On Tuesday, this company dropped nearly 9%. Yesterday morning, I told you why that was a mistake. And as of yesterday's close, it's still sitting in the buy zone. |
If you missed it, here's the short version: there's a cybersecurity company growing at the same rate as CrowdStrike, roughly 20% revenue growth. It just crossed $1 billion in revenue and hit profitability for the first time. |
One of the most respected institutional research firms on the planet just added it to their defense index. |
CrowdStrike trades at 19 times forward sales, while this company trades at a fraction of that. |
And Tuesday's sell-off made the gap even wider. |
A few readers guessed the ticker and actually got it right. But knowing the name and knowing how to play it are two very different things. |
The buy-under price, the entry strategy, the catalysts I'm watching, the risks you need to size around, that's all written up below in the Premium Section. |
I added it to the Moonshot Minute Portfolio yesterday. Let me walk you through why. |
|
On Monday, I laid out a thesis. The cyber war against America's critical infrastructure is escalating faster than most people realize, and the market is completely ignoring it. |
Iran-linked hackers wiped over 200,000 devices at Stryker Corp, one of the world's largest medical-technology companies. |
Surgeries were delayed. Emergency response systems went dark. A company serving 150 million patients across 61 countries was taken offline by lines of code. |
And cybersecurity stocks are trading at discounted valuations like none of it happened. |
I also told you that one of the most respected institutional research groups I follow, an outfit that's been calling paradigm shifts since the 1980s, just added a specific AI-native cybersecurity company to their index. |
They have returned over 2,000% versus 309% for the S&P 500 over the past decade. |
I didn't name the company. I said Premium members would get the full breakdown today. |
And then yesterday happened. |
What Happened Yesterday |
The stock I've been tracking dropped over 9% in a single session. Not because of bad earnings or a downgrade. In fact, nothing changed about the business. |
It dropped because the market got scared. |
A wave of AI-related announcements hit the headlines. Anthropic announced that Claude, its AI assistant, can now control computers by imitating human keystrokes and mouse movements. |
Databricks launched LakeWatch, an AI-powered product that integrates device telemetry into a single security platform. |
And Nvidia introduced NemoClaw, its own framework for securing AI agents. |
And Wall Street did what Wall Street always does when it doesn't understand something. It sold first and figured it out later. |
The logic went like this… |
If AI agents are going to replace humans as the primary users of enterprise systems, then the cybersecurity companies that charge per seat to protect human activity are in trouble. |
On the surface, that sounds reasonable. |
But it's wrong. And I want to explain why. |
They Sold the Fire Department Because They're Afraid of Fire |
Here's where I need you to slow down and really think about this with me. |
The company I've been watching… the one a major institutional research firm just added to their index… is not some legacy cybersecurity vendor that got caught flat-footed by AI. |
This is an AI-native company. |
Built from the ground up on artificial intelligence. Their entire platform exists because they saw this moment coming years ago. |
Their AI security agent is already included in over half of all new licenses sold. 65% of their enterprise customers are using three or more of their solutions, up from 39% a year ago. |
And just this week, they expanded into on-premises, air-gapped security offerings built specifically for regulated environments and critical infrastructure. |
The exact systems I wrote about on Monday. The ones Iran is targeting. The ones running on legacy software that can't be patched. |
This company is building the defense for exactly that. |
And the market just sold it because it's worried about AI disruption? That's like selling an umbrella company because you heard it's going to rain. |
The thing Wall Street is panicking about, AI agents operating autonomously inside enterprise networks, is the exact problem this company's platform was designed to solve. |
More AI agents means more attack surfaces. More attack surfaces means more demand for AI-native security. The company doesn't lose in that world. It was built for it. |
The Discount Just Got Wider |
On Monday, I told you this company trades at roughly 4 times forward sales. Its largest competitor, growing at nearly the same rate, trades at 19 times. |
After yesterday's sell-off? That gap is even wider. |
We're now looking at roughly 3.5 times forward sales for a company that just crossed $1 billion in revenue, hit operating profitability for the first time in its history, and is guiding for 20% growth and 10% operating margins in the year ahead. |
And here's what gets me. The institutional research group that added this stock to their defense index did so at a higher price than where it trades today. |
They looked at the business, looked at the threat landscape, looked at the valuation, and said, this belongs in our index alongside the defense primes. |
The market just gave us a better entry than they got. |
I don't know about you, but that's the kind of setup that makes me lean in, not run away. |
I Won't Sugarcoat It |
Look, there's risk here. I'm not going to sugarcoat it, and I wouldn't respect you enough as a reader to pretend otherwise. |
This stock has been in a downtrend for years. It's trading well below its IPO price. They just brought on a new CFO. The CEO sold shares recently. |
And clearly, the market has real concerns about how AI reshapes the competitive landscape in cybersecurity. |
I hear all of that. |
But here's what I've learned in 26 years of doing this. |
The best setups always come with a reason not to buy. Always. If everything looked clean and obvious, the stock wouldn't be cheap. The discount exists because people are scared. |
And when a fundamentally sound company gets sold off on fear rather than facts, that's usually when the real money gets made. |
I've watched this pattern play out more times than I can count. |
Gold had every reason to sell off before it broke out. Bitcoin had a thousand obituaries written before institutions showed up. |
Every single time, the crowd found a reason to wait. And by the time the reasons went away, so did the price. |
I'm not saying this is risk-free. Nothing is. |
What I am saying is that the risk-reward at these levels, with this macro backdrop, with an institutional research house putting their name behind it, looks like the kind of asymmetric setup I built this newsletter to find. |
Here's What's Coming Below |
Right below, in the Premium Section, Premium members get the full reveal. |
|
I'm also going to walk through why yesterday's sell-off created the kind of entry point that rarely lasts long once the market stops panicking and starts thinking. |
If you read Monday's essay and thought, "I want to know the name," today is the day. |
If you're not a Premium member yet, I'll just say this. The gap between reality and price got wider this week. The thesis got stronger. And the stock got cheaper. |
That combination doesn't happen often. |
One good idea can pay for a decade of subscriptions. |
Don't waste this one. |
Double D |
P.S. Here's a screenshot of the current Moonshot Minute Portfolio. I've blurred out the tickers since that information is only for Premium Members, but you can see how we've done so far: |
|
|
|
🔓 Premium Content Begins Here 🔒 |
|
In today's Premium Section, I'm naming the AI cybersecurity company I think is the most asymmetric play in the space right now. | I hope you've been paying attention because many of our picks are currently beating the S&P by up to 4-to-1 over the last 12 months. | Most financial newsletters charge $500, $1,000, even $5,000 per year. Why? Because they know they can. | I don't. | I built my wealth the old-fashioned way, not by selling subscriptions. | That's why I priced this at $25/month, or $250/year. | Not because it's low quality, but because I don't need to charge the typical prices other newsletters charge. | One good trade, idea, or concept could pay for your next decade of subscriptions. | The question isn't 'Why is this so cheap?' The question is, 'Why would I charge more?' | 👉 Upgrade to Premium Now | P.S. If this newsletter were $1,000 per year, you'd have to think about it. | You'd weigh your options. You'd analyze the risk. | But it's $25 a month. | That's the price of a bad lunch decision. | And remember, just one good idea could pay for your subscription for a decade. | 👉 Upgrade to Premium Now | |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.