2021 class traded below their issue price within a year. High-profile failures like Nikola and Lordstown Motors burned a lot of capital and credibility. These companies weren't just struggling for scale or profits; some barely had functioning products. And yet, retail investors piled in, drawn by slick investor decks and the promise of early access. More News from Barchart OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Calls DeepSeek's Bluff: 'I Don't Think They Figured Out Something Way More Efficient' Vanguard Is Now the Top Investor in MicroStrategy Stock. Should You Buy MSTR Too? Warren Buffett Used These 4 Simple Rules to Acquire 76 Businesses Worth Over $173 Billion Our exclusive Barchart Brief newsletter is your FREE midday guide to what's moving stocks, sectors, and investor sentiment - delivered right when you need the info most. Subscribe today! Now, SPACs are making a quiet comeback. Deal volumes are creeping up again. Promoters are talking about "next-gen" structures and stronger governance. But underneath, little has changed. A SPAC is only as good as the business it merges with. Most of the time, it still ends in disappointment. Why They Took Off Last Time And Why They Failed The SPAC craze had nothing to do with sound investing. It was hype from the start. Retail investors, riding stimulus checks and fresh off big pandemic gains, were desperate to jump into the next big thing. SPACs gave them what looked like front-row access. Unlike traditional IPOs, where institutions get first pick, anyone could buy into a SPAC at $10. Wall Street sponsors knew how to frame the story. They pitched SPACs as democratized dealmaking. But they buried the fine print, loaded fees, generous promoter shares, and exit strategies that let them cash out long before the retail crowd knew what they owned. The real problem wasn't access. It was the quality of the business. Many weren't just unprofitable; they had no revenue at all. Take Nikola, which reached a multi-billion-dollar valuation based on a prototype that didn't work. Or Clover Health, which marketed itself as a tech-forward insurer but was later revealed to be under federal investigation. These weren't outliers. They were standard. Investor decks promised 10x revenue growth and market dominance. Cash flow was always "just a year or two away." SPACs operate on a two-year deadline to complete a deal or return capital. That timeline created urgency, not quality. Many sponsors pushed through weak deals to meet the clock. Due diligence suffered. As a result, over 60% of SPACs from that boom now trade under $5. Some are down over 90%. Investors didn't buy businesses. They bought marketing slides and a dream. What's Different Now? Not Enough Wall Street doesn't have a long memory. And it rarely admits mistakes. As SPACs reappear in the headlines, the narrative has shifted. Sponsors say this new batch is more disciplined: better targets, tighter structures, and improved governance. The pitch has changed, but the incentives haven't. Sponsors still get paid if a deal closes, no matter how it performs. Their promoter usually hands them 20% of the post-merger equity for little or no cost. That means millions in upside for getting a deal across the line—even if the company craters. Meanwhile, retail investors are left with stock in businesses that may have less cash, fewer assets, and no clear plan. Redemptions are another warning sign. In many recent SPACs, more than 80% of the initial capital was withdrawn before the merger. That leaves the company underfunded on day one. Sponsors patch the gap with last-minute PIPEs or debt deals, moves that weaken the structure further. And retail still comes in last. By the time the average investor hears about the deal, the best terms are already taken. PIPE investors get their discounts. Sponsors take their free shares. What's left is a press release, a public ticker, and a lot of misplaced optimism. As one hedge fund analyst put it to me, "Sure, the paint looks fresh. But the engine's still busted." The Illusion Of Cheap Some SPACs now trade well below trust value. On paper, they look like bargains. But cheap prices often signal something deeper: real risk. The incentives haven't changed. Sponsors still hold upside through warrants and promote shares that dilute common shareholders. Most deals still include preferred equity, convertibles, or earn-out structures that cut into future gains if the stock doesn't run. Then comes dilution. These post-merger companies often need new capital quickly. That means issuing stock at lower prices, repricing warrants, or cutting side deals with PIPE investors. Shareholders get diluted. Ownership shrinks, even if the stock doesn't move. Liquidity is another problem. Many of these stocks have thin floats and wild price action. It only takes a small group of traders to move the price 10% or more in a day. That illusion of volume can vanish fast. Meanwhile, insiders and early backers often have structured ways to exit while retail is still buying. Just because a SPAC trades at $3 doesn't make it a bargain. If it's got no cash, weak fundamentals, and layers of dilution, it's not discounted. It's dangerous. What to Watch If You Must Play Not every SPAC is a dud. A few have created value. But the good ones don't come with billboards and buzz. If you're still going to fish in these waters, use better bait. Start with the sponsor. Do they have a track record of building real businesses? Or are they serial promoters chasing fees? Look for personal capital at risk and evidence they're not just passing through. Next, check the cash. How much money will the company have after redemptions? A deal that closes with an empty trust account is already in trouble. Insider behavior is key. Are they buying shares in the open market? Participating in the PIPE? Or lining up the exits? Follow the money, not the marketing. And finally, evaluate the business. Is there revenue? Margins? A clear path to profitability? If it relies on projections five years out with no current traction, it probably won't deliver. Real Opportunities Live Elsewhere You don't need to chase SPACs to find upside. There are cleaner plays with better setups and stronger alignment. Spin-offs, for example, are consistently fertile ground. When companies split off divisions, it often unlocks value, especially when insiders keep equity and focus on performance. These are companies with an operating history, not just a pitch deck. Broken IPOs are another space worth watching. These are stocks that went public at overhyped prices and got crushed. But when the smoke clears, the underlying business may still be strong, cash flowing, growing, and forgotten by the crowd. Turnarounds offer potential too. They're messy and often unloved. But when you find a name with a clean balance sheet, management alignment, and early signs of operational recovery, the upside can be real. It takes work. But it's real investing. SPACs didn't fade because they worked. They faded because they failed. Their return isn't a sign of progress. It's a sign that markets forgot what happened the last time. You don't need to short SPACs. But you don't need to step back into the fire either. Investors chasing yesterday's fantasy are likely to relive yesterday's outcome. You want asymmetric payoff? Look where others aren't. On the date of publication, Jim Osman did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Sign in to access your portfolio
