It's well written for its target audience, people who are used to reading financial analyses.

While I’ve seen a plenty of silly reports from big bank analysts, they usually have the advantage of not coming across like complete idiots when saying things like this

> We assign a preliminary A+ rating to the notes, one notch below Meta’s issuer credit rating,

It’s hard to get away with that when the report is attributed to a company and person which don’t seem to exist, hosted on some randos substack. Wording like that works way better when it comes from a sender with an address ending with @bigbank.com

Of course, the latter parts of the post (Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability) do reveal pretty definitively that this is obviously not intended to be a serious report.

Hard disagree. I read a lot of well-written financial analyses and this isn’t it at all.

The target audience is people who want to be angry at Meta and think that they’re smarter than finance people.