Nothing about the business changed in those forty eight hours. What changed was the venue, the underwriter, and the story. That gap between the venue and the business is the entire subject of this piece, and once you understand how it opened, everything else about this company becomes legible.

On the thirtieth of April, Bleecker Street Research published a short report calling SharonAI a neocloud built on phantom contracts and questionable financing. The stock was around $63 at publication. It is $50 now. The short is working, and most people have concluded the report was simply right.

We spent three research rounds and sixteen agents testing that conclusion against primary sources. We pulled the 555 page Indian prospectus of the customer at the centre of the report. We pulled the bankruptcy docket the report cites. We pulled the Form D that names the underwriter's fee. We read the audited accounts of the CEO's private vehicle in Australia. We enumerated the company's certificate transparency logs, its autonomous system number, its PeeringDB facility registrations and its status page incident history.

What we found is that the report was right about the paperwork and wrong about the price. Its two load bearing claims have not survived. Several of its sharpest lines are materially imprecise. And the single most serious conflict at this company is one the report did not identify at all.

The thesis in two sentences

SharonAI is a real, very small, asset light GPU cloud with roughly two to four megawatts actually connected, wrapped in promotional numbers its own filings do not support, and the market has already discounted the promotional numbers to approximately zero. At $50 the enterprise value is $1.18 billion against $1.86 billion of cash, which means cash is 94 percent of the market capitalisation, only $29.60 a share is at risk on the operating business, and two independent valuation back solves both land on the capacity figure in the audited filings rather than the one in the press releases.

That is not a defence of the company's disclosure. It is an observation that you are being asked to pay for the conservative case and handed the rest as optionality.

1. What this company actually is

Strip away the language and SharonAI is a tenant.

It does not own data centres. It sold the one it had. The flagship Texas campus, a 250 megawatt joint venture in the Permian Basin called Texas Critical Data Centers, was a fifty fifty partnership with a small helium and natural gas company. SharonAI sold its entire fifty percent stake in January 2026, one month before the Nasdaq pricing, for $70 million. It was paid early and in full, taking $74.8 million, and booked a $65.9 million gain. That gain, plus $5.0 million on the shares it received, is the only thing that made money in the first half of 2026.

This matters for a reason that is not obvious. The company carries $26.3 million of property and equipment against $2.32 billion of total assets. That looks alarming until you know the data centre was sold and the GPUs are not owned either. The fleet sits in two leased halls belonging to NEXTDC, the Australian colocation operator, in West Footscray Melbourne and Artarmon Sydney. A thousand GPU Blackwell cluster is consumed under a Lenovo pay as you go agreement, meaning it never touches the balance sheet at all. A further $302.65 million sits in prepayments to named suppliers, principally $256.19 million to WWT Australia, for hardware that has not been delivered.

So the accounting is not hiding anything. The accounting is telling you precisely what this is: a company that has paid cash to vendors for equipment it has not received, to install in buildings it does not own, for customers whose contracts begin in 2027.

The cloud itself is real, and we had to correct ourselves on this point. An early pass concluded the company was a brochure site with no product. That was wrong, because it probed the wrong domain. The actual platform lives on a fourth domain registered in August 2025, with working single sign on, self serve registration, 352 pages of technical documentation covering managed Kubernetes, GPU virtual machines, serverless inference and per second metering, and production hostnames resolving inside the company's own announced address space. The company holds a genuine autonomous system number registered to its founders' pre existing Australian vehicle, announcing 1,536 addresses across six blocks.

It is a real cloud. It is also a small one. The company's own status page, live since October 2025, lists two regions, both Australian, and records three incidents in eleven months. Self reported peering traffic is twenty to fifty gigabits per second. A production cloud carrying meaningful load generates considerably more of all three.

2. The short report, adjudicated

We took twenty six discrete claims from the Bleecker report and tested each against primary documents. Thirteen confirmed. Six overtaken by events. Five overstated. Two false. Two unresolved.

The pattern is consistent and worth stating plainly, because it is to the author's credit. Where Bleecker quoted a document, it quoted correctly. The failures are inferential rather than documentary. This was not a sloppy report. It was a report written in April about a situation that moved in May, June, July, August and September.

What died

The centrepiece was ESDS Software Solution, an Indian company that signed a $1.25 billion five year contract with SharonAI on the thirty first of March. The report's argument was arithmetic and looked devastating: ESDS earned $39.9 million and held $69.5 million of assets, yet had committed to pay roughly $250 million a year and post $140 million in letters of credit, a figure exceeding its entire balance sheet.

We pulled ESDS's own Red Herring Prospectus, filed with the Indian securities regulator on the twenty fourth of August. It is 555 pages, audited, and legally binding on its signatories. It did not exist when Bleecker wrote.

It confirms the contract term for term. Entered the thirty first of March 2026. Five years plus a two year option. Total contract value of $1.25 billion, stated in rupees as ₹118,312.50 million. Approximately 8,208 NVIDIA B300 GPUs, a more precise figure than SharonAI's own "8K". An Australian data centre. Monthly service fees.

The phantom contract claim is false. The contract exists, and the customer's own auditors have examined the disclosure.

More importantly, the prospectus reveals the funding mechanism, which nobody outside the two companies could previously see. ESDS's subsidiary has already received an advance of ₹11,766.35 million, approximately $124.3 million, from an enterprise customer incorporated outside India, for this project. That advance is what tripled ESDS's balance sheet, taking cash from ₹607 million to ₹12,534 million.

This is a prefunded back to back resale. ESDS is not a small company promising to pay a quarter of a billion dollars a year out of its own earnings. It is an intermediary that has already collected a large advance from the ultimate end user. And the number ties to something unexplained on SharonAI's own balance sheet: a customer deposits line of $143,879,911, carrying no note, no policy and no counterparty disclosure. The two sides of the trade reconcile.

The second load bearing claim was financing. The report attacked a $500 million facility from USD.AI, a decentralised finance protocol, noting correctly that it had roughly $284 million of lending capacity against $1.2 billion of approvals.

Every word of that arithmetic was right, and it remains right. We pulled USD.AI's live proof of reserves data. Its entire loan book across twenty seven deals sits in Sweden, Canada, France and the United States. Australia is zero. New Zealand is zero. Its first accountant attestation, published on the first of September, states the book is deployed across facilities in the United States, Canada and Sweden.

SharonAI never drew a dollar. Every filing for eight months has carried the identical sentence, that USD.AI had approved a facility subject to execution of definitive documentation. It was never upgraded to "we entered into" or "we drew". USD.AI appears zero times in the second quarter report.

The report named a lender that was never used. And in the interim the company raised approximately $2.15 billion from institutions that are emphatically not decentralised finance protocols: Oaktree, which holds $375 million across both convertible tranches, plus Millennium, Soros, Point72, Blackstone, Diameter, Sona and Lone Pine. Cash went from $71 million to $1,861,347,822. Annual interest is $54.6 million against 34 times coverage, and nothing matures before May 2031.

Three further claims decayed. The assertion that ESDS cannot legally serve Indian customers from Australia rests on Indian data localisation rules that cover payment system data only, and the end customer here is offshore, so the rule never bites. The Gazprombank exposure was confirmed to the decimal for fiscal 2025 at 20.15 percent, and has since fallen to 2.80 percent. The supervoting structure described as sixty five percent of votes on one percent of economics was a mismatched pairing then, and today stands at 38.2 percent of votes against 45.7 percent of economics, which is not a voting majority at all.

What survived, and what got stronger

The governance critique stands, and in one respect we strengthened it against the company.

The DSS acquisition, in which the founders sold a private Australian entity into the public shell, drew a comment from the Securities and Exchange Commission itself during the merger review, questioning whether it was a common control transaction that should carry no goodwill at all. Bleecker did not have that. It is corroboration from the regulator.

The NVIDIA misstatement is confirmed and remains live. The annual report filed on the thirty first of March, signed by the chief executive, stated that NVIDIA is a strategic shareholder in SharonAI. An 8-K filed on the thirteenth of April stated NVIDIA holds no equity securities. The annual report has never been amended, so the false sentence is still in the filing today, and the correction was filed under the "other events" item rather than the non reliance item. In fairness, the sentence sits in a single cell of a partner table whose adjacent row makes the identical claim about a different partner and is true, which reads as a copy into the wrong row rather than an invention. It is sloppy. It is not fabricated. It is also uncorrected six months later.

And the letters of credit do not exist. ESDS's certified indebtedness table, examined by an independent accountant as at the thirtieth of June, three months after signing, records letters of credit sanctioned nil and outstanding nil. Its entire non fund based limit is approximately $5.5 million against a required $140 million. The customer's own legally binding disclosure document does not record the security that SharonAI's lenders are being asked to underwrite.

What was overstated

Three lines in the report do not survive contact with the underlying record, and anyone repeating them should stop.

The report says the chief executive's prior public company is suing him for routing $11.5 million through a shipping company he controlled. There is no such case. A full sweep of all thirty Mawson Infrastructure dockets, plus searches on his name and his vehicles, returns zero federal actions naming James Manning as a party. Across 120 docket entries in the live adversary proceeding, his name and his company's name appear zero times. The allegation lives in Mawson's answer to an involuntary bankruptcy petition, a defensive pleading offering motive evidence against the creditors who filed it, and it has never appeared in any Mawson annual or quarterly report. The word identifying that shipping company returns zero hits in both.

The payments that did flow to that company from SharonAI were $167,638 in 2024 and $92,722 in 2025, and it appears nowhere in the 2026 related party note.

The report describes a $25 million self dealing transaction in DSS. The audited accounts of the CEO's own vehicle show it sold DSS for A$1,018,000 of stock, booking a A$900,074 gain on a carrying value of approximately A$118,000, which ties precisely to the $677,000 SharonAI disclosed. The $25 million was the whole company valuation across mostly unrelated holders. The insider take was about one million Australian dollars.

And the contractor arrangement the report attacked, under which the chief executive, chief financial officer and a co founder invoiced through their own companies, was terminated in April 2026 with no notice period and no payment.

On the regulatory record the negative is clean and deserves to be stated as plainly as the allegations. No action by the Securities and Exchange Commission. No banning or disqualification by the Australian regulator. No Nasdaq proceeding. No industry record. No criminal charge. No restatement, no non reliance filing, no auditor resignation over any of it. After three years of allegations, no regulator anywhere has acted.

These are serious, specific and entirely untested allegations. The fair weight is a standing governance discount, because the related party density is undisputed disclosure rather than allegation, plus a guidance credibility discount. It is not a fraud thesis.

3. What nobody has reported

Here is the part of this piece that is ours, and it is the most serious conflict at this company.

The underwriter that took SharonAI public bought its stock at $6.00 first.

The sequence is documented in two filings. A prospectus supplement filed on the thirteenth of February shows Lucid Capital Markets as one of three investors in $2,250,000 of December 2025 bridge notes that converted at $6.00 a share. Six days later Lucid acted as representative of the underwriters on the public offering priced at $30.00. On the seventeenth of April it initiated research coverage with a buy rating and a $50 price target. Nine days after that, a Form D filed on the fourth of May names Lucid Capital Markets as the sole recipient of sales compensation on the $350 million convertible offering, paid $14,875,000.

Bought at six. Sold to the public at thirty. Published a fifty target. Collected fourteen and a half million.

Lucid is placement agent on every financing this company has done, roughly $2.075 billion in total. And its Head of Capital Markets was the sole officer and director of the SharonAI registrant before the merger, and is himself registered to resell 465,343 shares. That same individual joined the board of the shell in 2023.

Which brings us to the shell. SharonAI did not arrive on Nasdaq through an initial public offering in any meaningful sense. The vehicle began as TKB Critical Technologies 1, which raised money in October 2021 to buy a connected car data company. That deal collapsed. In June 2023 the sponsor and directors sold 4,312,500 shares and 8,062,500 private warrants to affiliates of Roth Capital Partners and Craig-Hallum for one dollar. The vehicle was renamed, then failed two separate Nasdaq listing rules, one for having fewer than four hundred holders and one for not holding an annual meeting. It voluntarily delisted in April 2024, liquidated its trust, and saw ninety percent of its public shares redeemed.

That is the entity SharonAI merged into in December 2025, landing on the OTC Pink market. Two months later it uplisted to Nasdaq at $30.00, two days after trading at $1.90.

We also found a selling shareholder that bought at $6.00 whose trust belongs to the chairman of both the CEO's private investment vehicle and the shipping company named in the Mawson pleading. None of that relationship appears in the selling shareholder footnotes.

Two more items nobody has published.

The company bought land in Australia and did not tell its shareholders. On the ninth of September a regional newspaper reported that Visy sold its former paper mill near Albury, New South Wales, to SharonAI, with a company spokesperson confirming it on the record, corroborated by a second outlet and by a statement from the local member of parliament. This is the first evidence of any owned real property. It appears in no filing and in no press release. There is no development application lodged. It is bare dirt, disclosed to a regional paper and an MP but not to the market.

And the headline backlog includes the supplier. The second quarter release presents $8.8 billion of total contract value, and books $4.9 billion of that under a heading called customer momentum, attributed to NVIDIA. But the financial statements say the company committed to procure hardware for approximately $4 billion, and the chief executive describes the NVIDIA pricing as guaranteed as a minimum only, a floor rather than a ceiling, focused on the resale of that capacity. That is a purchase obligation and a price backstop presented as customer demand. Signed customer contract value is $3.893 billion, not $8.8 billion.

4. The capacity question, which is the real one

The company says 212 megawatts. Its own quarterly filing says 132 megawatts secured and 116 contracted. The number 212 appears nowhere in the filing's body.

We traced its origin. It first appears on the sixth of August, in an exhibit to the second quarter results. And contrary to our own earlier working note, it is not a contradiction of the release two days before. On the fourth of August the company said total capacity remains at 132 megawatts with 120 contracted. On the sixth it added a previously unannounced additional 80 megawatts, bringing the total to 212.

So a sixty one percent increase in claimed capacity was disclosed as a bullet in an earnings release and a remark on a call. No standalone filing. No facility named. No host named. No contract. Approximately 80 of the 212 megawatts has no disclosed home anywhere in the public record.

Against that, what is actually connected today is two to four megawatts, in two NEXTDC halls, verifiable through the company's own PeeringDB registration, which lists exactly two facilities and zero in the United States. The fleet was 432 GPUs as of September 2025, including sixteen H200s the company disclosed were acquired primarily for customer latency testing and proof of concepts.

The honest way to describe the gap is not fiction. It is tense. This is a 2027 business being described in the present tense. The largest tranche, 72 megawatts at NEXTDC worth roughly $623 million, does not deploy until April to August 2027. Three of the four headline contracts begin in 2027. The quarterly filing concedes the point in its own language, recording no liability because services have not commenced.

There is real corroboration that the contracts are binding. NEXTDC's own exchange filing on the twenty first of July reports contracted utilisation rising 73 megawatts in the same month SharonAI signed a 72 megawatt order. That is a landlord confirming the lease from the other side.

5. The tape, and why it fell

We began this work with a hypothesis that the decline from $97 to $50 was mechanical, driven by convertible arbitrage funds shorting the stock to hedge their bonds. We were wrong, and the data killed it cleanly.

Peak short interest was 2,744,284 shares, 7.8 percent of the class, against a theoretical fully hedged book of about 7.5 million. Short interest fell throughout the entire decline, from 2.74 million in July to 2.36 million at the end of August. Days to cover ran between one and one point four. Borrow is easy and cheap, with 800,000 shares available at 2.45 percent. The stock has never appeared on the threshold list. The options book is 3.3 to one long calls, which is retail buying upside, not desks hedging bonds.

The actual explanation is supply, and it is dated to the day.

Class A shares went from 11,832,164 at the end of December to 35,667,164 by August, roughly tripling in six months. On the fourteenth of August, 13,094,719 shares priced at $68.73 became freely saleable. On the twenty first, a further 8,056,699 priced at $12.53 joined them. That is 21,151,418 shares, 59.3 percent of the entire class, unlocked in eight days, on registration statements the Securities and Exchange Commission expressly declined to review. The stock fell 23.2 percent in the four sessions between the two effective dates, and the high of $76.90 came three sessions after the first.

Seventy six percent of that freed equity is unhedged.

The largest holder is worth understanding precisely, because it is simultaneously the biggest risk and a meaningful signal. Situational Awareness, the fund run by the former OpenAI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, holds 8,070,950 shares and prefunded warrants, 21.1 percent on the basis its own filing uses. Its cost is $523,882,863, or $64.91 a share, leaving it roughly $105 million underwater. Its fund shrank from $45 billion to $10 billion. It converted from a passive to an active filing on the twenty eighth of August, and the nineteen point nine nine percent ownership blocker ceased to apply on the twenty seventh.

It has sold nothing. Zero shares. Through a forty six percent drawdown.

Neither have insiders, in either direction. Five ownership forms since listing, one of them a zero dollar grant, no sales, no plans, no buying.

And the retail story is a non story. The company did run a paid investor relations campaign, disclosed properly under the relevant rule, costing $200,000 in total, $50,000 in monthly fees and $150,000 for a four week television campaign that aired in March. It lapsed in the second quarter. The promotional window and the price window do not overlap. A census of 1,356 messages on the main retail forum returns no coordinated phrasing, and the twelve and a half percent decline on the fourteenth of September drew four messages. Retail has left. It did not make this price, and it is not defending it.

6. What you are actually paying for

This is where the argument turns, and it turns on arithmetic rather than opinion.

At $50.17 the basic share count is 35,803,505 and the treasury method count is 39,430,551. Enterprise value is $1,180.9 million, and across six different definitions the range is $0.83 billion to $1.39 billion, narrow enough that the choice does not matter.

Cash is 94.1 percent of the market capitalisation. Only $29.60 a share is exposed to the operating business at all.

Now run the two back solves.

At the peer median of roughly $9.0 million of enterprise value per megawatt, $1,180.9 million implies 131 megawatts. The quarterly filing says 132.

At the peer median of 3.48 times forward revenue, it implies $339 million of 2027 revenue. That is 44 percent of the signed book's run rate and 22 percent of the four analyst consensus.

Two independent methods, approached from different directions, both land on the number in the audited filing rather than the number in the press release.

The 212 megawatts is not in the price. The $8.8 billion is not in the price. The 68,000 GPUs are not in the price. Every promotional figure this piece has spent six sections dismantling has already been discounted to approximately zero by the market. The promotional record bear case is paid for.

Meanwhile the company trades at 0.77 times forward revenue against a peer median of 3.48, the cheapest in its sector by a factor of 3.2, while simultaneously trading at $328 million per live megawatt against a peer band of $45 to $64 million. Both are true at once, and the reconciliation is the cash.

The unit economics are also better than the narrative implies. The contracts price at $18.6 to $19.0 million per megawatt per year, which is below one listed peer's disclosed figure and inside another's stated band. The pricing is market. The delivery is the anomaly. Gross margin is driven far more by depreciation life than by utilisation: on a four year life the range across seventy to one hundred percent utilisation is negative 21.5 to positive 12.9 percent, while on a six year life it is positive 13.2 to positive 37.1 percent.

