Just thinking out loud here. At $1.40 / share it seems like a buyback of 100mn shares ($140mn) makes a lot of sense for $OPEN .
If they truly believe the asset light model will replace 1P, they shouldn’t need over $900mn on the balance sheet and a buyback at these levels would prove their confidence a lot more in the Opendoor 2.0 model.
@dayecapital@disclosuremonk@wsu311@nejatian They said they have to get “really good at 1P before they can launch 2P and 3P” so me asking questions is about seeing if they did ever get really good at 1P
@nejatian and $OPEN team: One of my biggest disappointments with Q3 earnings was the lack of transparency around acquisition cohort economics.
Management previously highlighted cohort performance when the numbers were strong. Why stop providing that visibility now?
If spring 2026 acquisitions are driving margin deterioration, and management recognized the macro shift and began widening spreads on newer acquisitions, shouldn’t the expected contribution margins on those newer cohorts be materially better?
What are the expected margins for late September onward acquisitions versus spring 2026? How much have acquisition spreads widened?
If the economics are improving, why not share that data?
Acquisition growth means little without evidence of improving unit economics.
Shareholders deserve visibility into whether the newer cohorts are actually better underwritten.
You asked us to hold y’all accountable and this would help people understand if the machine is dynamic enough or not.
@888juniper I’m right there with you. They want to blame macro but if Macro lead them to wider spread requirements on Oct acquisitions then they should have at least said recently acquired cohorts are at a higher margin spring 26 acquired homes but they don’t even say that
@vu0tran@fahdananta Bro have you seen the average lion day? It’s 99% catch some sun, let female lions hunt and do the work and 1% remind everyone why you’re king of the jungle😆
Everyone is running from neoclouds. I'm looking at the landlord.
The bear case on CoreWeave $CRWV and the rest is real. Billions in debt secured by GPUs that may be worth half as much in three years, bonds yielding near 16%, and a handful of customers holding up the whole thing.
But notice who carries that risk. The company that buys the chips.
$BGDE doesn't. It owns energized grid power, 169 MW across four sites with a path to 266 MW, and the tenant brings the GPUs. Its Hood County JV signed an LOI with Tensor IQ for 7,748 B300s at a site that's already live, with about $546M of potential power-lease revenue over 15 years.
In a cycle where everyone is short on power and long on debt, I'd rather own the plug than the chip. Management owns a big chunk of the company.
It's tiny, it still burns cash, and the LOI isn't binding yet. Nov 5 earnings will tell us a lot.
But if the neocloud shakeout happens (even in a less drastic way than the market is starting to price in), the survivors still need somewhere to plug in.
This is how I’m playing the AI buildout.
@vu0tran Thanks for the reply. Very well explained.
To mitigate time lost waiting on other humans are you able to bring the entire closing process in house or are there pieces that must stay separate (aside from buyer signing of course)?
@vu0tran@theopendoorguy Hi @vu0tran with the standard being 30-60 days and agents/AI able to handle a lot of that; what do you realistically think the closing timeline can be cut down to when everything is working properly?