Sam Nam

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

589 periods seems appropriate

[bearableguy123 @bearableguy123]

Ten years. A journey spanning a decade with the bear and you all. God bless you, my friends.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@nithyavraman I can’t go to the park because it’s overrun with the unhoused.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@WatcherGuru @grok how many times has Jerome Powell asked White House Advisor Hassett to weigh in on an interest rate decision? Oh. Wait I know. Zero. Can you just give me a recipe for lasagna

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@grok @diec7KKw88L471g @AsianDawn4 @grok please provide any historical context of Japan’s repeated invasions of the Korean Peninsula and overall treatment of the Korean people up until they point.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@diec7KKw88L471g @AsianDawn4 @grok can you comment on the factual accuracy of this comment

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@ashgoblue @evernorthxrp A

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@jadoodoo Should be shorting. Make money both ways

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@jadoodoo Probably already felt max pain and now can find peace because he can’t go crazier lol

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@jadoodoo 걱정 마세요 ~~ just filled the FVG and now we’re ready for 🚀

[Trent Turner @RealTrentTurner]

High LTVs aren’t good just because a big number is better than a small number, but because it unlocks higher allowable CACs.

High CAC's allow you to pay more to acquire a customer.

And, in any given market, the brand that can pay the most usually takes the market.

[Shay Boloor @StockSavvyShay]

MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.

Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.

But that’s not what this is.

What you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.

You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.

Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.

That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.

And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.

I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.

What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.

And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.

You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.

This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.

And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.

You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.

With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.

That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.

Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.

But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.

That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones.

So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.

But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.

I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.

It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.

And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate.

Because we don’t need more noise.

We need a plan.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@WEEX_Official @jailstoolCTO Price is way off on the weex platform

[Gordon 🐂 @GordonGekko]

I will never be the type of person to sell after a huge drop.

I'd rather ride it to zero at that point.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@RealTrentTurner 😂 omg I think we’ve had a change every week

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@elonmusk Could’ve built 50,000++ family homes for Californians with that money for tax paying families and sold it to them at break even 😂 while creating tons of jobs.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@RealTrentTurner Speaking like a true product led growth believer

[John E Deaton @JohnEDeaton1]

@ewarren, I wonder, how did terrorism ever get funded before Crypto?

Did Jeffrey Epstein accept #Bitcoin when he trafficked women, including minors, to his Isalnd?

Wait a minute. Speaking of Epstein, wasn’t it Jamie Dimon’s 🏦, @jpmorgan, that assisted and facilitated Epstein’s funding for such heinous crimes against young women, including minors?

Wasn’t there a settlement by JPMorgan of $275M because one of its big shot executives helped Epstein?

You know the guy that said he loved his Snow White experience and was looking forward to going back to the 🏝️ to have a Beaty and the Beast experience with a one of the victims?

Now that I think of it @ewarren, why didn’t you ask questions of Jamie Dimon about any of this?

When Jamie Dimon testified about fraud and illicit financial activities, related to Crypto, it was a perfect opportunity for you to question him about the $39 BILLION in fines his 🏦 has been issued for:

Fraud and illicit financial activities.

Remember how you promised the voters in Massachusetts that you would you go to Washington and hold the banks and their fat cat CEOs accountable because you were so upset not one banker went to jail from the 2008/2009 financial crisis?

You hate crypto and point to bad actors like @SBF_FTX. I agree he and others must go to prison.

But why haven’t you called for an investigation into his parents?

They had millions of dollars in luxury real estate in their names in the Bahamas, and Joe Bankman was on the FTX/Alameda payroll.

Is it because you know Joe Bankman well, considering he was the architect of your tax plan when you ran for President?

Is it because Barbara Fried, SBF’s mother, is a huge Democratic donor who runs a Super PAC?

If you hate crypto and the bad guys in crypto so much, how come you haven’t demanded the meeting notes between SBF and @GaryGensler?

They met at least twice and it was rumored that Gensler was close to a possible deal with SBF?

You sit on the Banking Committee and your job is to engage in @SECGov oversight. Yet, you’ve never asked Gensler any of this, despite your alleged claim that Crypto presents a National Security risk!

Is it because you don’t want to place the Chairman in a “tough spot” like the letter from your office stated, when you provided Gensler with not only the questions you intended to ask at a hearing, but also the suggested answers to your questions?

We all know the answers to why, Senator? All you’re interested in is perpetuating a false narrative for the purposes of pushing your political agenda.

And the last thing you will allow to get in the way of that agenda - is the truth.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@RealTrentTurner In my opinion, you start with incrementality then apply those tests to your MTA reporting. At some point you have too many overlapping channels and need to run MMM on a regular basis.

It’s not “either/or”. It’s “also/and”.

[Sam Nam @samnamiam]

@RealTrentTurner An MMM built using the outputs of incrementality tests is significantly more accurate than one that does not. This is due to high collinearity in marketing channels.