And the funding shortfall, correctly framed, is a growth gap rather than a solvency gap. Total uses through 2027 are $2,141.6 million against $1,861.3 million of cash. That is short $280.3 million with no customer prepayments, short $111.3 million at ten percent, and a $57.7 million surplus at twenty percent. We know prepayment is real, because ESDS has already advanced $124.3 million. Interest coverage is thirty four times and nothing is due before May 2031.

7. The dated tests, and what they are saying right now

This thesis is unusually falsifiable, which is the best thing about it. Four tests carry dates.

The first was the sixteenth of September, the contractual delivery date for the ESDS cluster. As of writing there is no filing, no announcement, and no evidence anywhere that the $140 million security has been posted. More pointedly, on the tenth of September the customer's own chairman told Indian television that the Sydney facility would go live in the next forty to fifty days, by the end of October. Six days before the contractual date, the customer was publicly guiding six weeks past it. He did not name SharonAI, and the connection runs through the only Australian arrangement ESDS discloses, so treat it as strong inference rather than proof.

The second is the twenty sixth of September, when a 15 megawatt Sydney facility was said to be going live. The landlord's last public statement was in May. Its newsroom has not posted since June and has never named SharonAI. The company's PeeringDB registration still shows two facilities, last updated on the twenty ninth of July. No third building has appeared.

The third is secured financing. On the twenty first of August the convertible holders consented to strip the covenants limiting debt and liens, which is unambiguous preparation for asset backed borrowing, and which Oaktree as a required holder with a veto necessarily approved. Twenty five days later nothing has been filed.

The fourth is the cleanest and cannot be spun. When the next quarterly report is filed, either it recognises an operating lease liability for the new capacity or it does not. Accounting standards require recognition when a lease commences. If those megawatts are live, the liability appears. If it does not appear, they are not live.

Two of four have failed so far. One is pending with the customer guiding past it. That is the honest scoreboard, and it is why this is a 2027 story.

8. What would make us wrong

If the September and October deliveries land and the next quarterly report shows a lease liability stepping up, the live footprint roughly quadruples and the 2027 book starts converting to revenue. That is the bull path and it is measurable.

Against it, here is how the long thesis breaks.

The ESDS contract is renegotiated or shrinks, which is the single most likely adverse outcome given no letter of credit exists, the customer is a reseller with a twenty percent gross margin, and its own analyst models an earnings margin collapsing from 50.8 to 18.1 percent.

The secured financing does not arrive, or arrives at punitive terms, leaving the 2027 tranche unfunded. Watch for any filing that follows the covenant strip.

Situational Awareness sells. Eight million shares, twenty one percent of the class, a hundred and five million dollars underwater, in a fund that lost most of its assets, with the blocker now removed. Nothing obliges it to be patient.

The May convertible strikes at $48.24, which is at the money today. A recovery arms that dilution rather than relieving it.

The auditor position deteriorates. Three firms in twenty months, no internal control audit ever performed, and a material weakness in complex financial instruments that remains unremediated.

Or delivery simply keeps slipping, and 2027 becomes 2028, at which point the cash cushion that makes this defensible starts being consumed by interest and overhead rather than by building.

The position

The short report was right about the paperwork. The capacity number is promotional, the backlog counts the supplier, the console has been removed from public DNS, the land purchase went to a regional newspaper instead of the market, and the underwriter bought at six and sold you thirty.

It was wrong about the price. The contract is real and prefunded. The financing it attacked was never drawn, and two billion dollars arrived from Oaktree and Millennium and Soros instead. The lawsuit it described does not name the man it describes. The twenty five million was one million. And the market has already marked this company at the number in its audited filing rather than the number in its press release.

At ninety four percent cash backing, you are paying roughly thirty dollars a share for a business the market is valuing at the 132 megawatts on file, with the 2027 book as free optionality and four dated tests in the next ninety days to tell you whether it converts.

That is not a story stock at this price. It is a financing and delivery question with a large cash cushion behind it, and the honest answer is that we will know a great deal more by the end of October than we know today.

Disclosure and disclaimer. This is our own research and opinion. It is not investment advice and not a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Figures are drawn from company filings, exchange filings, foreign regulatory prospectuses, court records and public infrastructure registries, and we make no warranty as to their accuracy or completeness. Bleecker Street Research has disclosed a short position in SHAZ. Do your own work.

A subscriber asked the right question in the chat this week. What are the nearest catalysts, and when do we expect them. Another said he felt overdue for some bigger news. Both are fair, and both deserve a straight answer instead of a pep talk.

So this …

Read more

Read more

Read more

One note before we start, because it matters: Merlin hosted this visit, and everyone I met was careful, professional, and disciplined about what a public company can and cannot say. Nobody gave me projections, timelines, financial information, or anything you cannot find in a filing. What I brought home was not information. It was calibration: the chance to check the public record against the physical reality. Every program fact, number, and quote in this piece comes from public filings, press releases, and the recorded management call previously published to subscribers. The rest is what I saw with my own eyes and heard through my own headset.

There is a specific kind of due diligence you cannot do from a terminal. I have spent five months on this company from the outside: the filings, the FAA registry, the lobbying disclosures, the flight trackers, the federal budget documents, thirteen parts of it published here. I have tracked their airplanes across two hemispheres and read their certification milestones the way other people read box scores. What I had never done, until this week, was sit inside the product while it worked.

So when the invitation came to come to Rhode Island and fly, I took it.

Quonset

To get to Merlin's flight test operation you drive onto the old Quonset Point naval air station in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and the geography does half the storytelling before you ever reach the hangar.

This is the place that gave the Quonset hut its name. The Navy built the base in 1941, the Seabees were born here, and for a generation this stretch of Narragansett Bay was one of the busiest military airfields on the East Coast. The first thing you pass today is General Dynamics Electric Boat, where they assemble hull sections for nuclear submarines: cranes, security fencing, barge docks, the whole industrial choreography of the most complicated machines America builds. Quonset is not a tech campus with a climbing wall. It is a place where the government has been betting on hard, unforgiving engineering for eighty years, and the neighborhood tells you what category of thing is being attempted inside.

The second thing you notice, if you know what to look for, is that the Rhode Island Air National Guard's 143d Airlift Wing flies C-130Js off this same field. The airframe at the center of Merlin's defense business takes off and lands, routinely, on the other side of the fence from Merlin's hangar. Nobody staged that for my benefit. It is simply where the company chose to do its work: submarines on one side, Hercules on the other, and in between, a hangar where a software company is teaching airplanes to fly themselves.

Merlin moved flight test here from Mojave in late 2024 to be near the Boston headquarters, and the hangar houses the Cessna Grand Caravans that anchor the FAA supplemental type certificate program, the civil half of this story. I parked in the hangar lot, walked in past the caution tape and the toolboxes and the aircraft in work, and the first impression was the important one: this looks exactly like what the filings say it is. A working flight test unit in the middle of a campaign. Not a showroom. Nobody had tidied the lab for company.

The room

The company put real people in front of me, not a deck. The VP of Investor Relations. Flight test staff. Another investor, a PM at a hedge fund, was visiting the same day, which tells you something about who is doing primary work on this name right now. On the management call last week, the CEO mentioned that Merlin had been extending these invitations for a while and only recently had investors started taking them up. Having now gone, I understand why the ones who do come back different.

We sat down for a pre-flight meeting and talked for a long while about the intricacies of aviation and autonomy, and I want to describe the texture of that conversation, because texture is what you fly to Rhode Island for. Nobody pitched me. The conversation kept drifting, the way conversations among competent people do, into the genuinely hard parts of the problem: what it means to put a machine in command of an aircraft in the national airspace system, how you bound a decision-maker you did not hand-write, what safety actually means when you engineer for it rather than argue about it. Everyone I met was conspicuously qualified, and everyone talked about the same thing from a different angle. The angle was never the stock. It was always the airplane.

The frame they operate under is the one the CEO has laid out publicly, and the consistency between the executive suite and the hangar floor is itself a data point, because message discipline that deep is rarer than you would think. Aviation has had assisted autonomy for decades: autopilots, autothrottles, autoland. Each of those is a tool a pilot wields. What Merlin is building is the jump from assistance to a full stack pilot, a system that owns the mission from takeoff through touchdown, perceives, decides, communicates, and acts, with the human moving up one level, to supervision and authorization. Matt George has publicly described Merlin Pilot as a student pilot: you teach it the airplane, then you expand what it is trusted to do, gradually, gate by gate. Not a feature. A crew member.

The man in the left seat

The pilot assigned to our demo flight is a former military C-130 pilot who now flies as a test pilot for Merlin. Sit with that for a second, because the resume alone carries information. The program Merlin is trying to win is crewing down the C-130J for Special Operations Command, from two pilots to one. The person in the left seat of my demo has flown that mission the old way, with two humans up front, and now spends his working life supervising the software designed to hand one of those seats to a machine.

But the resume was not the striking part. The striking part was the conviction.

Understand what a test pilot is. A test pilot is a professional skeptic. The entire job, the culture, the training, is organized around distrust: fly the machine to the edges of what it claims it can do, find where the claims break, write it up, do it again. Test pilots do not gush. They are the immune system of an aviation company. So when I sat across from one before the flight and listened to him talk about Merlin Pilot, what I was listening for was hedges, and what I heard instead was a man who has watched this system through hundreds of hours of the least charitable scrutiny available and come out the other side convinced. He talked about safety the way career aviators talk about safety, which is to say constantly, unprompted, from every direction: the discipline of the test program, the layers between an idea and an action, what the system will simply refuse to do. Not marketing safety. Procedural safety. The kind with paperwork.

His conviction reads even better against the public backdrop. The CEO has said publicly that the vast majority of aviation accidents remain the direct result of human error, and that safety is the first thing autonomy changes. A machine does not get tired on the sixth leg of the day. It does not get distracted, or rushed, or complacent, and it flies the aircraft the same way at 2 a.m. as at 2 p.m. The men and women who have spent careers watching human factors erode airmanship are precisely the people you would expect to feel strongest about that, and, at least in the sample I met, they do. When people ask me what conviction inside a company looks like, it is not the founder's conviction that impresses me. Founders are paid to believe. It is the test pilot's.

The airplane is a laboratory

Then we walked out to the ramp and inspected the aircraft, and the romance got replaced by something better, which is evidence.

Start with the airplane itself, because the choice of airframe is strategy. The Cessna Grand Caravan is arguably the most consequential utility aircraft of the last forty years. FedEx funded part of its development in the 1980s because it wanted a cheap, rugged feeder for packages; more than 3,000 of the Caravan family have been delivered since; and its PT6A turbine is close to the most trusted engine in aviation. Caravans haul cargo, skydivers, mail, and medicine on every continent. It is the world's workhorse, which is exactly why you would pick it as the first certification target: certify autonomy on the airplane that already does the unglamorous flying of the global economy, and the market for the resulting product is not hypothetical. It is FedEx feeders and island freight runs and every operation that runs these airframes hard, every day, at thin margins.

Now the part that carries more of the thesis than it first appears to: none of Merlin's aircraft are fly-by-wire. A Caravan, a King Air, a C-130J: these are cable-and-hydraulics machines designed decades before anyone imagined software in the loop. The integration process, as the CEO has described it publicly, is to retrofit servos and actuators onto the airplane, then "characterize" it, flying a set of maneuvers with the company's test pilots to teach Merlin Pilot how this specific airframe behaves, then gradually expand the envelope of what the system is allowed to do. Why that matters commercially: the world's cargo and military fleets are not fly-by-wire either. A company that can only automate new airplanes has a market measured in future deliveries. A company that can retrofit autonomy onto the existing fleet has the thousands of aircraft already out there. That is the entire Condor thesis, and it starts with servo brackets.

You see all of it in the cabin. A rack of flight test electronics with dozens of thick cables running forward, the visible circulatory system between the compute and the airplane's nerves. Test instrumentation where seats would be. And in the back, the flight test engineer's station: a second joystick, a monitor, and the tablet that runs the show.

The tablet

Our flight test engineer walked me through the backend before we ever turned the propeller, and I want to be precise about what I saw, because no press release conveys it.

The tablet is the mission. You create waypoints and place them in three dimensions, altitude included, building a route the way you would sketch one on a map that happens to be real. The aircraft flies it with complete autonomy. You can edit the plan in flight, and the aircraft accepts the new routing the moment it is authorized; there is no perceptible gap between permission and execution.

Restricted airspace renders as hard boundaries the system will not enter. Not "is trained to avoid." Will not. And the same philosophy runs all the way down the stack: the servos and actuators themselves have bounded authority, and the intelligent layer works through those bounds rather than around them. Everything the autonomy wants to do is checked against deterministic constraints before it becomes motion. If you have spent any time thinking about how a learning system gets certified for aviation, you will recognize the architecture: put the clever part inside a cage the regulator can inspect. The cage is the product as much as the cleverness is.

This is not a marketing abstraction, and here is the receipt. The two components Merlin announced it had pushed through Stage of Involvement 3 with the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand this month, in the joint validation program with the FAA, are exactly the two things I watched work: the Flight Control Computer and the Automated Communication System. The certification paperwork and the demo describe the same machine. That coherence, filings matching hangar, is precisely what you fly to Rhode Island to check, and it checked.

On the same screen you can watch the communication side of the brain: the ATC comms stream and the language processing pipeline, every stage of the loop from radio call to understood instruction to proposed action, laid out where an engineer can audit it. And woven through the whole walkthrough, unprompted, was redundancy: software redundancy, power redundancy, hardware redundancy. This is a company that talks like an avionics house, not like a software startup that happens to own airplanes.

The flight

We boarded, briefed, and lined up. The pilot authorized the departure. Then Merlin Pilot flew the airplane.

Not "assisted." Not "mostly." The system advanced through the takeoff, lifted off, climbed, and flew the waypoint plan. We changed the route mid-flight from the tablet and the aircraft took up the new plan instantly. It stayed inside every boundary and followed every rule, the entire time, with the two humans up front doing exactly what the architecture says they should be doing: supervising, and authorizing.

Somewhere in cruise came the moment I will be telling people about for years. Through my headset I heard a transmission go out to air traffic control, and the voice did not belong to anyone in the airplane. It was Merlin Pilot on the radio, working its own frequency, in a synthetic voice with, I have to report, genuine personality. There is something permanently mind-bending about listening to the national airspace system talk to a piece of software as a peer, and the controller on the other end not caring. This is the Automated Communication System, the same component that just cleared SOI-3: per the company's own public materials, it interprets spoken ATC instructions and converts headings, altitudes, and airspeeds into commands for the flight control system, and it reads back like any other airplane on the frequency. Reading that in a certification announcement is one thing. Hearing it key up in your headset at altitude is another.

The interface runs both directions. I was shown how a human can speak to Merlin Pilot and authorize override commands by voice, and the system will execute them if, and only if, the request fits inside its bounds. The envelope is the constitution. Everything, including the humans, operates within it.

And then, at the end of the mission, the system flew the approach and landed. No manual pilot input, from the start of the journey to the rollout. The flare was judged, the touchdown was smoother than most of the human landings I have logged as an airline passenger, and the airplane tracked the centerline like it was on a rail. Five weeks earlier, this same company flew a Caravan onto Runway 27 at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, hands off all the way to the ground in front of the largest aviation crowd on the planet, the first autonomous landing of a conventional fixed-wing aircraft in the show's fifty-plus-year history. On our call, the CEO was asked why he would take that risk in public, and his answer was that there is a world where you do this in private, and "this is not how we operate." Having now sat behind the system while it worked a real frequency in real airspace, I believe him. The Oshkosh landing was not a stunt. It was the routine, performed in front of witnesses.

What a demo proves, and what it cannot

Here is where I put the analyst hat back on, because I am aware of the failure mode where someone gets one good demo and comes home writing a fan account.

A demo proves the system exists, works end to end in live airspace, and is mature enough that the company will put outside investors in the cabin as a matter of routine. In this sector that is genuinely rare; most autonomy stories are rendered videos and roadmap slides. But a demo is not certification, and certification is the entire civil ballgame. So let me lay the hard numbers next to the experience, because both are true at once.

Merlin's Q2 10-Q is on file as of August 14. Revenue for the quarter was $2.19 million, down 29 percent from the same quarter last year, a fact the sequential bulls skip because it rose from Q1. The revenue that exists today is defense services revenue, and certification-gated commercial revenue is still zero, exactly as the filings say it should be at this stage. Meanwhile the company is spending roughly $30 million a quarter across R&D and G&A to build the thing I flew with. What funds the gap is the balance sheet: $183.5 million in cash and short-term investments as of June 30, no debt, which at the current burn is runway into 2028 without asking anyone for money. The headline net loss figure includes a large non-cash deemed dividend from the preferred repricing; read the cash flow statement, not the EPS line.

Against that spend, the program stack as it stands, all public record:

• USSOCOM C-130J autonomy, sole prime. Critical Design Review complete June 4. Integration planning underway. The next task order is the catalyst.

• KC-135 air refueling. Teamed with GE, building on the company's prior Project Metis work. Roughly 300 tankers in the active fleet, with airframes older than the pilots flying them.

• FAA STC program, Cessna Grand Caravan. The flight test campaign at Quonset. The airplane I flew.

• NZ CAA and FAA joint validation. SOI-3 complete August 6 for the Flight Control Computer and the Automated Communication System. Commercial service target in New Zealand 2027, confirmed publicly.

• Commercial cargo, the Condor thesis. IAI and WorldStar partnerships; IAI is one of the largest passenger-to-freighter converters in the world, and the addressable fleet is measured in thousands of airframes.

• SHIELD. Classified R&D. Publicly characterized only as "interoperable collaborative autonomy."

Three things in that stack deserve emphasis after the visit.

First, the C-130J program is scoped more modestly, and therefore more achievably, than most people model. In the CEO's own words from our call: "don't forget our contract in our program, the C-130J, is to go from two pilots down to one." Not unmanned. Reduced crew. The human stays, which means the human-machine interface is the product, and the CEO has been candid publicly that this interface, the autonomy and the human pilot sitting together in one flight deck, was harder than expected and has "now turned into a deep competitive moat." After a day inside that interface, watching authorization flow from human to machine and back with zero friction, I understand why he calls the handoff the moat rather than the model.

Second, the certification building blocks are designed to be portable. SOI-3 was not a one-program milestone; the stated point is to bring foundational building blocks through the initial certification gates and then apply them across programs, the existing ones and the future ones. And the fleet strategy matches: the stated short-term goal is every aircraft in the fleet running the same technical capabilities and the same version of the software. The same brain on many airplanes. The system I flew behind is not a Caravan product. It is the product, wearing a Caravan.

Third, the catalyst is defined, by the company, on the record: when a new task order or expansion is announced, that is when the integration plan and the contract vehicle get laid out. Asked directly on our call whether the schedule was held up by Merlin, a subcontractor, aircraft availability, or SOCOM, the answer was flat: "No, I don't think there's a holdup." That denial is dated and on the record. The program sits post-CDR, in the vendor-and-partner assembly phase that precedes metal touching metal, under a $105 million ceiling IDIQ. The task order is the event this stock is waiting for, and when it comes, it arrives bundled with the plan.

