In short: Sold: held as the petrochemical beneficiary of the oil spike (up ~40%), then exited after construction customers said they could not absorb the price increases — "we just removed Huntsman and since then it's down like 40%."
Huntsman makes chemicals derived from oil. When the Middle East conflict hit oil and chemical facilities, product prices jumped and Aurelion's position rose about 40%, because a chemical maker can raise prices and have a strong quarter. Then Aurelion asked the customers, construction companies, whether they could keep paying. They said no: they could not pass the higher prices on.
A price rise the end customer can't afford won't last, so Aurelion sold. By Boyer's account the stock has fallen about 40% since. For him the lesson carries over to oil: a price spike built on a disruption, rather than on a real shortage, doesn't hold.
28:48won't be able to raise this price so from our understanding we went out, we just removed Huntsman and since then it's down like 40%. So we're really right and I think it's the same thing with oil. Right now you would have a lot of people with oil that think okay there's a lot of conflicts, Hormuz is closed, but is there more to it maybe. I just think that right now it's all speculation and like you said if it's all about speculation why would you be bullish? It's like betting on a big
In short: All-stock merger of equals with Olin (announced June 16): ~54/46 Huntsman split at an at-the-market valuation, ~$400M operational synergies on a ~$1B EBITDA base — chemicals consolidating to extract synergies and preserve valuation after sector selloffs.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.