One more macro point, because the demo made it concrete. Boeing's own industry outlook calls for roughly 660,000 new pilots worldwide over the next twenty years, against a training pipeline that everyone in the industry knows cannot produce them. The value proposition I watched at Quonset does not require replacing pilots to be worth money. Reduced crew workload, machine-disciplined fuel management, safety layers that never fatigue: these are line items on an operator's income statement long before any regulator changes a crew requirement. The pilot shortage is not a threat to this product. It is the demand curve.

What would make me wrong

I own this name, so the least I can do is state the other side plainly.

The structure is complex: a large convertible preferred stack with a 12 percent payment-in-kind dividend and a $5.00 conversion floor, which caps the death-spiral scenario but means the carry compounds quietly while the common waits. There is a lockup unlock in mid-September. Short interest at the last settlement sat near 90 percent of the float; the shorts and the index funds that arrived this summer cannot both be right about what happens next month. Reported revenue is going the wrong direction while G&A steps up. And the catalyst is a government schedule, which is to say, not a schedule. If the wait runs long, the tape will not be patient, and the preferred clock does not stop ticking while everyone waits.

Nothing I saw in Rhode Island refutes any of that. Hangars do not answer capital structure questions. What the visit answered is the question underneath all the others, the one that determines whether the rest is worth arguing about: is the product real, is it as far along as the public record claims, and are the people building it the kind who finish. The answers I brought home are yes, further than I expected, and I believe so.

The kicker

There is an old line in aerospace circles that, as flight control problems go, a cruise missile is just an airplane with somewhere to be. Engineers have trusted machines to fly themselves on one-way missions for half a century. What I watched at Quonset is the other half of that problem, the half that took fifty more years because it is harder: an aircraft that flies itself and asks permission, stays inside its boundaries, reads back its clearances in a voice with a sense of humor, and lands smoothly, gently, with investors in the back.

The submarines next door take a decade to build and the country pays what they cost, because some capabilities are not optional. Across the field sit the C-130s. In between, in a hangar with caution tape on the floor, a voice that is not a person is working the frequency.

Disclosure: Long MRLN, largest position in the book. This piece describes a company-hosted facility visit and demonstration flight. It contains no material non-public information. Conversations during the visit are characterized as my personal impressions only; no one at the company provided projections, financial information, timelines, or any information beyond the public record, and no statement in this piece should be read as made by or attributable to the company or its personnel except where drawn from published materials. All program facts, figures, and quotations come from public filings, company press releases, and the recorded management call previously published to subscribers. Nothing here is investment advice. Do your own work, and if you get the chance, go fly.

References

• Merlin, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026, filed August 14, 2026, SEC EDGAR, CIK 0002028707

• Merlin, Inc. Form 8-K and Q2 earnings release, August 13, 2026

• Merlin press release, "Merlin Completes Autonomous Landing at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh," July 20, 2026

• Merlin press release, "Merlin Achieves Next Stage in Certification of Its Autonomous Flight Technology" (SOI-3, CAANZ), August 6, 2026

• Merlin press release, "Merlin Successfully Completes Critical Design Review for C-130J Autonomy Program with USSOCOM," June 4, 2026

• Merlin press release, Quonset State Airport flight test operations announcement

• USSOCOM C-130J autonomy IDIQ, $105M ceiling, FPDS / USAspending

• Shawarma Capital, "$MRLN: What Management Actually Said," August 21, 2026

• Textron Aviation, 3,000th Cessna Caravan family delivery announcement

• Boeing Pilot and Technician Outlook 2025 to 2044

• Nasdaq MRLN quote and short interest data, August 27, 2026

Not trimmed. Not rebalanced. Sold. Every position closed inside a few minutes, including the one that had been more than half my book for three weeks and was working.

The book is up 20.8% on invested capital in 4 months. That is the only performance number in this update and it is the one that matters, because everything underneath it just changed.

What Left

Five came off green, and those five carried most of the capital.

The two largest winners, IQE and Rubrik, both closed a shade under +138%. IQE I had held since the substrate work in the spring. Rubrik I had not touched in months, which is usually the sign a position is doing its job.

LPKF closed +55%. AXT closed +36.5% on a position that was three weeks old and had been up as much as +43% the week before.

The reds were Ouster at -3.2%, Coda at -13.7%, AmpliTech at -19.6%, Blue Moon at -27.9% and Amprius at -32.6%. I am not going to dress those up. Ouster I added to on August 12, six days before I sold it, which is the one I would take back. AmpliTech and Amprius were small sleeves that never got the second leg I underwrote. Blue Moon I wrote four parts on and I still think the asset is real, which is a separate question from whether I should have been holding it into this.

Agility through the CCXI trust closed at +18.9%. That name I had already traded once in early July and closed. I went back into it small after the August book update and closed it again on Tuesday with everything else. Two round trips, both green, neither large.

What Is Left

One position.

I have been publishing on Merlin since April. Thirteen parts. I have been wrong on pieces of it in public and corrected it in public. What changed Tuesday was not the thesis. The thesis has been the same since Part 1. What changed was the price against the thesis.

The stock printed $3.17 that morning. That was the low of the day and the lowest the name has traded since the de-SPAC. On the other side of that print sits roughly $183 million of cash, no debt, a company that cleared Stage of Involvement 3 with the New Zealand regulator, an aircraft that landed itself at Oshkosh in front of a crowd, and a sole-prime position on a $105 million IDIQ vehicle.

I did not want a 15% weight in that. I wanted the whole thing.

The reasoning is uncomfortable and I want to be direct about it. I had a book of ten names where nine of them were, at best, good. One of them was a situation. When you find a situation, the correct response is not to own a tenth of it alongside nine good ideas. Diversification is what you do when you do not know which one is the situation. I know which one it is.

That is either the best decision I have made or the one I will be writing about for a year. There is no version where it is neither.

The Tape Since

Three days is not a verdict. It is worth showing anyway because it is the only evidence that exists yet.

Merlin is up 6.3% from the exit print. Eight of the names I sold are lower than where I sold them, including AXT, which is down 13.6% in three sessions and had been the largest thing I owned. IQE gave back 15%. Ouster gave back 14%.

Both legs are working so far. Ask me in November.

What I Am Watching

The position is the whole book, so the watch list collapses into one list.

The task order. Remaining performance obligations at June 30 were $593 thousand against a $105 million ceiling. That gap is the entire near-term question. Ceiling is not revenue. What I need to see is obligated funding moving against the vehicle. Management told me directly that the task-order announcement is the event to watch and that it arrives bundled with the integration plan and the contract vehicle.

The board. The public job board has contracted from 30 requisitions to 23 since August 1, at the same time as intelligence that a new director-level hire is chartered to fill 41 to 43 technical roles. Those two facts do not sit together. A board that jumps from 23 toward 40 is the ramp signal. A board that keeps shrinking is something else.

September supply. There is a lock-up step in September and a conversion floor at $5.00. Below that floor the ratchet math gets worse for common holders. That is the single biggest reason this position could be right on the business and still hurt for another two quarters.

Cash. $183.5 million against roughly $25 million a quarter of operating burn is about seven quarters. The burn doubled year over year. The next raise happens either from strength or from the calendar, and which one it is tells you a great deal.

The Rules Have Not Changed

Everything I sold, I will keep covering. AXT, Blue Moon, IQE, LPKF, all of it. Coverage is not ownership and it never was. If one of them sets up again I will say so and I will say when I bought.

I will publish every mark on this position, up or down, on the same cadence I always have. A concentrated book is only defensible if it is a visible one.

Nothing here is advice. This is what I did with my own money and I would not recommend anybody copy the sizing.

The Merlin management full call tape lands separately this week. The AmpliTech post-mortem is already up.

This is the short version. Six things were said that change how I model the company, and one of them corrects something I have seen repeated everywhere, …

Read more

That is the disclosure. What follows is the autopsy, and it turned into something larger than a bad quarter.

Read more

Not investment advice. For educational purposes only. Do your own work.

Part 12 published on June 30 and ended with a promise. I wrote that Part 13 would mark the September lockup, the October preferred reset, and the second-quarter print as they resolved.

Six weeks later, here is the honest state of it. The company put more verifiable proof on the board in this window than in any comparable stretch since I started covering it. The stock printed an all-time low of $3.27 inside the same window. And on the morning of August 14 the 10-Q landed and told me that a piece of the capital structure I have been writing about for two months had already changed in May, in a way nobody covering this name reported.

I am going to do this chronologically, because the chronology is the argument. If you compress six weeks into a summary you lose the thing that actually matters, which is that every single piece of news in this window was either neutral or good, and the price went down anyway, and then the filing that arrived last told me the dilution was smaller than I had published.

Let me start with the tape, because it is the objection.

Read more

Read more

The phrase was "Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence."

That is a term of art. It comes from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, and it governs whether a company is permitted to hold a facility security clearance in the United States. A company under foreign ownership, control or influence cannot hold classified contracts without a mitigation instrument. The cleanest mitigation, the one that removes the question entirely rather than managing it, is to stop being foreign.

Amaero stopped being foreign. It completed a court approved scheme of arrangement, moved its ultimate parent from Australia to Delaware, and then, six weeks later, cleared the last two Australian directors off its board. The announcement says the reconstitution is "intended to address Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence considerations relevant to the Company's defense contracts."

Nine days before that, on 15 July, the same company confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Six days before that, on 1 July, it received its first production contract from Bechtel Plant Machinery Incorporated, which is the prime contractor for the United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.

None of these three events was covered by any outlet I could find in English beyond a wire pickup of the press release. The company has four documents in the entire SEC EDGAR full text index, and all four of them are somebody else's filings.

This is the first of a series on Amaero. It trades in Australia as 3DA and in the United States as AMROF. I do not have a position. By the end of this piece you will understand exactly what it makes, why the Navy cares, what the Velo3D relationship is actually worth as opposed to what the headline says, and the single number in its most recent filing that makes the whole thing urgent rather than merely interesting.

That number is 2.28.

What this company physically does

Start with the object, because the object is unusual.

Amaero makes metal powder. Not powder in the sense of a fine dust you might imagine, but spherical particles of tightly controlled diameter, produced by melting a metal electrode and blowing the resulting stream apart with inert gas so that surface tension pulls each droplet into a sphere before it freezes. The process is called Electrode Induction Melting Inert Gas atomization, universally shortened to EIGA. The sphericity matters because these powders are spread in layers forty microns thick across a build plate and then selectively melted by a laser. A powder that does not flow does not spread. A powder that does not spread does not print.

The company runs three EIGA Premium atomizers at a facility at 130 Innovation Drive in McDonald, Tennessee, which is a small town outside Chattanooga. One of those atomizers is dedicated to refractory alloys. Two are dedicated to titanium. Entering fiscal 2027 that installed base represents roughly 200 metric tonnes per year of refractory alloy powder and roughly 480 metric tonnes per year of titanium alloy powder.

The titanium is the volume business. The refractory is the business that explains everything else.

Refractory metals are the metals that do not melt when everything else has. Niobium melts at 2,477 degrees Celsius. Tantalum at 3,017. Tungsten at 3,422. For comparison, the nickel superalloys that make up the hot section of a jet engine start losing structural integrity somewhere north of 1,000 degrees and are kept alive by film cooling and thermal barrier coatings. When you need a part that holds its shape in a gas stream hotter than that, with no cooling available and no time to design a cooling circuit, you reach for refractory metal.

The specific alloy that matters here is C103. Its composition is niobium with roughly ten percent hafnium and one percent titanium, which is why you will see it written as Nb-10Hf-1Ti. It was developed in the 1960s. It flew on the Apollo service module propulsion system. It has been used in rocket engine nozzle extensions for sixty years, because a nozzle extension is the canonical application: the gas is extremely hot, the part is thin, the part is large, and there is no coolant available at the exit plane because the coolant has already been used upstream.

C103 has one significant weakness. It oxidizes catastrophically in air at temperature. Bare C103 exposed to atmosphere above about 400 degrees Celsius will not merely tarnish, it will consume itself. This is why C103 parts are coated, historically with a silicide coating designated R512E. In a vacuum, which is where rocket nozzle extensions operate, the problem does not arise. In atmospheric flight, which is where hypersonic vehicles operate, it very much does, and the coating becomes a life limiting component rather than a finish.

That distinction between vacuum applications and atmospheric applications is the entire hypersonics materials debate compressed into one sentence, and I will come back to it, because it bears directly on how much of the demand narrative around this company is real.

The second thing Amaero does is called PM-HIP, which stands for Powder Metallurgy Hot Isostatic Pressing. You take metal powder, seal it in a shaped can, and subject it to high pressure and high temperature simultaneously until the powder consolidates into fully dense metal in the shape of the can. What comes out is a near net shape part with, in the company's phrasing, "forged-equivalent material properties and microstructure."

That phrase is doing enormous work, and I want to be precise about why.

A large forging requires a large forging press and a supply chain of open die and closed die forge shops. The United States has a well documented shortage of that capacity, particularly for large components in nuclear and naval applications. The forging base contracted for thirty years and the qualification burden for a new forge supplier is measured in years. PM-HIP is not a cheaper forging. It is a different route to a component with equivalent properties that does not require a forging press at all. If you believe the qualification data, it substitutes capital equipment that does not exist for capital equipment that does.

The Navy has said it believes the qualification data. According to the company's July investor presentation, the Navy "recently announced support for PM-HIP as a mature manufacturing technology and a viable alternative for large casting and forging supply chain challenges." That sentence is a company characterization of a Navy position and I have not independently sighted the Navy statement, so treat it accordingly. But the contract flow, which I will come to, is consistent with it.

How it got here, which is not the story it tells

The company's investor materials present a clean arc: build capacity, qualify powders, win defense contracts, move to America. The actual history is messier and more informative, and I think it matters for judging management.

Amaero began at Monash University in Melbourne. Monash established the Monash Centre for Additive Manufacturing in 2010. In March 2013, Professor Xinhua Wu and other MCAM staff created Amaero to commercialise what the centre was producing. Amaero International Ltd was incorporated on 21 May 2019 purely as a holding vehicle for a listing, and it floated on the ASX on 5 December 2019, raising A$8.0 million by issuing 40 million shares at twenty cents.

What listed in 2019 was not a powder company. The ASX admission describes a laser additive manufacturing bureau. Amaero printed parts for customers. It did not make the feedstock.

Monash granted two intellectual property licences dated 18 October 2019, one exclusive and global covering titanium, one non exclusive covering scandium, carrying a minimum annual fee of A$50,000 from FY2023 and a A$150,000 buyout option. That university connection is now effectively gone. The FY2025 annual report records no payments to Monash and carries no licence or patent intangibles. Monash Investment Holdings held exactly 18,315,178 shares from the IPO through FY2023, diluting passively from 11.11 percent to 4.39 percent without ever buying more, and exited the register entirely during FY2024. The original 2013 operating entity, Amaero Engineering Pty Ltd, had its Australian Business Number cancelled on 7 July 2026.

The pivot from bureau to powder was attempted first in Australia, and it failed. In July 2021 the company announced it would build a world class titanium powder plant in Australia. It revised the associated revenue guidance in September 2021, secured a lease in January 2022, and issued an update in July 2022. That plant is not what exists today. What exists today is in Tennessee.

The turn came in September 2022, when Hank Holland, managing partner of the US private equity firm Pegasus Growth Capital and then a non executive director, became Executive Chairman. The founding era chairman stepped back to a non executive seat. From that point the company reoriented around a United States manufacturing base, United States customers, and eventually a United States domicile.

I think that history should be read two ways at once, and most coverage picks one.

The unflattering reading is that this is a company that has changed its business model twice, abandoned a announced manufacturing plan in one country, and is now on its third strategy in seven years, with a share count that went from 175 million to 953 million funding the journey.

The flattering reading is that the second pivot worked. Revenue went from under half a million dollars to A$18.1 million. The capital program completed on budget. The customer list now includes a naval nuclear prime and the Department of War. A management team that abandoned a plan that was not working and executed a better one is doing its job, and the fact that the current strategy is the third one is only damning if you believe the current one is also wrong.

What I take from it is narrower and more useful: this is a private equity controlled company executing a private equity playbook. Acquire control of a listed shell with useful technology, redirect it at a defensible end market, fund it through repeated raises you lead yourself, build the asset, then exit into a deeper capital market at a higher multiple. That is not a criticism. It is a description, and it explains the redomiciliation and the S-1 far better than any of the strategic language in the presentation does.

Why this is hard to make

It is worth spending a moment on why a company can build a defensible position around what is, on its face, a commodity. Powder is powder. Except that it is not, and the reasons are physical rather than commercial.

Consider what you are asking the process to do with C103. You need to melt a metal at roughly 2,477 degrees Celsius, hold it liquid long enough to break the stream into droplets, and freeze those droplets into spheres, all without letting the melt touch anything that would contaminate it and without letting it see oxygen.

Every one of those constraints is severe at that temperature.

Take contamination first. The conventional way to melt metal for atomization is in a crucible, typically ceramic. At 2,500 degrees, niobium is aggressively reactive and will attack essentially any ceramic you put it in, dissolving the crucible into the melt. The resulting powder carries ceramic inclusions, and an inclusion in a printed part is a crack initiation site. In a rocket nozzle or a submarine component, a crack initiation site is the whole ballgame.

This is why the process Amaero uses is EIGA rather than conventional gas atomization. Electrode Induction Melting Inert Gas atomization is crucible free. A pre alloyed bar of the finished chemistry is fed downward through an induction coil, which melts only the tip. The molten metal drips directly into the gas nozzle. Nothing but the alloy itself ever touches the melt. That single design choice is what makes reactive and refractory alloys atomizable at all, and it is why you see EIGA specified for titanium and refractory work while conventional crucible atomization dominates for steels and nickel alloys.

Take oxygen second. Titanium and niobium both dissolve oxygen interstitially, meaning oxygen atoms sit in the gaps of the crystal lattice rather than forming a discrete oxide. Interstitial oxygen makes the metal harder and much more brittle. Aerospace specifications for titanium powder therefore carry hard oxygen ceilings, often in the range of 1,300 to 1,500 parts per million for Ti-6Al-4V, and every time powder is handled, sieved, or reused it picks up more. A producer's ability to hold oxygen low through melting, atomization, classification and packaging is a genuine process capability and it is not easily copied.

This is also why the Auburn qualification detail I mentioned earlier matters more than a casual reading suggests. ASTM F3635 is the specification covering additively manufactured C103. Meeting Class B after a 2200 degree Fahrenheit heat treatment means the material was assessed as built and heat treated, which is the condition a part actually flies in, rather than as loose powder in a bottle. AMS7015 and ASTM F3001 for the titanium are similarly the printed material specifications rather than feedstock specifications.

Take yield third, because yield is where the economics live. Gas atomization does not produce one particle size. It produces a distribution, and only a fraction of that distribution falls inside the window a laser powder bed fusion machine can use, typically something like 15 to 45 microns. Everything coarser has to be sold into other processes at lower value, recycled, or scrapped. When your feedstock is niobium and hafnium, the difference between a process that yields 40 percent into the useful cut and one that yields 60 percent is not a rounding error, it is the gross margin.

Amaero's own boilerplate makes exactly this claim. It says the company "has commissioned advanced gas atomization technology with an industry leading yield of AM powder." I cannot verify that claim independently and it is precisely the sort of assertion a company makes about itself, so I am recording it as a claim rather than a fact. But note that it is the correct thing to claim. A management team that understood this business would compete on yield, and a management team that did not would compete on price.

Take scale last. Three atomizers producing 680 tonnes a year sounds modest next to a steel powder plant, and it is. But refractory powder is not sold by the tonne at commodity prices. It is sold by the kilogram at prices set by the input metal and the difficulty of the process. The relevant comparison is not tonnage against a steel producer, it is whether 200 tonnes a year of refractory capacity is large or small against the total Western demand for refractory AM powder, and the honest answer is that nobody publishes that number reliably. What can be said is that 200 tonnes per year of C103 at the hafnium content described later in this piece would consume a meaningful fraction of annual world hafnium production, which tells you the capacity is not small relative to the input chain even if it looks small in absolute terms.

The Velo3D relationship, and what it is actually worth

Because the question that prompted this research was about the Velo3D supply agreement, let me deal with it directly and then explain why I think it is the least interesting thing about Amaero.

Both companies announced it on 29 April 2025. Neither has ever disclosed an execution date or an effective date. It surfaced in Velo3D's SEC filings two weeks later, on 13 May 2025, inside the supplementary slides attached to its first quarter 8-K, under a page headed "Velo3D and Amaero forge strategic alliance to propel metal 3D printing innovation."

The counterparty named in Velo3D's filing is "Amaero Advanced Materials and Manufacturing, Inc.", which is the US operating subsidiary rather than the listed parent.

The scope of exclusivity is wider than most summaries report, and the asymmetry in it is the whole point. The identical wording in both releases is that Amaero "will serve as the exclusive supplier to Velo3D for Niobium C103 and other refractory alloy powders, including Molybdenum, Tantalum, Tungsten, and Zirconium alloys" and "will be preferred supplier to Velo3D for titanium alloy powders."

So Amaero is exclusive across five refractory alloy families, not just C103, and preferred on titanium. Velo3D's side of the bargain is operational rather than financial: qualify Amaero's powders, develop proprietary print parameters exclusively for Amaero's C103 and refractory alloys across the entire Sapphire printer family, and supply those parameters with new machine sales.

Critically, the exclusivity runs one way. It binds Velo3D's purchasing. It does not bind Amaero's selling. Amaero remained free to sign parallel agreements with other counterparties and has done exactly that, with Titomic, Knust-Godwin, ADDMAN and United Performance Metals.

The only disclosed termination right belongs to Amaero. Its release states it "reserves the right to terminate the agreement if qualification of C103 and Ti64 powders is not achieved by 30 November 2025." Velo3D's release of the same day does not mention the deadline or the right. Amaero declared the condition satisfied on 8 July 2025, one hundred and forty five days early, on the strength of the Auburn testing.

Now the headline number, which deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets.

Amaero said A$35 million, "or US$22.6 Million based on the exchange rate on April 25, 2025." That implies an AUD/USD rate of 0.6457. Velo3D said "approximately $22 million" and footnoted it as "calculated based on an USD/AUS exchange rate of 0.6380 on 25 April 2025." Two counterparties, the same Australian dollar figure, the same cited date, two different exchange rates and a US$600,000 gap between the translations.

The cited date is 25 April 2025, which was Anzac Day. The Reserve Bank of Australia published no exchange rate that day.

This is a small thing and I am not suggesting anything improper. It is the kind of discrepancy that arises when two investor relations teams convert a number independently against different dealer sources. I raise it because it is a useful reminder of what this figure is: a marketing translation of an estimate, not a contracted amount.

Then on 6 August 2025, Velo3D filed again, and this is the substantive one. Auburn University's National Center for Additive Manufacturing Excellence completed qualification of Amaero's powders. The results as stated: C103 niobium met ASTM F3635 Class B after a 2200 degree Fahrenheit heat treatment, and Ti-6Al-4V met AMS7015 and ASTM F3001. Over 1,000 kilograms of powder was to be delivered to Velo3D's production floor in the third quarter of 2025.

That is a real qualification at a real independent laboratory against real published standards. It is not a memorandum of understanding. Powder that meets F3635 Class B is powder a customer can build flight hardware from without writing its own material specification first, and the heat treatment detail tells you the qualification was done on printed and post processed material rather than on the powder in the bottle.

Here is where I want to be careful, because this is where most coverage of this relationship goes wrong.

The A$35 million is not contracted revenue. Read the construction of the disclosure: the value is derived from Velo3D's own demand estimates over the five year term. There is no minimum volume commitment disclosed, no take or pay provision disclosed, and no schedule disclosed. Amaero is the exclusive supplier of C103 and refractory alloys to Velo3D, and the preferred supplier of titanium. Exclusivity of that shape is an obligation on Velo3D to buy from Amaero if it buys at all. It is not an obligation to buy.

So the correct way to hold this number is as a ceiling on a five year opportunity conditional on Velo3D's own volumes, not as a floor under Amaero's revenue.

And there is a harder confirmation of that, which I think is the single most important fact about this relationship and which I have not seen reported anywhere.

Velo3D never treated the agreement as a material definitive contract.

There is no Item 1.01 current report. There is no Exhibit 10 filing of the agreement itself. When a public company enters a material definitive agreement outside the ordinary course of business, Item 1.01 of Form 8-K requires disclosure within four business days and the contract is normally filed as an exhibit. Velo3D did neither.

More telling still: Velo3D's Form 10-K for fiscal 2025, filed 31 March 2026, contains zero occurrences of "Amaero", zero of "C103", zero of "refractory" and zero of "niobium". The five year exclusive supply agreement its own press release called a strategic alliance does not appear in its annual report.

And the audited commitments note rules out any minimum obligation affirmatively. The FY2025 10-K states that purchase obligations with suppliers "are cancellable in whole or in part prior to shipment," discloses non-cancellable purchase commitments of US$7.7 million for parts and assemblies, and then says the company "has no other commitments and contingencies, except for the operating leases." The Q1 2026 10-Q carries the same structure with the parts and assemblies figure at US$24.4 million.

There is no take or pay. There is no minimum volume. The customer's auditors have confirmed it in writing.

I want to be fair about what this does and does not mean. It does not mean the relationship is fake. The qualification happened, the powder shipped, and the exclusivity on refractory alloys is real and documented by both sides. What it means is that the A$35 million figure has no contractual force whatsoever, and that the counterparty's own accountants do not regard the arrangement as creating an obligation worth disclosing. Anyone carrying A$35 million of Velo3D revenue in a model for this company is carrying a number that exists in two press releases and nowhere else.

Which raises the counterparty question, and the counterparty question is not comfortable.

Velo3D's revenue went from US$77.4 million in 2023 to US$41.0 million in 2024. That is not a growth company having a soft year, that is revenue nearly halving. Gross margin was negative 33.9 percent in 2023, negative 5.1 percent in 2024, and negative 11.7 percent in the second quarter of 2025. The company has never, in the periods disclosed in these filings, sold a printer for more than it cost to build. Its own 8-K risk factor list includes, in order, "the company's ability to continue as a going concern" and "the company's ability to raise additional capital in the near-term."

There is genuine good news on this front and I do not want to bury it. Velo3D has moved from the over the counter market back onto Nasdaq. SEC records now list its tickers as VELO and VLDXW against exchanges Nasdaq and OTC. Anyone reading a source that still calls it VLDX is reading something stale. It guided in August 2025 to US$50 million to US$60 million of 2025 revenue, gross margin above 30 percent exiting 2025, and EBITDA profitability in the first half of 2026. If it hit those marks it is a materially different company than the one in the table above.

But note what Velo3D's other 2025 deals look like. A US$15 million master services agreement with Momentus, paid in Momentus common and convertible preferred stock rather than cash, with Velo3D's stake capped at 9.99 percent of Momentus. A US$4 million agreement with Vaya Space. These are the deal structures of a company managing its cash position carefully.

My conclusion on Velo3D as it relates to Amaero: it is a legitimate, Nasdaq listed, technically credible customer whose printers are genuinely well suited to the alloys Amaero makes, and the Auburn qualification is a real asset that outlives the commercial relationship because it is a qualification of the powder, not of the pairing. But the A$35 million should be modelled as optionality. If you are buying Amaero for the Velo3D contract, you have bought the wrong thesis.

The right thesis is on the other side of the building.

The submarine

On 1 July 2026, Amaero announced a low rate initial production contract from Bechtel Plant Machinery Incorporated for piping components supporting the submarine industrial base. The value was US$344,000.

Three hundred and forty four thousand dollars. Against a company with a market capitalization in the low hundreds of millions. On its face this is a rounding error and it would be entirely reasonable to skip past it.

Do not skip past it. Read the next sentence in the quarterly report:

"Though not announced, a total of six contracts have previously been awarded by BPMI. Between the previous work and this latest contract, work ranges from development and demonstration to first article and production."

Six prior contracts, never announced. A company that issues an ASX release for a webinar recording did not announce six contracts from a naval nuclear prime. I can think of benign reasons, principally that each was individually immaterial under the continuous disclosure threshold, and that is likely the correct explanation. But the aggregate picture it reveals is a two year qualification relationship that the market has never seen the shape of.

Understand what BPMI is. Bechtel Plant Machinery Incorporated is the prime contractor to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the joint Navy and Department of Energy organization that designs, builds and maintains the reactors in United States submarines and aircraft carriers. Naval Reactors is the most conservative engineering organization in the American government, and by reputation possibly the most conservative in the world. It is the direct institutional descendant of Rickover. Material qualification inside that program is measured in years and the program does not qualify suppliers speculatively.

The progression Amaero describes is the standard defense qualification ladder: development, then demonstration, then first article, then low rate initial production, then full rate production. Amaero has just stepped onto the fourth rung. The company's own framing is that this marks "Amaero's transition from PM-HIP validation to production."

And then the number that actually matters, from the July investor presentation:

"BPMI has previously announced estimated demand for up to 400 PM-HIP components per year to support current and near-term shipbuilding needs."

Four hundred components a year against a first production award of US$344,000. I do not know the unit economics of a submarine piping component and I am not going to invent them. But the ratio between the demonstrated award and the stated addressable demand is the largest single asymmetry in this company, and unlike the Velo3D number it is anchored on a customer's published requirement rather than a customer's demand forecast used for a press release.

This also explains the December 2025 Letter of Support from the Department of the Navy, which the company describes as having been "solidified" by the LRIP award, and it explains something else that was otherwise slightly odd. It explains why a company with a market capitalization this small bothered to spend real money redomiciling itself to Delaware.

Why a company moves countries

Between February and July 2026, Amaero executed the following sequence.

February 2026, announced its intention to redomicile to the United States. March 2026, nominated Tim Johnson to the board. May 2026, distributed the scheme booklet. 5 June 2026, obtained shareholder approval at an extraordinary general meeting. 11 June 2026, the schemes became effective and the new Delaware entity was admitted to the ASX official list. 22 June 2026, redomiciliation became effective. July 2026, completed a PCAOB audit and confidentially submitted the Form S-1.

The mechanism was a Scheme Implementation Deed, executed under section 411 of the Australian Corporations Act, and there were two schemes, one for shares and one for options. Amaero Inc., a Delaware corporation, became the ultimate parent. Existing shareholders received CHESS Depositary Interests, which continue to trade on the ASX under the same 3DA ticker.

The conversion ratio is the detail that trips people up, so hold onto it: shareholders received 40 CDIs per one share of Amaero Inc. common stock. The ASX line is priced in fortieths. When this company eventually lists in the United States, the share price Americans see will be roughly forty times the ASX quote, which converts a stock that looks like a twenty four cent penny share into something in the range of seven dollars. That is not a trivial cosmetic point. It is the difference between a security most American institutions cannot touch and one they can.

Now, the reasons the company gives for the move, taken from the July presentation, are these: alignment with United States defense and sovereign manufacturing growth, greater visibility with US customers, improved comparability against US listed peers, access to a larger investor base, potential for improved valuation and liquidity, enhanced access to lower cost debt and equity, simplification for mergers and partnerships, and positioning for a potential US listing.

All of that is the language every company uses when it redomiciles, and taken alone it would be unremarkable boilerplate.

But one bullet is not boilerplate. The presentation says the move "positions Amaero to satisfy U.S. foreign ownership, control and influence (FOCI) requirements, supporting eligibility for classified defense contracts."

And the quarterly report says the redomiciliation strengthens "its ability to pursue classified U.S. Department of War and federal contracts by mitigating foreign ownership concerns."

Classified. Not sensitive, not controlled, not ITAR restricted. Classified.

A company does not restructure its parent entity, spend A$2.8 million in a single quarter on redomiciliation and IPO costs, and clear its foreign directors off the board in order to bid work it is already eligible to bid. The FOCI language, repeated across three separate disclosures in three separate documents, is the company telling you that there is work it wants which it cannot currently hold, and that it has now removed the obstacle.

The board reconstitution on 4 August completes it. Jamie Levy and Alistair Cray, both non executive directors, resigned effective that day. Both were retained on consultancy agreements through 31 December 2026 to handle Australian investor relations and corporate advisory. That structure tells you the exits are cooperative rather than acrimonious, which is worth saying plainly, because two directors leaving on one day would otherwise be a governance flag. The board is now, in the company's words, "a fully US board."

I want to flag the thing I cannot verify, because it is the load bearing uncertainty in this section. I do not have evidence that Amaero holds or has applied for a facility security clearance. FOCI mitigation is a prerequisite for one, not a substitute. The company has told us it has removed a barrier. It has not told us it has walked through the door, and I am not going to assume it has.

The S-1

On 15 July 2026 Amaero announced it had confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 relating to a proposed initial public offering of shares of its common stock in the United States. Share count and price range are not yet determined. The offering is subject to market conditions and completion of SEC review. The announcement was made under Rule 135, which is the safe harbor that lets an issuer say a registration is coming without the statement itself constituting an offer.

Two things are notable about the way this was done.

First, the company completed a PCAOB audit of its historical US GAAP consolidated financial statements for calendar years 2024 and 2025, and those audited statements went into the submission. That is not a small undertaking for a company this size and it is a genuine credibility marker. A PCAOB audit of US GAAP accounts is the thing that separates companies that intend to list from companies that talk about listing.

Second, the target window. The July presentation says a potential US listing is "targeted for late CY2026 / early CY2027, subject to market conditions and the completion of the SEC review process."

That is roughly four to eight months from today.

So here is the shape of the setup. A company completes its redomiciliation, completes a PCAOB audit, files confidentially, tells you it is aiming at a listing inside twelve months, and continues to trade in the meantime on the Australian Securities Exchange at a price set by Australian retail flow and on the American over the counter market at whatever the spread allows.

I am not going to tell you that pre listing accumulation is a free lunch, because it is not, and I will get to the reasons in the section on what breaks this. But the structural observation is straightforward: the buyer base that is most likely to reprice this security is currently unable to buy it in any size.

The contract Amaero got from the Department of War

On 22 July 2026, one day after the quarterly, Amaero announced a contract valued at approximately A$6.5 million, or US$4.5 million, from the United States Department of War for the development of alternative refractory alloy powders.

The details as disclosed: a thirteen month program expected to complete in August 2027, aimed at "reducing the cost of refractory alloy powders while reducing reliance on foreign sources for critical raw materials," with progress payments based on project milestones.

Three observations.

The milestone payment structure matters more than it sounds. A development contract with progress payments is working capital positive, or at worst neutral. For a company in Amaero's cash position, and we are about to look hard at that cash position, the difference between a milestone paid program and a cost incurred then invoiced program is the difference between a contract that helps and a contract that hurts.

The stated objective is the interesting part. "Reducing reliance on foreign sources for critical raw materials" is not a description of the powder business, it is a description of the input supply chain. C103 is niobium plus hafnium. Niobium production is overwhelmingly concentrated in Brazil, where CBMM alone accounts for the substantial majority of global supply. Hafnium is scarcer and stranger: it is produced almost entirely as a by product of separating hafnium out of zirconium to make nuclear grade zirconium alloys, which means global hafnium supply is a function of nuclear fuel cladding demand and not of hafnium demand. Annual world production is measured in tens of tonnes.

If the Department of War is paying Amaero to develop alternative refractory alloy powders that reduce foreign input dependence, the most natural reading is that somebody in the department has looked at the C103 supply chain and concluded that hafnium is a chokepoint. That is a real strategic tailwind for a domestic producer. It is also, and this is the part a bull case tends to skip, an acknowledgement that the alloy Amaero is currently known for has an input problem that the government would like to engineer around.

Both of those things are true simultaneously. A programme to develop alternatives to C103 is good news for the company doing the developing and ambiguous news for the long term volume of C103 itself.

The third observation is scale. A$6.5 million against FY2026 revenue of A$18.1 million is a large single contract for this company. It is 36 percent of a year of revenue, spread across thirteen months, and it is development work rather than production, which typically carries different margin characteristics than powder sales.

The hafnium problem

I want to take the Department of War contract's stated purpose seriously, because when a government agency pays a company to reduce reliance on foreign raw materials, the interesting question is which material it means.

It means hafnium. Here is why.

C103 is nominally ten percent hafnium by weight. Hafnium is not mined. There is no hafnium mine anywhere in the world and there never has been. Hafnium occurs in zircon, the zirconium silicate mineral, at a ratio of roughly fifty parts zirconium to one part hafnium, and the two elements are chemically almost identical, which is what makes them difficult to separate and also what makes the separation necessary.

The necessity is nuclear. Zirconium has an extremely low neutron absorption cross section, which makes it the ideal material for fuel cladding in a nuclear reactor. Hafnium has an extremely high neutron absorption cross section, which makes it an excellent control rod material and a catastrophic contaminant in cladding. So the nuclear industry must separate them, and it does, at considerable expense, producing nuclear grade zirconium as the product and hafnium as the by product.

That single fact governs the entire hafnium market. World hafnium supply is set by demand for nuclear fuel cladding, not by demand for hafnium. If every hafnium consumer on earth doubled their orders tomorrow, supply would not respond, because nobody separates zircon in order to get hafnium.

The numbers, drawn from industry and trade estimates rather than a single authoritative source, so treat them as directional: total refined world hafnium production runs at roughly 70 to 75 tonnes per year. Production is concentrated in four countries, being France, the United States, China and Russia. Framatome in France is estimated at around 43 percent of world output, roughly 30 tonnes a year, which makes a single French company the largest hafnium producer on the planet.

Read that list again in the context of a Department of War contract about reducing reliance on foreign sources. The largest producer is French, which is to say allied but foreign. Two of the remaining three are China and Russia. The United States is one producer among four in a market of about 75 tonnes.

The price has behaved the way you would expect a chokepoint to behave. Hafnium has risen roughly eightfold since 2020. It reached the range of US$6,300 to US$7,000 per kilogram in Rotterdam by late 2025 and has been quoted above US$12,000 per kilogram on some dealer benchmarks in early 2026. One reference series has it moving from US$4,364.80 per kilogram in January 2025 to US$9,499.90 in January 2026, a gain of about 118 percent in a year.

Now do the arithmetic that the company does not do for you. At ten percent hafnium content, one kilogram of C103 contains one hundred grams of hafnium. At US$9,500 per kilogram, that is US$950 of hafnium in every kilogram of alloy. At the US$12,000 dealer prints, it is US$1,200. Before you have paid for niobium, before you have melted anything, before you have run a single kilowatt through an induction coil, and before anybody has earned a margin.

That is the cost structure of C103, and it is the reason the Department of War is funding alternatives.

Projected demand adds the second half of the picture. Estimates put hafnium demand near 180 to 190 tonnes by 2030 against a supply base struggling to exceed 75 tonnes. The 2023 gap was already estimated at 44 to 49 tonnes. If those projections are anywhere near right, the gap by 2030 exceeds 105 tonnes, which is more than current world production.

For Amaero this cuts three ways and an honest analysis has to hold all three at once.

It is bullish in the sense that a company already qualified on a hafnium bearing alloy, in a market where the input is scarce and Western supply is thin, sits on the right side of a structural shortage. Scarcity of input is a barrier to entry for everyone, including the entrants.

It is bearish in the sense that Amaero has not disclosed secured hafnium supply. A converter buying a scarce input at spot and selling a qualified output on multi year agreements is exposed on both sides of the trade. If hafnium doubles again and Amaero's supply agreements do not have pass through provisions, the margin on C103 goes to the input, not to the shareholder. I have seen no disclosure on this either way, which is itself the finding.

And it is ambiguous in the sense that the Department of War is paying to engineer around the problem. If that thirteen month programme succeeds in delivering an alternative refractory alloy powder with less hafnium or none, then the long term volume of C103 specifically may be lower than the hypersonics narrative implies, even as Amaero is the company being paid to build the replacement. Being paid to obsolete your own product is a better position than having somebody else paid to do it, but it is not the same as unbounded C103 demand.

The single most valuable disclosure Amaero could make, and the one I will be looking for in the Form S-1, is the structure of its raw material supply. An S-1 risk factor section has to address input concentration. An ASX announcement does not.

The forging base

The other half of the business needs the same treatment, because the PM-HIP opportunity rests on a supply chain failure most investors have never had reason to learn about.

The United States lost its heavy forging capacity gradually and then structurally. Large open die and closed die forging requires enormous presses, and the number of presses in the Western hemisphere capable of the largest naval and nuclear components is small enough to count. Those presses are old, they are heavily booked, and the qualification burden to add a new supplier into a naval nuclear application runs to years. The consequence is lead times measured in years for components that a shipbuilding programme needs on a schedule.

This is not a marginal issue for the Navy. It is one of the primary constraints on submarine production rate, and submarine production rate is currently a matter of national policy attention given the Virginia class build rate, the Columbia class ballistic missile submarine programme, and the commitments made under the trilateral security arrangement with Australia and the United Kingdom.

PM-HIP addresses it from a different direction. Rather than deforming a large billet under a press, you consolidate powder in a shaped container under isostatic pressure and temperature. The result is a near net shape component with a fine, uniform, isotropic microstructure and no directional grain flow, which for many applications is equivalent to or better than a forging. Crucially, it does not need a forging press. It needs a hot isostatic press, powder, and a qualified process.

The reason this has not simply replaced forging everywhere is qualification. Naval nuclear components are governed by material specifications written decades ago that assume a wrought product form. Getting a PM-HIP component accepted means demonstrating equivalence across mechanical properties, fracture toughness, weldability and inspection response, and doing it to the satisfaction of an organisation with an institutional memory that treats novelty as risk.

Which is what makes the July disclosures significant. The Navy has, according to the company and corroborated by trade press coverage, recognised PM-HIP as a mature and well established process that meets rigorous technical requirements and compresses production timelines, and has described it as a viable alternative for large casting and forging supply chain challenges. The Maritime Industrial Base Program is described as facing long lead times and capacity constraints in exactly that supply chain.

So the sequence reads: the Navy has a forging bottleneck, the Navy has blessed PM-HIP as a route around it, BPMI has published a requirement for up to 400 PM-HIP components a year, and Amaero has just moved from first article to low rate initial production after seven contracts and two years of work.

The gap between US$344,000 of production revenue and 400 components a year is the entire investment case for this half of the business. I want to be careful not to let the size of the addressable number do the work of an argument. Amaero is not the only company capable of PM-HIP, the 400 component requirement is not exclusively addressable by any one supplier, and low rate initial production is a rung on a ladder rather than a destination. But the direction of travel is documented in primary sources, and the customer is the least promotional organisation in American industry.

The numbers

Now the financial position, which I have taken entirely from the Appendix 4C and the quarterly activities report filed on 22 July 2026, and from the FY2025 annual report filed 18 September 2025. Amaero's fiscal year ends 30 June.

Revenue first.

FY2024 revenue was A$463,856. FY2025 was A$3.8 million. FY2026 was A$18.1 million. That is a 376 percent increase on FY2025, and it landed inside the A$18 million to A$20 million guidance the company gave in January 2026, which is worth noting because guidance that is met is a data point about management quality independent of the absolute number.

The quarterly path inside FY2026 is not a smooth ramp and the shape tells you something.

Q1 A$4.7 million, Q2 A$3.1 million, Q3 A$2.6 million, Q4 A$7.8 million. Revenue went down for two consecutive quarters in the middle of a year that finished up 376 percent. That is what a business looks like when individual orders are large relative to total revenue and shipment timing dominates. It is also a warning about extrapolating any single quarter in this company.

Q4 would have been A$9.1 million and the full year A$19.5 million except that A$1.3 million of contracted titanium orders were pushed into Q1 FY2027 by a production pause I will describe shortly.

The trailing twelve month view smooths it out.

A$7.4 million, A$9.9 million, A$11.8 million, A$18.1 million. Year on year TTM growth at each of those points was 313, 384, 347 and 376 percent.

FY2026 revenue splits into A$15.6 million of powder and A$2.6 million of PM-HIP. PM-HIP is fourteen percent of revenue and it is the segment attached to the submarine industrial base, which means the strategically most important business line is currently the smaller one. In Q4 specifically, growth was supported by shipments of 30 PM-HIP components plus titanium and refractory powders across 19 unique customers.

Backlog next, and note the date carefully because the company gives two.

Backlog at 30 June 2026 was A$14.6 million. Between then and 22 July the company added approximately A$8.5 million, which includes the A$6.5 million Department of War contract and A$1.8 million of refractory powder work. Total backlog as of 22 July was A$23.1 million, of which A$12.9 million relates to work currently scheduled for completion by 31 December 2026. Backlog spans 26 unique customers. The company also discloses 28 or more tonnes of titanium powder contracted for the third calendar quarter of 2026.

A$23.1 million of backlog against A$18.1 million of trailing revenue is a healthy ratio for a company at this stage. The A$12.9 million scheduled by year end is the number to hold management against at the December quarterly.

Then capacity, which is the part of the story where the capital has already been spent.

Capacity went from 200 tonnes per year in June 2024 to 440 in June 2025 to 680 in June 2026, with 920 guided for June 2027 once the fourth EIGA atomizer commissions. Capital deployed tracked it: A$18.2 million, A$51.6 million, A$80.0 million, and A$94.0 million guided.

The company completed its original three year A$72 million capital investment program in the June quarter, on schedule and on budget, with the commissioning of the third EIGA atomizer ahead of schedule. The next phase is the fourth atomizer plus an argon gas recycling plant, the latter expected to commission in early calendar 2027. Argon recycling is an operating cost item rather than a capacity item and it matters because inert gas consumption is one of the larger variable costs in gas atomization.

Completing a multi year capital program on budget is genuinely uncommon in small cap industrials and management deserves credit for it. It also means the story from here is no longer about building capacity. It is about filling it. At A$18.1 million of revenue against 680 tonnes of installed capacity, utilization is low. Whether that gap closes is the entire question.

The number that makes this urgent

Here is the Appendix 4C.

Liquidity at 30 June 2026 against the quarter's cash consumption.

Cash and cash equivalents at 30 June 2026: A$19.43 million. Down from A$33.42 million at 31 March. Net cash used in operating activities in the quarter: A$10.90 million. For the full year: A$35.28 million. Net cash used in investing activities in the quarter: A$9.38 million. For the full year: A$36.44 million. Net cash from financing for the year: A$74.61 million.

Total financing facilities A$37.98 million, drawn A$32.56 million, undrawn A$5.41 million.

Item 8.5 of the Appendix 4C requires an entity with negative operating cash flow to state its estimated quarters of funding available. Amaero's answer is 2.28.

The arithmetic is item 8.4 divided by item 8.1: total available funding of A$24.84 million, being cash of A$19.43 million plus undrawn facilities of A$5.41 million, divided by quarterly operating cash use of A$10.90 million.

Two points about that ratio, one in the company's favour and one against.

In its favour: the denominator includes A$2.8 million of non recurring IPO and redomiciliation costs and A$0.4 million of costs related to the May manufacturing incidents. Adjusted general and administrative expense was A$6.0 million in Q4 against A$5.9 million in Q3, so the underlying cost base is flat rather than escalating. Strip the one off items and the burn rate looks materially better.

Against: the 2.28 figure counts operating cash use only. It excludes investing activities entirely. Amaero spent A$9.38 million on investing in the same quarter. Total cash consumption, operating plus investing, was A$20.28 million against A$24.84 million of available funding. On that basis the company has closer to one and a quarter quarters, not two and a quarter, unless capital expenditure stops.

Capital expenditure will slow, because the three year program is complete. But the fourth atomizer and the argon recycler are both ordered.

There is one more wrinkle. The investor presentation shows a different set of cash numbers than the 4C, and the difference is not an error in either document.

The presentation shows A$38.3 million at 31 March and A$25.2 million at 30 June. The 4C shows A$33.4 million and A$19.4 million. The gap is restricted cash: A$4.9 million at March and A$5.8 million at June, held under the terms of the Export-Import Bank facility. The footnote states that restricted cash "becomes available to fund principal and interest payments once Amaero achieves a 1.2x debt service coverage ratio."

So the restricted balance is not available to fund operations. It is collateral. The A$19.43 million in the 4C is the spendable number and it is the one I have used throughout. Anyone quoting A$25.2 million as Amaero's cash position is quoting a figure that includes A$5.8 million the company cannot spend.

The presentation also shows a further A$4.7 million EXIM disbursement for previously incurred capital expenses expected in July 2026, which takes pro forma cash to A$29.9 million on the inclusive basis, or roughly A$24.1 million on the spendable basis.

On the debt itself: the EXIM Bank credit agreement was signed in February 2025 at US$22.8 million and amended in June 2026 to US$26.1 million, an increase of US$3.3 million providing US$2.9 million of additional net cash after the exposure fee. A fixed rate of 5.36 percent was locked at execution, giving a total effective rate of approximately 8 percent. Interest payments commence 30 September 2026 and are quarterly thereafter. Principal repays in twenty eight quarterly instalments beginning 30 September 2027 and ending 30 June 2034. The facility reflects a 75 percent loan to cost advance on capital equipment at the Tennessee facility.

Note the date. Interest payments begin next month. Principal begins in thirteen months. This is non dilutive capital, which is genuinely valuable, but it is capital that starts demanding cash back on a fixed schedule starting almost immediately.

Put the whole picture together and the S-1 stops looking like a strategic option and starts looking like a requirement. A company with roughly two quarters of operating runway, capital equipment on order, interest payments starting next month, and a stated intention to list in late calendar 2026 or early 2027 is a company that needs the listing to happen roughly on schedule.

That is not a criticism. It is the single most important thing to understand about the timeline, and it cuts both ways. It means management is highly motivated to deliver contract news into the registration window. It also means the company has limited ability to wait out a bad market.

Who owns this

The FY2025 annual report discloses 690,670,634 fully paid ordinary shares at 30 June 2025, up from 542,912,442 a year earlier, with issued capital of A$122.6 million against A$77.4 million. Roughly 148 million shares were issued during FY2025 raising approximately A$45 million. FY2026 financing activities brought in a further A$74.6 million.

The current figure is established. Amaero Inc. was admitted to the ASX official list on 11 June 2026 with 953,327,200 CDIs quoted, equivalent to 23,833,180 fully paid ordinary shares at the 40 to 1 ratio. The pre scheme count in Amaero Ltd was 952,933,460 shares.

At the ASX quote of A$0.245, 953.3 million CDIs implies a market capitalization of approximately A$234 million, or roughly US$161 million at prevailing rates. That is the number to work with, and it is derived from a filing rather than a data vendor.

It also frames the dilution history plainly. Amaero listed in December 2019 with 77,073,938 quoted shares and 174,853,651 in total. It arrives at its US listing attempt with 952,933,460. The share count rose monotonically for six and a half years. There was never a consolidation, which means every one of those raises landed on existing holders undiluted by any offsetting mechanic.

The 40 to 1 CDI ratio is the exception, and the scheme booklet is candid about what it is. It describes the exchange ratio as effecting an "implicit consolidation." Functionally it is a forty to one reverse split executed through a redomiciliation, which is how a security priced at twenty four Australian cents becomes a security priced near seven US dollars without a separate consolidation vote.

The ownership structure is concentrated and you should know the shape of it.

Pegasus, the fund led by chairman and chief executive Hank Holland, has led three capital raises for Amaero and owns approximately 28 percent of fully paid ordinary shares, rising to approximately 42 percent on a fully converted, fully diluted basis. Holland's disclosed personal interests at the FY2025 report were 196,291,635 ordinary shares and 171,451,503 options over ordinary shares.

That option position is large enough to require thought. A holder with 171 million options against a base of 690 million shares represents meaningful potential dilution, and the gap between 28 percent outright and 42 percent fully diluted quantifies it. The favourable reading is that the chief executive's fund has repeatedly underwritten the company's capital needs and is aligned with a much higher share price. The unfavourable reading is that a single holder controls a blocking position today and would control something close to a majority on full conversion.

Both readings are correct. Which one dominates depends entirely on what happens to the share price between here and the option expiries, and I do not have the full exercise price and expiry schedule.

One small data point on incentive alignment worth recording: on 2 August 2026 the company filed an Appendix 3H notifying that 166,590 options had ceased because the conditions attaching to them "have not been, or have become incapable of being, satisfied." Some performance hurdle was missed. It is a tiny number of options and I would not build anything on it, but it is evidence the performance conditions are real rather than decorative.

The fires

On 13 May 2026, a flash fire occurred during manufacturing operations at the Tennessee facility, resulting in injuries to two production team members.

I am not going to soften that. Two people were hurt.

The company states the incident was contained to a small area with no damage to the facility or manufacturing equipment. Subsequently, an unrelated flash fire occurred in the facility's exhaust system, with no injuries and no damage.

Amaero's response was to engage Jensen Hughes, a safety and risk based engineering consultancy, to conduct a comprehensive review of facility design, engineering controls and process safety, and to pause titanium powder production for approximately six weeks. Refractory powder production and PM-HIP manufacturing continued throughout, including completion of a A$4.6 million refractory powder order for Titomic. Titanium production resumed on 9 July 2026.

Two facts from the recovery are worth stating because they are the ones that tell you whether the damage was commercial as well as physical. During the six week pause there were no purchase order cancellations and no employee attrition. The financial impact was A$1.3 million of revenue deferred into Q1 FY2027 and A$0.4 million of direct incident related cost.

Fine metal powder is combustible. Titanium powder is more than combustible, it is pyrophoric in the right particle size distribution and oxygen concentration, and flash fire is the characteristic failure mode of powder handling operations. This is a known hazard class with established engineering controls, and the fact that a powder producer had a powder fire is not evidence of unusual negligence.

What I would want to know, and cannot determine from public filings, is whether OSHA opened an inspection, what it found, and whether the Jensen Hughes recommendations have been fully implemented or merely accepted. An injury accident at a facility that is simultaneously seeking to expand its role in the naval nuclear supply chain is not a small governance matter, because the customer in question audits its suppliers.

I will file a records request and report what comes back in a later part.

Testing the claim

Amaero describes itself, in the boilerplate at the foot of every announcement, as "a leading U.S. domestic producer of high-value refractory and titanium alloy powders."

I want to test that sentence, because the difference between "a leading producer" and "the only producer" is the difference between a good business and a monopoly, and small cap narratives have a habit of drifting from the first to the second.

It does not survive as a monopoly claim. It survives comfortably as written.

6K Additive, based in North Andover, Massachusetts, produces C103 spherical powder using its UniMelt microwave plasma process. It was selected by America Makes for the Powder Alloy Development for Additive Manufacturing project, part of a US$6 million programme funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory, specifically covering C103. That is a directly competitive US producer with directly competitive government backing.

Elmet Technologies produces C103 niobium alloy powder for laser powder bed fusion and is a fully integrated US company with facilities in Maine, Ohio and Michigan. AP&C, part of the Colibrium Additive business, lists niobium C-103 in its powder catalogue.

So Amaero is one of at least three or four producers of C103 powder with a United States footprint. The company's own wording is careful and accurate: "a leading" producer, not "the only" one. If you encounter research on this name that claims sole source status for C103, that research is wrong, and you should discount everything else in it accordingly.

Where Amaero does look genuinely differentiated is not in the alloy but in the combination. It runs refractory and titanium atomization at production scale, and it runs PM-HIP, in one facility, in the United States, with a naval nuclear prime already partway through qualifying it. I have not found another company with that specific stack. The moat, if there is one, is the qualification position and the second business line, not the chemistry. The chemistry is in the literature and has been since the Johnson administration.

There is one more competitive note worth recording. Trade press reports that Amaero completed qualification of a C103 powder for ADDMAN, which suggests the customer list extends beyond the names in the ASX announcements. I have not verified this against a primary source.

What has actually been signed

Because the distinction between announced, contracted, and delivered is where small cap theses go to die, here is the ledger in one place.

Read the type column rather than the value column. Exactly one line in that table, the A$7.8 million master purchasing agreement, carries a stated minimum commitment. The Velo3D headline is a demand estimate. The Department of War contract is a real signed development programme with milestone payments. The BPMI award is a real production order for a very small amount of money attached to a very large stated requirement. The UPM agreement is a distribution deal with a 4,000 kilogram opening order and a contracted minimum inventory.

That is a more solid book than most companies of this size have. It is not the same thing as A$35 million of contracted Velo3D revenue, which is how this company is most often described.

What would break this

I have tried to write the bear case as if I were short.

The financing risk is first and it is not subtle. Two and a quarter quarters of operating runway on the company's own disclosure, less than that on any measure that includes capital expenditure, interest payments beginning 30 September 2026, principal beginning 30 September 2027, and a capital raise that is contingent on an SEC review process the company does not control. If the IPO window closes, the alternative is another dilutive placement into an ASX market that has already absorbed A$74.6 million of financing in one year. The FY2025 pattern of roughly 148 million new shares in a year gives you the shape of what that looks like.

Customer concentration is second, and it is worse than the headline suggests. The largest publicised relationship is with a company that has never reported positive gross margin, carries going concern language in its own risk factors, did not file the agreement as a material contract, and does not mention Amaero anywhere in its annual report. The most strategically important relationship, BPMI, has so far produced US$344,000 of production revenue. The gap between the strategic story and the invoiced revenue is wide in both directions.

Third, revenue lumpiness. A business that went 4.7, 3.1, 2.6, 7.8 across four quarters is a business where a single delayed shipment moves the quarter. The company is guiding to a growing backlog, but A$12.9 million of that backlog is scheduled into a single half year and any slippage lands visibly.

Fourth, and this is the one I think is most underrated, the difference between capacity and utilization. Amaero has built 680 tonnes per year of installed capacity and sold A$18.1 million of product. Fixed cost absorption at that utilization is poor, and the company does not disclose gross margin in the quarterly, which is itself worth noticing. Until we see a gross margin line, the operating leverage argument is an assertion.

Fifth, hafnium. The Department of War is paying Amaero to reduce reliance on foreign raw material sources. That is the government telling you the input chain has a problem. Amaero has not disclosed secured hafnium or niobium supply arrangements, and a powder producer without secured inputs is a converter exposed on both sides.

Sixth, the safety record. Two injured workers in May, two fires, an independent engineering review, and a customer base that audits suppliers.

Seventh, dilution and control. Forty two percent fully diluted for a single holder aligned with the chief executive.

Eighth, and least quantifiable, the possibility that hypersonics demand for C103 is a narrative rather than a purchase order stream. C103 is an outstanding vacuum nozzle material with sixty years of flight heritage. Its atmospheric oxidation behaviour is a genuine limitation for sustained airbreathing hypersonic flight, and the coating is a life limiter. A programme funded specifically to develop alternatives to it is not an unambiguous endorsement of its future volume.

What would make it work

The bull case does not require heroic assumptions, which is what makes it interesting.

It requires the BPMI relationship to progress from low rate initial production to production rates against a stated requirement of up to 400 components per year. It requires the IPO to complete inside the guided window at a valuation that reflects US defense materials comparables rather than ASX small cap industrials. It requires utilization on 680, eventually 920, tonnes of installed capacity to rise against a capital base that is already spent. And it requires the FOCI work to convert into the classified contracts the company has now twice told us it is pursuing.

Notice that three of those four are things the company has already substantially de risked. The capital is spent. The redomiciliation is done. The audit is done. The submission is in. What remains is conversion.

The asymmetry, stated plainly: this is a company whose strategic position is materially further along than its income statement, trading on an exchange where its natural buyer base cannot reach it, with a catalyst that mechanically fixes the second problem inside twelve months.

The risk, stated equally plainly: it has to get there on about two quarters of cash.

Where I stand

I do not have a position in Amaero and I am not initiating one today.

The reason is not the thesis. The thesis is the most interesting one I have looked at this quarter. The reason is two unresolved facts and one execution problem.

The first unresolved fact is gross margin. Amaero does not disclose it quarterly. The entire operating leverage argument, which is the argument for owning a company with 680 tonnes of capacity and A$18.1 million of revenue, rests on a line item that has not been published. I can see revenue and I can see cash burn. I cannot see what the revenue earns before overhead, and at low utilization that number can be almost anything.

The second is raw material supply. Amaero has disclosed no hafnium or niobium sourcing arrangements. In a market where the input has risen eightfold since 2020 and world production is roughly seventy five tonnes, a converter without disclosed supply security is carrying a risk I cannot size.

The execution problem is the relationship between the two tickers, and it is the practical thing most readers will care about.

The ASX quote is A$0.245. The American over the counter line, AMROF, last printed at US$0.235. At prevailing exchange rates those do not reconcile. A$0.245 converts to roughly US$0.17. AMROF is quoting something like a thirty five percent premium to its own primary listing.

That gap is far too wide to be settlement friction, and the explanation is almost certainly that AMROF is thin enough that its last print is stale, wide, or both. This is the standard trap in dual listed micro caps. The ASX line is where the price is set, by Australian investors, during Australian hours, in Australian dollars. AMROF is a derivative of that price and its quote is only as good as its last trade.

If you are going to own this, own it knowing that. Watch 3DA, convert at spot, and treat any AMROF print above that as an offer rather than a price. Never pay through the primary line. The one structural comfort is that this arbitrage has a defined end date, because a US listing collapses the two quotes into one.

I would rather be early on a company like this than right about a company like this, so let me say plainly what would move me from watching to owning: a published gross margin above roughly thirty percent, disclosure of secured hafnium supply, or the S-1 going public. Any one of the three.

What I want before I act: the Form S-1 when it goes public, which resolves the share count, the margin structure, the customer concentration disclosure and the risk factors in one document. It also, being an SEC registration rather than an ASX release, will be written by lawyers with a materially different liability exposure.

The catalyst calendar between now and then, as best I can construct it: FY2026 annual report and audited accounts, expected September 2026 based on the prior year's 18 September filing. First interest payment on the EXIM facility, 30 September 2026. Q1 FY2027 quarterly and Appendix 4C, expected late October 2026, which is the first clean look at post incident production and will contain the A$1.3 million of deferred titanium revenue. The public flip of the S-1, expected on the company's own guidance in late calendar 2026 or early 2027. Completion of the Department of War programme, August 2027.

The one I would watch hardest is the October quarterly, because it will contain the first cash figure after the capital programme closed, and it will tell you whether the burn rate normalizes now that the one off IPO and redomiciliation costs are behind it. Item 8.5 in that document is the single most informative number this company publishes.

Part 2 will cover the S-1 when it becomes public, the hafnium and niobium input chain in detail, the full BPMI contract history if I can reconstruct it from federal procurement records, and the OSHA record on the May incidents.

I have no position in Amaero, Velo3D, or any company named in this piece. This is not investment advice. The company is loss making, has negative operating cash flow, and states on its own filing that it has approximately 2.28 quarters of funding available.

References

Amaero Inc., Quarterly Activities Report and Appendix 4C for the period ending 30 June 2026, ASX announcement 22 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Investor Presentation, ASX announcement 21 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Board Update, ASX announcement 4 August 2026.

Amaero Inc., Final Director's Interest Notice, Jamie Levy and Alistair Cray, ASX announcements 4 August 2026.

Amaero Inc., Notification of cessation of securities, Appendix 3H, ASX announcement 3 August 2026.

Amaero Inc., Submission of Draft Registration for IPO, ASX announcement 15 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Awarded A$6.5 Million Contract from U.S. Department of War, ASX announcement 22 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Piping Contract Awarded from BPMI for Submarine Industrial Base, ASX announcement 1 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Resumes Titanium Powder Production, ASX announcement 9 July 2026.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Comments on Incident at Factory, ASX announcement 15 May 2026.

Amaero Inc., Update on Tennessee Manufacturing Facility, ASX announcement 27 May 2026.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Expands Powder Capacity Ahead of Schedule, ASX announcement 22 June 2026.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Re-domiciliation, Schemes become Effective, ASX announcement 11 June 2026.

Amaero Inc., United States Navy Issues Letter of Support, ASX announcement 15 December 2025.

Amaero Inc., Amaero Signs Supplier Agreement with A$7.8M Order for Titanium Powders, ASX announcement 10 April 2026.

Amaero Inc., Credit Agreement Signed for US$22.8 Million Loan from Export-Import Bank, ASX announcement 26 February 2025.

Amaero Ltd, Annual Report 2025, ASX announcement 18 September 2025.

Velo3D Inc., Form 8-K and supplementary slides, SEC accession 0000950170-25-070439, filed 13 May 2025.

Velo3D Inc., Form 8-K and supplementary slides, SEC accession 0000950170-25-104039, filed 6 August 2025.

Velo3D Inc., Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025, filed 31 March 2026, commitments and contingencies note.

Velo3D Inc., Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2026, commitments and contingencies note.

Velo3D Inc., SEC company submissions record, CIK 0001825079.

Amaero, Amaero Signs Long-Term, Exclusive Supply Agreement with Velo3D, announcement 29 April 2025.

Velo3D Inc., Velo3D Announces $22 Million Long-Term Exclusive Supply Agreement, announcement 29 April 2025.

Amaero, Velo3D Qualification Condition Satisfied for C103, announcement 8 July 2025.

Amaero International Ltd, prospectus dated 29 October 2019, sections covering Monash intellectual property licence agreements.

Amaero Inc., Scheme Booklet, distributed May 2026, including CDI ratio and implicit consolidation disclosure.

ASX admission notice, Amaero Inc., 11 June 2026, 953,327,200 CDIs quoted.

United States Geological Survey and industry trade estimates for hafnium production, concentration and pricing, 2024 to 2026.

6K Additive, niobium alloy powder C103 product documentation and America Makes PADAM award announcement.

Elmet Technologies, C103 niobium additive manufacturing powder product documentation.

Amaero investor archive, investorhub.amaero.com.au, 659 announcements reviewed.

Not a chip. A crystal. Someone grows a boule of indium phosphide, slices it into wafers, polishes them flat enough that a laser structure can be grown on top, and ships them to the epitaxy houses. Those epiwafers become lasers. Those lasers become 800G and 1.6T optical modules. Those modules are the only reason a GPU in one rack can talk to a GPU in another rack fast enough to matter.

The market has spent two years pricing the modules. It has spent about two days pricing the crystal.

On Thursday July 30, after the close, AXT reported a quarter that broke a three year pattern. Revenue of $47.6 million against roughly $34.8 million of consensus, up about 165 percent year on year. Gross profit of $21.4 million. Operating profit of $10.4 million. The stock rose 27 percent that session and traded up another 24 percent after hours.

I want to do three things. Walk through what the quarter said. Then explain the one mechanism that actually determines AXT's reported revenue, which is not demand and which almost nobody modelling this company has right. Then put the price into the context that a two day chart hides.

What the quarter said

Revenue has moved in a step, not a drift. Six quarters of history and the guided September quarter, which the company put at roughly $66 million on the call:

The margin line matters more than the revenue line, and it is the reason this is worth your time at all.

Fifteen months ago this business sold product below cost. Gross margin was negative 6.4 percent. It printed 44.9 percent in the June quarter. That is a fifty point swing in five quarters and none of it came from a price increase. It came from volume moving through a fixed cost base.

A crystal growing operation is close to a fixed cost business. The furnaces run whether they are full or not. The difference between running them at sixty percent and ninety five percent is most of the income statement. Which is why the bottom line flipped so violently:

One correction to the headline before we go further. Diluted EPS was $0.17, but core EPS is closer to $0.11. About a third of pre-tax income is treasury yield on the cash from the April raise, not operations. Interest on a bank balance is real money and it is not the business, and it will not scale with wafer volume.

A second one. Minority interests take 14.6 percent of everything from here. AXT does not own all of Tongmei, the Chinese subsidiary that grows the crystal. When you read consolidated profit, roughly a seventh of it belongs to somebody else.

And a third thing you cannot find in any filing. AXT's filed segment disclosure has exactly two buckets, Substrates and Raw materials and other. The product level split exists only on the earnings call, and it shows how concentrated this company has become:

Two thirds of AXT is now one product line. If you are reading the 10-Q you cannot see that.

The mechanism nobody is modelling

Here is the part that changes how you read every AXT quarter, including this one.

AXT's reported revenue is gated by Chinese export permits, not by customer demand.

On February 4, 2025, China's Ministry of Commerce issued Announcement No.10, placing indium phosphide substrates under dual-use export licensing as control code 3C004.a, alongside trimethylindium, triethylindium and the associated production technology. Every shipment of indium phosphide out of China to a customer outside China now requires a permit. Permits run roughly sixty business days per order.

Watch what that does to the revenue line:

That is not a demand curve. Demand for AI optical interconnect did not fall 39 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 and then rise 70 percent in the first quarter of 2026. Permits did.

The company said so directly. Fourth quarter revenue came in at $23.0 million against guidance of $27 to $30 million, and the chief executive explained the miss in these words: "we didn't receive as many export permits in Q4 as we had hoped based on the average processing time we had seen up to that point in October."

So when a $47.6 million quarter lands against $34.8 million of consensus, the honest reading is that it is at least as much a permit release event as a demand event. Permits granted inside a quarter convert to revenue inside that quarter. The backlog they unlock is lumpy by construction.

Two consequences follow and they point in opposite directions.

The bearish one. A single administrative decision in Beijing can produce another fourth quarter style air pocket with zero change in end demand. If you own this stock you are underwriting a permit office.

The bullish one, which is subtler and which I think is underappreciated. If revenue is permit-gated rather than demand-gated, then reported revenue is a floor on demand, not a measure of it. The orders exist whether or not the paperwork cleared. And the air pockets are mechanical, which means they are buyable.

One detail that softens the risk. In the first quarter of 2026, 61.5 percent of revenue went to China-destination customers, which requires no export permit at all. Only 38.5 percent was licence-exposed. Management guides a 40 to 60 percent China mix. The permit exposure is real and it is not the whole company, and the mix is a lever management can pull.

Three things about the trade regime that are not in the coverage

One. There is a 50 percent tariff on this product and it was filed under solar.

HTS 3818.00.00 is the classification for doped indium phosphide and doped gallium arsenide substrates. Effective January 1, 2025, the US Trade Representative moved that entire eight digit subheading from the 25 percent Section 301 list to the 50 percent list. The action was framed publicly as a solar measure covering polysilicon and wafers, but it was executed at the eight digit level rather than the statistical suffix level, so compound semiconductor substrates were swept in as collateral scope.

AXT's product is Chinese origin. Any Chinese origin doped indium phosphide or gallium arsenide substrate entering the United States has carried a 50 percent duty since the start of 2025.

That also explains a number which looks alarming without context. North America revenue was $1.708 million in fiscal 2025, down 77.5 percent. AXT states plainly that it cannot forecast when export permits will allow indium phosphide shipments to the United States, and that no gallium arsenide permit to the US has ever been approved. The American market is functionally closed to them right now.

Two. The November 2025 truce did not touch any of this. Announcement No.10 was deliberately left in force. Only Article 2 of the separate Announcement No.46 was suspended, and that suspension runs to November 27, 2026. The indium phosphide regime is legally distinct from the gallium and germanium regime and it has no expiry date.

Three. The 25 percent Section 232 semiconductor tariff does not apply. Effective January 15, 2026, its scope is logic integrated circuits in HTS 8471.50, 8471.80 and 8473.30. A search of the full Federal Register notice returns zero hits for 3818, wafer, substrate, indium or gallium arsenide. Substrates escape it entirely. That is a bear talking point that turns out to be wrong, and knowing which risks are real is most of the work.

The demand is corroborated, and this is the strongest part of the file

If revenue is permit-gated, you need independent evidence that the underlying orders are real. There is some, and it is unusually hard evidence. Customers are prepaying for capacity.

The Lumentum agreement runs to December 31, 2031 and carries a second $43.5 million tranche in 2028.

That is $91.2 million of customer cash committed in a year when the company will do somewhere near $190 million of revenue. Firms do not wire deposits of that size for capacity they are speculating about. Two of the three counterparties are among the largest optical component makers in the world and have every ability to source elsewhere if they thought they could.

This is the single most persuasive item in the bull case and it is more persuasive than the revenue print, because a prepayment is a decision made by a customer with its own money at risk.

Against it, management's stated 2027 exit target is roughly $130 million per quarter of indium phosphide capacity, about $520 million annualised. That number exists only on an earnings call and requires roughly $100 million of 2027 capital spending to actually happen. Treat it as an aspiration with a funding condition attached, not a forecast.

The price, which is the part the two day move hides

Here is where I have to correct something I wrote earlier this week.

The obvious way to describe this stock is that it rose 57 percent in two sessions and is therefore extended. That is what the tape looks like if you start on Wednesday. It is also wrong.

At $58 this stock is 59.4 percent below its May high and still 9.5 percent below the price at which the company itself placed equity in April. The 57 percent move is a bounce off a deep drawdown, not a breakout to new highs. Anyone who bought the April placement is underwater.

That is a materially different setup from the one the two day chart suggests, and it changes the answer to whether you are chasing. You are not buying a stock making new highs. You are buying one that halved and is trying to come back on a genuine change in the numbers.

What it does not change: insiders sold roughly 266,000 shares between $86.73 and $115.24 about six weeks before this print. They were not selling into the blowout. They were selling before it, at much higher prices. That is not a crime and it is not proof of anything. It is a fact worth having.

What $58 is asking for

Enterprise value at $58.16, adjusted properly for the cash and long-term investments that screeners miss, puts AXT around 25.5 times trailing sales. That is above Lumentum at 21.7 and far above Coherent at 7.5.

On the September quarter run rate of $66 million annualised, the same enterprise value is about 12.1 times sales. At the $46.94 close it is 9.3 times.

So the valuation question reduces to one thing. Does the guided quarter happen, and does it hold. At 25 times trailing you are paying for a business that no longer exists. At 12 times forward you are paying a reasonable multiple for something growing triple digits, if the growth is real and if it recurs.

Given that revenue is permit-gated, whether it recurs is not a question about demand. It is a question about paperwork.

What I am doing

I am starting a position of 15,000 shares. That is a starter, not a full weight.

The plan is to accumulate on weakness, and the permit mechanism is precisely why that plan fits this stock. If reported revenue is gated by an administrative process running on a sixty business day cycle, this company will produce quarters that miss badly for reasons that have nothing to do with its customers. Those are the entries. A business whose air pockets are mechanical rather than fundamental is a business you want to buy on the air pockets.

What I will not do is put full size on before the September quarter tells us whether $66 million was a permit release or a new baseline.

What Part 2 has to answer

Does the guided $66 million land, and what was the permit count behind it. Everything else is downstream of that.

The capacity build. The April raise was $632.5 million against a company doing $27 million a quarter at the time. I want the furnace count, the cost per unit of capacity, the qualification timeline, and when incremental capacity actually produces revenue.

Six inch indium phosphide, which is the cost curve. Where is yield running, what is the customer qualification timeline, and is AXT genuinely ahead of Sumitomo and JX or merely first to announce.

The Tongmei listing on the Shanghai STAR Market. A separate Chinese listing of the subsidiary that owns the crystal growing is the largest structural question a US shareholder faces here. How much would be sold, and what is left for us.

The 2028 supply wave. Sumitomo is targeting 3.1 times its 2024 indium phosphide capacity. San'an has a six and a half billion yuan six inch line. SMART Photonics is bringing an Eindhoven fab to full operation. If all of that lands, the pricing window that produced 45 percent gross margins closes. I want the supply and demand curves side by side with dates on them.

Customer concentration. Three counterparties just prepaid $91.2 million. That is excellent evidence of demand and poor evidence of diversification.

Part 2 carries the model. This one is the map.

New position disclosed above, opened around the time of publication. Not investment advice. Every figure is sourced below and dated.

References

• AXT, Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results, 30 July 2026 (Business Wire; SEC 8-K EX-99.1, accession 0001437749-26-025061)

• AXT, Inc. Announces First Quarter 2026 Financial Results, 30 April 2026

• AXT, Inc. Form 10-K fiscal 2025, SEC CIK 0001051627, accession 0001437749-26-008612, Note 14 geographical information

• AXT, Inc. Form 10-Q first quarter 2026, accession 0001437749-26-017054

• US Trade Representative, Section 301 Federal Register notice modifying subheadings, effective 1 January 2025, Annex B, HTS 3818.00.00

• Federal Register, Section 232 semiconductor proclamation implementation, 20 January 2026, US note 39

• MOFCOM and General Administration of Customs Announcement No.10 of 2025, 4 February 2025, control codes 3C004.a through 3C004.c and 3E004

• Semiconductor Today, AXT's Q4/2025 revenue constrained by delay in China export permits, 9 March 2026

• Semiconductor Today, AXT's revenue grows 17% in Q1 after greater-than-expected export permits, 5 May 2026

• Capacity reservation agreements, AXT 8-K filings and press releases, Lumentum, Coherent and Nanjing Casela

• Form 4 filings, accessions 0001437749-26-019464 and 0001437749-26-019347

• Price and volume data, 29 and 30 July 2026, NASDAQ consolidated tape

The clean version goes like this. China restricted germanium exports. Germanium is the material every infrared lens is made from. LightPath Technologies makes BlackDiamond, a germanium-free glass, and is therefore the only way for Western defense programs to keep building thermal imagers. Buy the stock.

Two of those sentences are true. The one in the middle is not, and LightPath says so itself, in its own annual report, in writing.

What is left after you remove it is a more interesting company than the story implies, sitting on top of two disclosures made in the last nine days that nobody has written about.

First, the part of the story that is wrong

BlackDiamond BD6 is arsenic selenide, As40Se60. That is not a proprietary formula. It is a well known chalcogenide composition.

VITRON Spezialwerkstoffe in Jena, Germany publishes a glass called IG 6. Its composition is As40Se60. The same material. SCHOTT sells the same family as IRG 22 through IRG 27. Umicore sells GASIR.

You do not have to take my word for it, because LightPath's own fiscal 2025 annual report says it plainly:

"Some of these materials such as BD6 and BD2, are generic, and are produced by at least two other companies. The crown jewels of our materials, the BDNL type, are exclusive to us."

That is the company telling you the material at the center of the popular thesis is generic. Any bull case resting on BD6 being the only germanium substitute is going to meet that sentence eventually, and it will lose.

So what is actually defensible? Four things, and they are better than the chemistry claim because they are harder to copy.

Domestic melt capacity. Making the glass in the United States is not the same as knowing the formula. VITRON is German, SCHOTT is German, Umicore is Belgian. For a US defense program with domestic sourcing requirements, where the glass is melted is the qualifying fact, not what is in it.

A government-funded qualification path. This is the piece I find most persuasive and it is completely absent from coverage. The Defense Logistics Agency has paid LightPath twice, under two sequential contracts, specifically to qualify chalcogenide as a defense material:

Material qualification is the actual barrier to entry in defense optics. Not the recipe. The recipe is in the literature. What takes years is getting a material onto a qualified list and into a program of record, and the US government is underwriting LightPath's path through that process. That is public, dated, and durable in a way a glass composition is not.

Molding yield. Chalcogenide is precision moulded rather than diamond turned. That process knowledge is real and it does not transfer with a datasheet.

Vertical integration into cameras, via the G5 Infrared acquisition, which is where most of the value and most of the accounting complexity now sits.

And the honest technical caveat. Chalcogenide is not a straight drop-in for germanium. Transmission band and thermal drift behaviour differ. Some designs substitute cleanly and some require a redesign. Anyone telling you it is a simple swap has not read a datasheet.

The disclosure from nine days ago that nobody has read

On July 22, LightPath filed twenty two post-effective amendments and seven S-8 post-effective amendments. On July 23, twenty two effectiveness notices came back. Twenty two of anything in one day gets my attention.

Most of it is housekeeping. The cover pages say removal from registration of securities that were not sold.

But buried in it is something live. Registration number 333-262768, filed in February 2022, registered $75.8 million of shelf capacity plus $25.2 million under an at-the-market sales agreement with A.G.P. and Alliance Global Partners. Deregistering it formally terminates that at-the-market facility.

That matters more than it sounds. An at-the-market programme is a machine that sells stock into the market quietly, every day, at whatever the bid is. Turning it off means future capital raises have to be visible, discrete block deals rather than a continuous drip. For a company with LightPath's history of returning to the equity market, replacing silent supply with announced supply is a structural improvement in how shareholders get treated, and nobody has noticed it happened.

The remaining live vehicles are the December 2025 primary shelf and two resale shelves.

The disclosure from eight days ago that is genuinely uncomfortable

On July 23, LightPath agreed to sell one hundred percent of its Chinese subsidiary, LightPath Zhenjiang Optical Instrumentation, to a company called Hengtu Optical Technology in Nanjing.

Read the counterparty description from the filing carefully:

owned by the Purchaser Representative (Mr. Leo Zheng) and certain members of the Company's current management team.

LightPath's own management is on the buying side.

The price is $4.5 million paid over five years, minimum $500,000 per year, with 4 percent financing interest per installment and 7 percent on default, unsecured on the public record. LightPath retains a board observer seat and licenses over the trademarks for five years along with product drawings, tooling, moulds, process documentation, technology and know-how. There is a five year exclusive supply agreement, so LightPath keeps buying from the factory it sold.

Those China operations generated roughly $4.5 million per year of third party revenue. So LightPath is selling a business at approximately one times the revenue it gives up, collecting the money at $500,000 a year, from its own managers, with no disclosed fairness opinion.

Now the clause that made me stop:

"for every payment by the Purchaser of $1,000,000 of the principal... the cost plus markup percentage for products supplied to LightPath shall automatically increase by five percent (5%)... Upon full payment... fixed at cost plus thirty percent (30%)"

The supply agreement starts at cost plus ten percent. Every million dollars the buyer repays raises the price LightPath pays for its own products by five points. Stepped out, it looks like this:

The faster management pays LightPath for the factory, the worse LightPath's gross margin gets.

I want to be fair about this. There is a legitimate strategic reading. A company selling a China-substitution thesis while manufacturing in China has an obvious contradiction to resolve, and selling to the local management team who actually run the plant is a normal way to divest an operation that will not attract an arm's length buyer. Retaining supply, tooling and an observer seat is prudent.

But the ratchet is not standard, the counterparty includes insiders, no fairness opinion is disclosed, and the transaction has not closed yet. Those four facts belong in front of anyone underwriting this equity.

G5 is the company now, and the earnout tells you what it earned

LightPath bought G5 Infrared in February 2025. G5 makes cooled and uncooled thermal cameras. Camera level integration carries better margins than selling lens elements to somebody else who builds the camera.

G5's financial performance is never separately disclosed. But the earnout structure is disclosed, and the earnout can be solved backwards. This is the most useful piece of arithmetic in the file.

Start with the base year. The purchase agreement contained a clawback equal to 50 percent of any shortfall below $17.3 million of calendar 2024 revenue. The annual report shows a revenue clawback of $1,104,471. So $17,300,000 minus twice $1,104,471 gives $15,091,058. G5 did $15.09 million of revenue in calendar 2024. That number appears nowhere in any filing. It falls out of the clawback.

Then year one. The earnout ladder paid $3.5 million above $21 million of revenue, $7.0 million above $23 million, $10.5 million above $25 million and $14.0 million above $27 million. In the quarter ended March 31, 2026, LightPath paid $7.3 million in cash plus 297,445 shares worth $3.2 million. Exactly $10.5 million. That is the third tier.

Then year two, and this is the tell. The ladder pays $4.5 million above $30 million and $9.0 million above $33 million. On April 16, 2026, LightPath signed a side letter fixing year two at the maximum $9.0 million, ten and a half months before the measurement period even ends and four and a half months earlier than the contract required payment.

You do not agree to pay the top tier early unless you already know you are hitting it.

That is de facto forward guidance of G5 revenue above $33 million, disclosed in a contingent consideration footnote instead of a press release.

What it actually cost. All in, G5 is roughly $43.1 million rather than the $27.1 million headline, of which about $32.3 million is cash. The sellers collect $19.5 million of a possible $23.0 million of earnout, or 84.8 percent. That is a business bought well if the growth holds and expensively if it does not.

Why the reported loss is mostly not a loss

The nine month fiscal 2026 net loss is $16,404,698. That is the number a screener shows you and it looks awful for a company this size. Inside it is $12,234,529 of change in fair value of acquisition liabilities, which is the earnout being marked up because G5 keeps beating its tiers.

Strip it out and the underlying loss is about $4.17 million, with an underlying operating loss near $3.12 million. Quarter by quarter, excluding the mark, that loss narrows every single period:

That is a completely different picture from a $16.4 million hole.

Here is the elegant, perverse part. The better G5 performs, the larger the reported GAAP loss becomes, because the earnout liability marks up. Anyone screening this company on GAAP net income is being shown a number that gets worse as the business gets better.

The earnout liability trajectory is the cleanest public scorecard on a subsidiary that is otherwise invisible:

The jump in the December quarter is the moment G5 blew through its tiers.

The thing happening in about 48 hours

The June 3, 2026 offering carried twin sixty day restrictions that expire on or about August 2, 2026.

The first is a lock-up on all directors and executive officers and on North Run Strategic Opportunities Fund I, LP. North Run's residual 6,717,376 shares, 9.6 percent of the company, become saleable.

The second is LightPath's own restriction on issuing stock or convertibles, including the ban on variable rate transactions. The company becomes free to raise again, directly into the fiscal 2026 annual report window, which historically lands in late September.

I am not predicting either happens. I am telling you the doors open this week, and that a 9.6 percent holder becoming free to sell is the kind of thing that later gets attributed to news.

The order book, which is bigger than the press releases and is in the filings

Correction, added 31 July 2026. An earlier version of this piece said the backlog could not be verified from financial statements and that anyone quoting an order figure was quoting a press release. That was wrong, and a paid subscriber who has held the stock over a year and visited the Orlando facility corrected me within hours of publication. LightPath discloses backlog in MD&A as a named key indicator, with a five quarter table. I looked in the wrong part of the document. The corrected section follows, and the real number is much better than the one I used.

From the quarterly report for the period ended 31 March 2026, verbatim:

"Our total backlog at March 31, 2026 was approximately $110.6 million, an increase of 196%, as compared to $37.4 million as of June 30, 2025."

That is $110.6 million of firm orders against a business that did roughly $45 million of revenue in the trailing year. It is not a press release number, it is management discussion in a filed report, and the company defines it tightly: firm orders reasonably believed to remain in the backlog and convert to revenue, including customer purchase orders and qualifying supply contracts.

The composition matters more than the total.

Read the first line again. Fifty eight million dollars of it comes from "a leading global technology customer" for advanced infrared camera systems shipping in calendar 2026 and 2027. Not a defense prime. A technology company. I had assumed the large camera orders were a prime contractor buying for a military programme, and the filing says otherwise. Whoever that customer is, they are more than half the backlog, which is both the strongest fact in the bull case and the single largest concentration risk in the company.

There is also a third acquisition I had not found. LightPath closed on Amorphous Materials LLC on 21 January 2026. Amorphous Materials makes chalcogenide glass. So the company whose own annual report concedes that BD6 is generic went and bought one of the other producers of it. That is a direct answer to the objection I raised earlier in this piece, and it is a better answer than anything in the marketing.

And in the engineering services line, the filing names a Visimid development contract with Lockheed Martin. That is a real prime relationship, disclosed, currently small enough that its timing moves the segment around.

On the federal contract data, the original point still stands and is worth keeping. LightPath has approximately $1.0 million of lifetime federal prime contracts across six awards. It is a subcontractor. Its product goes into somebody else's camera. Prime to subcontractor purchase orders are not public, so USASpending will never show you this book. The mistake I made was concluding that therefore nothing was verifiable. The company reports it directly; you just have to read the management discussion rather than the contract database.

One research note for anyone following this trail. A plain search for LIGHTPATH in federal contract data returns about thirty awards, but most of them belong to a completely different company, the Lightpath fibre business selling internet circuits to the DEA, the FBI and the Maritime Administration. Filter to LIGHTPATH TECHNOLOGIES or you will overstate the defense footprint by roughly sixty percent.

Where I come out

I am not taking a position today. Here is the honest reason.

The company is more interesting than its story. The real moat, domestic melt plus a government-funded qualification path plus moulding yield plus camera integration, is more durable than the germanium narrative that got people here, and buying Amorphous Materials in January strengthens it further. G5 is compounding fast enough that management pre-committed to its maximum earnout. Backlog is $110.6 million against roughly $45 million of trailing revenue and it is disclosed, not asserted. The underlying loss is a quarter of the reported one and shrinking. The at-the-market facility is off.

Against that, a related party sale of the China factory to management with a margin ratchet and no fairness opinion, a 9.6 percent holder coming unlocked this week, a fresh ability to issue equity in the same window, more than half the backlog resting on one unnamed customer, and a central marketing claim the company's own annual report contradicts.

Those are not disqualifying. They are the reason to do the second half of the work before putting money down rather than after.

What Part 2 has to answer

Does the China sale close on these terms. No completion has been filed. Terms can change and the market has priced none of this.

Fiscal 2026 full year numbers. The year ended June 30. The annual report lands around late September and will carry the first clean full year view with G5 and AML in it, plus the June backlog figure.

Whether North Run sells. Ownership filings after August 2 answer that quickly.

Segment margins, camera versus component, separately. The entire vertical integration thesis rests on cameras being structurally better and nobody has shown the split.

Who the customer is. One unnamed leading global technology customer accounts for roughly $58 million of a $110.6 million backlog. Identifying it is the single highest value open question in this name, and the fact that it is a technology company rather than a defense prime narrows the field considerably.

Where the glass gets melted after the divestiture, and what the cost plus ratchet does to gross margin at each repayment step, modelled out.

What Amorphous Materials actually brings. LightPath bought a chalcogenide glass producer in January. Price, capacity, customer list, and whether it closes the generic-material gap or simply adds volume.

And the competitive question that decides the thesis. If VITRON and SCHOTT already make the same composition, what stops a US licensee of either from qualifying domestically. The answer is probably the qualification timeline. I want that timeline quantified in years.

Part 2 carries the model. This one is the map, and the map has a few roads on it that are not on anyone else's.

No position at time of writing. Not investment advice. Every figure sourced below and dated.

References

• LightPath Technologies Form 10-K fiscal 2025, SEC CIK 0000889971, accession 0001654954-25-011130, Item 1 and Note 3

• Form 10-Q, quarter ended 31 March 2026, accession 0001437749-26-015594, Note 4 and segment reconciliation

• Form 8-K, 23 July 2026, accession 0001437749-26-024234, Item 1.01 and Exhibit 99.1, China divestiture

• Form 8-K, 3 June 2026, accession 0001437749-26-019435, Item 1.01, offering and lock-up

• Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, G5 Infrared, Exhibit 10.1 to 8-K accession 0001654954-25-001429, sections 2.8(b) and 2.8(c)

• Post-effective amendments, accessions 0001437749-26-024147 through 0001437749-26-024176, and EFFECT 9999999995-26-002408

• Registration statement 333-262768, A.G.P. and Alliance Global Partners at-the-market facility

• USASpending prime award records, recipient LIGHTPATH TECHNOLOGIES, contracts SP800023P0004 and SP800024C0009

• LightPath BD6 datasheet, Infrared Chalcogenide Glass As40Se60

• VITRON Spezialwerkstoffe GmbH IG 6 specification and SCHOTT IRG series datasheets

• Price and volume data, 30 July 2026, NASDAQ consolidated tape

The answer is on the record. It came on July 23 with the half-year report.

The order did not come.

What came instead was a set of numbers almost nobody has read properly, including the financial press that covered them. LPKF has four million euros of cash. It also claims eighty percent of the market it is trying to win. Both of those sentences come from documents published on the same day.

This post is the longest in the series because the research is. I read the half-year report, the earnings call deck, the annual general meeting voting record, the shareholder counter-motions, the chief financial officer's speech to that meeting, the articles of incorporation, and the full German short-selling register going back to 2013. Several of the things I found have not been reported anywhere. Two of the things that were reported are wrong, and I will show you why.

Let's go.

Read more

This report is free, ungated, and built to be forwarded. Quote anything with attribution to Shawarma Capital, research.shawarmacapital.net. All figures marked to the July 15, 2026 close of $66.31 unless dated otherwise.

Key findings, each one verifiable in a filing:

• Satellite service revenue in Q1 2026 was $1.3 million. The market cap is $20 billion. A pre-revenue multiple is not the indictment, every infrastructure story prices the future. The finding is the race underneath it: the dilution is arriving on schedule and the revenue is not.

• 91 percent of the quarter's revenue was hardware, and more than half of the total was gateway equipment billed to a related party.

• In August 2025 the CEO confirmed a fully-funded plan. Within a year the company priced $2.1 billion in convertible notes across two offerings.

• The company targets approximately 45 satellites in orbit during 2026. It has nine. Of its three named launch providers, Blue Origin blew up its own pad in May and is grounded until December, ULA has yet to fly an AST mission, and the only one actually flying the manifest, SpaceX, competes with AST for the same customers.

• The July convert converts at $79.57. Convert arbitrage hedging is a standing short position above the tape. The stock does not escape the strike zone until the income statement does.

Executive summary, one page

AST SpaceMobile is building a constellation purpose-built to deliver true broadband, not just texting, to unmodified smartphones. Starlink's direct-to-cell reaches the same phones, but at messaging-grade speeds today, while AST's far larger arrays target actual broadband and it holds the first US commercial authorization for it. Over the last ninety days it launched three satellites successfully, won that FCC authorization for commercial US service, signed a $926 million sovereign-network deal in Japan, and grew its partner roster to roughly 60 mobile operators covering more than 3 billion subscribers. The technology case got stronger. The stock still round-tripped from $85 through $133 back to $66, and the reason is arithmetic, not sentiment.

Three exhibits carry the report.

Exhibit A. The $14.7 million question. First-quarter revenue printed $14.7 million against the $24 to 26 million the ramp implied. Inside that number: $13.4 million was hardware, gateway equipment sold to partners, and $7.9 million of that was billed to a related party. Satellite connectivity service, the thing the $20 billion market cap is priced on, produced $1.3 million. Nine percent of a $14.7 million quarter. The 2026 guide of $150 to 200 million is only about half covered by contracted backlog, and the company now points to 2027 for commercial service at scale.

Exhibit B. The manifest math. Management targets approximately 45 satellites in orbit during 2026. Today there are nine functioning spacecraft, five Block 1 and four Block 2, after BlueBird 7 was lost in April. Three more are slated for early August. That leaves roughly 33 satellites to fly in under five months, at a cadence the company has never demonstrated, while its launch options narrow. AST names three providers, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA, but Blue Origin's New Glenn destroyed its own launch complex in a May anomaly and does not return to flight before December, and ULA has yet to fly an AST mission. Every near-term launch that actually flies now routes through SpaceX, a company whose own Starlink direct-to-cell product competes with AST for the same subscribers.

Exhibit C. The dilution ratchet. In August 2025 the CEO told investors, quote, we are confirming our fully-funded plan to deploy 45 to 60 satellites into orbit by 2026. Since that sentence: a $1.075 billion convertible in February 2026 and a $1.0 billion convertible priced July 15, 2026, at 1.625 percent due 2034, converting at $79.57, with $96.9 million of the new money spent on a capped call to push effective dilution to $149.20. That is $2.1 billion of fresh converts inside a year of the words fully funded. Pro forma debt now stands near $4 billion against roughly $4.4 billion of cash, the share count is 299 million and rising, short interest is 21.7 percent of float and at a nine-month high, the stock just left the Russell 2500, and the company president filed sales at $126.64 within a day of the all-time high. The quarter's net loss was $191 million. The capital machine is working exactly as designed. That is the problem: it is designed to run on your shares.

Verdict. The thesis is alive and the price of admission finally reflects the risk. We grade our own April call at the bottom, publish the updated scenario table, and list the three tripwires that would make us buyers. Until service revenue exceeds hardware revenue in a printed quarter, this is a launch-cadence option, not an infrastructure stock.

I. Grading our own April work first

The April 20 piece made five calls. The record, honestly scored.

Right: the satellite loss was noise. We wrote that BlueBird 7 was a launch vehicle failure, not a technology failure, that insurance would cover it, and that the next launch was with SpaceX. All confirmed. BlueBirds 8, 9, and 10 went up clean on a Falcon 9 on June 17, the Block 2 design with 2,400 square foot arrays flying as specified.

Right: the Rakuten overhang resolved bullishly. April's report treated Rakuten's $270 million share sale as portfolio mechanics, not thesis abandonment, and said watch the commercial agreement instead. On July 2 Rakuten committed $926 million alongside AST for a sovereign direct-to-device network in Japan, with government approval following a day later. The seller of April is the anchor tenant of July.

Right, with an asterisk: the technology. The company demonstrated 98.9 megabits per second to an unmodified smartphone, the best direct-to-device figure ever published, and won the FCC's first Supplemental Coverage from Space authorization for commercial service, covering up to 248 satellites. The moat claims are converting into regulatory fact.

Wrong: the revenue trajectory. We relayed an implied Q1 of $24 to 26 million from the Q4 exit rate. The actual print was $14.7 million, and the composition was worse than the size, as Exhibit A details. The Q4 2025 number that anchored the ramp story was itself heavy with gateway hardware and milestone recognition, not recurring service. We passed along the annualized-run-rate framing without decomposing it. That was the error: right numbers, wrong reading.

Wrong: the base-case timing. April's scenario table put base-case 2028 revenue at $800 million on constellation scale arriving through 2026 and 2027. The company has since told investors commercial service at scale is a 2027 event, and the street's Q2 estimate sits at $25 to 40 million. The revenue curve shifted right roughly a year. The scenario table at the bottom reprices accordingly.

Ninety days is a short grading window. It was long enough for the market to reprice the same facts from $133.09, the May 28 all-time high, to $65.62 at the low. What follows is the audit of what actually changed.

II. Exhibit A in full: what the revenue actually is

The Q1 2026 filing, reported May 11, decomposes as follows.

Read that middle line again. More than half the quarter's revenue was gateway hardware billed to a related party. This is not an accusation of anything improper, related-party gateway sales to MNO partners who are also shareholders are a documented part of the model, and gateway deployments are a necessary precondition for service revenue in each market. But an investor pricing a $20 billion company on a revenue line should know that the line is currently dominated by one-time equipment deliveries to affiliated buyers, not by satellites billing subscribers.

The service line, $1.3 million, is the entire current commercial reality of space-based cellular broadband at AST. It will grow, and to be clear about the frame, a $20 billion valuation on nascent revenue is not itself the finding. Amazon traded at absurd trailing multiples for a decade and the future showed up. The finding is the race: the future revenue is now dated 2027 by the company's own offering documents, while the dilution funding it is dated February 2026, July 2026, and, if the pattern holds, whenever the next launch contract needs signing. When a stock prices the future, the only question that matters is which future arrives first. Right now the converts are winning.

The full-year guide of $150 to 200 million was reaffirmed on May 11, with management stating approximately 50 percent is covered by existing contracted backlog. Half of a guide is a plan; the other half is a hope, and the mix inside the contracted half skews toward more gateway equipment and government milestones, not consumer service. Meanwhile the July offering documents moved commercial service at scale into 2027, a slip the market punished within hours, and the street's Q2 consensus of roughly $35 million at the midpoint implies the back half must produce over $100 million to reach even the guide's floor.

Operating costs make the clock audible. Total Q1 operating expenses were $164.1 million, $91.2 million after stripping stock compensation and depreciation. Net loss attributable to common was $191.0 million, one quarter. Gross property and equipment stands at $1.8 billion. Every quarter of 2027-timeline slippage is roughly $200 million of GAAP loss and a proportionate draw against the cash pile, and the cash pile is borrowed.

III. Exhibit B in full: the manifest against the calendar

The deployment record, from the company's own announcements.

From 12 planned in August to the stated 45 requires roughly 33 additional satellites in under five months. At three per Falcon 9, that is eleven dedicated launches, better than one every two weeks, from a standing start of one launch per month at best. The company's Midland and Texas facilities are producing at a claimed rate of phased arrays for more than ten satellites per month, and BlueBirds 11 through 33 are stated to be in various stages of assembly. Production may genuinely be there. Orbit is not production. Orbit is launch slots.

And the launch market just got smaller. Blue Origin's New Glenn, the vehicle that lost BlueBird 7 in April, suffered what its own filings call a devastating anomaly in May that destroyed the launch pad. NASA is assisting the investigation, an engine issue is suspected, and the company has guided return to flight to December 2026 while it scraps and rebuilds the complex. Every near-term AST launch therefore routes through SpaceX.

Sit with that dependency. SpaceX operates Starlink direct-to-cell with T-Mobile, the direct competitor for AST's core product. AST's manifest, its cadence, and therefore its 2026 target and its 2027 service date now run through the pricing desk of its principal rival, with Blue Origin grounded until year-end and ULA yet to fly a mission for it. The July offering language about using proceeds to secure additional access to orbit, and the analyst chatter about buying a rocket company outright, are the company saying the same thing with a billion dollars: launch is the binding constraint, and it is currently rented from the competition.

For completeness, the FCC authorization covers up to 248 satellites, and management holds that roughly 45 to 60 are needed for continuous US coverage. At the demonstrated 2026 cadence, nine satellites in six months including a loss, continuous coverage is a 2028 story without a step-change in launch procurement. That is what the $1 billion is for. Which brings us to what it costs you.

IV. Exhibit C in full: the ratchet

The capital stack, before and after the last ninety days.

Start with the sentence that anchors the exhibit. August 2025, the CEO, on the record: we are confirming our fully-funded plan to deploy 45 to 60 satellites into orbit by 2026 to support continuous service in the US, Europe, Japan, and other strategic markets. Fully funded. Since then the company has priced two converts, $1.075 billion in February 2026 and $1.0 billion on July 15, 2026, roughly $2.1 billion of new paper inside a year of that quote, while the 45-satellite half of the same sentence slipped as Exhibit B shows. Neither raise is scandalous on its own. Together with the quote they are a pattern, and the pattern is that funding statements from this company have a shelf life measured in quarters. Price the next one in.

The July 15 convert: $1.0 billion principal, 1.625 percent coupon, due February 2034, conversion at $79.57, a 20 percent premium to the $66.31 reference. The company spent $96.9 million of the proceeds on a capped call raising the effective dilution threshold to $149.20. An additional $150 million greenshoe is available. Stated use of proceeds: growth initiatives and securing additional access to orbit, including potential partnerships and acquisitions. The stock fell roughly 12 percent around the announcement and pricing.

The mechanics matter as much as the amount. Convertible buyers hedge by shorting the common, which is part of why short interest sits at a nine-month high, and that hedging flow acts as a standing offer above the tape. Two billion dollars of converts struck at $79.57 and, from the February paper, higher, means systematic selling pressure into every rally between here and the strikes until the business generates cash. The retail complaint that the offering caps the stock is not paranoia, it is the arithmetic of how convert arbitrage trades. The cap lifts when the income statement lifts it, not before.

This is the second billion-dollar-class convert in a year, and it will not be the last, because the model consumes capital by design: satellites are capitalized, launches are purchased, gateways are deployed ahead of revenue, and the income statement loses $191 million a quarter while service revenue is $1.3 million. Management calls the balance sheet a fortress. It is, and the fortress is mortgaged: roughly $4 billion of debt against a business whose recurring revenue would not cover one quarter's interest, secured by the promise of 2027.

The supporting cast of signals, each small, all pointing the same way. President Scott Wisniewski filed sales of 25,904 shares at $126.64 on May 27, within a day of the $133.09 top, roughly $3.3 million. CEO Abel Avellan's May filing was a tax-withholding disposition at $113.41, not an open-market sale, and we flag the difference deliberately. The stock exited the Russell 2500 in the July reconstitution, removing passive bid. Short interest sits at a nine-month high with 2.6 days to cover, which cuts both ways: it is fuel for violent rallies on good launches and a standing vote that the arithmetic above is widely understood.

One more structural note. Amazon closed its $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar in mid-July, buying Apple's satellite partner outright, days after the FCC signaled an August vote on opening more direct-to-device spectrum. SpaceX flies its own constellation, Amazon now owns one, and both have consumer distribution AST will never match. AST's counter is physics, bigger apertures delivering broadband speeds the others cannot, and carrier alignment, roughly 60 MNOs plus the proposed AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon joint venture that pools spectrum for exactly this service, with AST positioned as a preferred capacity provider. The competitive story is genuinely two-sided now. It was one-sided in April.

V. What got stronger, stated as plainly as the holes

An audit that only lists holes is a short report, and this is not one. Since April 20:

• Three satellites launched flawlessly on June 17, the largest commercial phased arrays ever flown, designed for roughly 200 megabit peak speeds, nearly double Block 1.

• The FCC granted the first commercial SCS authorization in US history, up to 248 satellites. The regulatory moat is real and it is AST's, not Starlink's.

• Rakuten converted from overhang to anchor: $926 million committed for a sovereign Japanese network, government approval in hand, on top of Japan's earlier equity history.

• The MNO roster reached roughly 60 operators spanning 3 billion subscribers, adding Telus and Axian, with ground integrations under way in 17 countries covering 2.9 billion people.

• Three new US government awards since March, on top of the existing defense relationships, and a $100 million capital advance securing long-term L-band spectrum access through Ligado.

• The 98.9 megabit demonstration to an ordinary smartphone stands as the industry record.

• Vodafone's European joint venture named Spain for its rollout with 2027 service, New Zealand approved a gateway, and European emergency-service demonstrations completed ahead of the August launches.

The asset being built is unique, the demand side keeps signing, and the regulator keeps saying yes. Nothing in this report disputes the destination. Everything in this report is about the fare.

VI. The repriced scenarios

April's table assumed 2026 constellation scale and $800 million of 2028 base-case revenue. Both slipped roughly a year. The update, our model, our probabilities.

Probability-weighted value: roughly $89. Against a $66 tape that is 35 percent of expected upside, materially less asymmetric than the same math looked in April at $85 against a $127 weighted value, because the bear case is fatter and nearer. The option is cheaper and the odds are worse. Both things happened.

What would make us buyers, three tripwires, any one of which converts this from option to position:

1. Service revenue exceeds product revenue in any printed quarter. The business inverts from hardware-and-hope to infrastructure.

2. A sustained launch cadence of six or more satellites per quarter for two consecutive quarters, from any provider mix, proving orbit access is procured, not promised.

3. A definitive capacity contract with the carrier joint venture or a named MNO with committed dollar minimums disclosed, converting the 60-partner roster from memoranda into backlog.

And the standing kill signal, published in advance: a third convertible or equity raise before commercial service revenue passes $50 million in a quarter would confirm the ratchet is the business model, and we would say so in print and stop covering the name as an investment candidate. Management has already spent the benefit of the doubt once, at fully funded. There is no second one.

VII. Verdict

In April we wrote that the market was pricing a thesis break and the math said otherwise. The market then agreed with us for five violent weeks, doubled the stock, and spent the next seven taking it all back as the filings caught up. Both moves were the same mistake in opposite directions: pricing the story instead of the composition.

The composition today: $1.3 million of quarterly service revenue, nine satellites, SpaceX as the only reliable launch path and also the chief competitor, $4 billion of debt, a 2027 service date, and the best direct-to-device broadband technology and regulatory position in the sector. That is a real company building a real thing on rented rockets and shareholder patience.

At $66 you are no longer paying the euphoria tax. You are paying the dilution tax, on a schedule management just published at $79.57 a share. We will pay neither until one of the three tripwires fires. The constellation is fine. The income statement isn't. Watching, no position, and the next hard look is the August 10 print and the BlueBird 11-13 launch in the same week.

Not investment advice. Do your own work.

Methodology note

Every figure in this report traces to a primary source: SEC filings, company press releases, FCC records, and Form 4 filings, with market data from the July 15, 2026 close. Scenario outputs are Shawarma Capital model estimates, not company guidance. We held no position, long or short, at any time during the preparation of this report.

References

1. AST SpaceMobile Q1 2026 business update and results, May 11, 2026. Business Wire and SEC filings. Revenue composition, opex, cash, guide, FCC SCS authorization, MNO roster, 45-satellite target.
   1a. AST SpaceMobile Q2 2025 business update, August 2025, SEC Form 8-K exhibit. CEO quote, confirming our fully-funded plan to deploy 45 to 60 satellites into orbit by 2026. February 2026 convertible notes offering, $1.075 billion, SEC filings and Investing.com coverage.

2. AST SpaceMobile 10-Q, quarter ended March 31, 2026. Products and services revenue split, related-party disclosure.

3. Convertible notes pricing release, July 15, 2026. Business Wire. Terms, capped call, use of proceeds.

4. BlueBird 8-10 launch release, June 17, 2026, and BlueBird 11-13 scheduling release, June 23, 2026. Business Wire.

5. Rakuten-AST Japan sovereign network coverage, July 2-3, 2026. Yahoo Finance and company statements.

6. Blue Origin New Glenn May anomaly and pad rebuild coverage, July 7-14, 2026. MSN, autoevolution, Yahoo Finance. Return to flight December 2026.

7. Form 4 filings, AST SpaceMobile, May-July 2026. SEC EDGAR. Wisniewski sale May 27; Avellan withholding disposition May 30.

8. Amazon-Globalstar acquisition coverage, July 10-16, 2026. Stocktwits, Il Sole 24 Ore syndication. $11.6 billion, Apple stake included.

9. AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon direct-to-device joint venture coverage, May 14-20, 2026. Reuters, Light Reading, Via Satellite.

10. Service timeline to 2027 and acquisition language, July 15-16, 2026. PCMag, Aviation Week, Yahoo Finance.

11. Russell 2500 deletion, July 10-13, 2026. simplywall.st, Yahoo Finance.

12. Short interest and options data, July 14, 2026. Stocktwits, MarketBeat. Market data from Yahoo Finance, July 15, 2026 close.

13. Prior coverage: One Bird Down, Constellation Intact, Shawarma Capital, April 20, 2026, at research.shawarmacapital.net.

Prices marked as of the July 15, 2026 close, $68.88, with the stock indicated lower premarket July 16. Market cap roughly $3.0B. Fifty-two week range $48.30 to $96.69.

Let's go.

The whiplash, and why it is the setup

Three tapes in three weeks.

On June 30, Rosenblatt named Ambarella one of its eight favorite technology stocks for the second half of 2026 and called it, in analyst Kevin Cassidy's words, a Physical AI pure play. The stock rocketed 28 percent in a session and printed above $90 the next day.

On July 1, the day after that pop, CEO Feng-Ming Wang sold 16,250 shares at $90.08. His Senior VP of Systems sold 10,000 at $88.84 the same day. Hold that thought, we will come back to it with the full table, because I promised you the insider file and it is worse and also better than it looks.

Then the giveback. No earnings, no downgrade, no ruling. The stock bled from above $90 to $68.88 by the July 15 close, down 8.9 percent that day alone on volume 66 percent below average. Fourteen percent came off in a week. Thin-volume drift, not institutional exit. The market handed back almost the entire Rosenblatt move while the average analyst target sits between $95 and $101.

That gap between a $120 top-pick call and a $69 low-volume tape is why this writeup exists. Worth naming the froth too: after the Rosenblatt call, AMBA started showing up in every anonymous physical-AI basket thread on X, the same promo accounts pushing nine tickers at a time. That crowd bought the pop. The drift back to $69 is them leaving. Their exit is the entry.

One correction to the record before we build, because getting the tape right matters more than a clean narrative. When this name first hit my desk I attributed the July drawdown to GoPro's patent win over Insta360, Ambarella's largest end customer. The full docket says otherwise. The ITC sided with GoPro in its February commission opinion, and the stock did take a hit on that news at the time. But the final ITC determination in March went the other way in practice, and the March 11 headline reads that Ambarella's largest customer avoided US import restrictions. There was no new ruling in July. GoPro itself is fighting for survival, taking a $20 million loan from its own founder on July 9. The July drawdown is a sentiment unwind, not a legal event. The distinction matters because sentiment unwinds mean-revert and import bans do not.

What Ambarella actually is

Ambarella is a fabless semiconductor company out of Santa Clara, founded in 2004, that spent its first decade as the video-compression chip inside GoPros and DJI drones and its second decade converting that image-processing franchise into low-power AI inference silicon. The company has shipped more than 39 million SoCs cumulatively.

The product is a system-on-chip that sits directly behind a camera sensor and runs neural networks on the device, at the lens, without sending anything to a data center. Security cameras that recognize instead of record. Car cameras that detect and decide inside the cabin power budget. Drones, delivery robots, industrial inspection systems, port automation, surgical visualization. Any machine where the answer has to arrive in milliseconds on watts of power, not in seconds on a grid connection.

Three product families carry the thesis.

CVflow vision SoCs. The core franchise. The CV5 and CV7 generations run computer vision at single-digit watts. The CV7, launched January 2026 on a 4 nanometer process, cut power 20 percent while multiplying AI throughput 2.5 times against the prior generation.

CV3-AD for automotive. The autonomous-driving line, sold to Tier-1 suppliers, targeting ADAS and higher levels of autonomy. Management called out record automotive revenue in the April quarter, driven by commercial vehicles adopting AI camera systems at a pace, in the company's words, above seasonal.

N1 for edge generative AI. The newest line, built to run multi-modal models on-device. This is the optionality tail, not the core earnings driver yet.

The strategic point is simple. Nvidia owns the data center. Qualcomm owns the phone. The market for inference at the sensor, where power is measured in single watts and latency in milliseconds, is still being divided. Ambarella is one of the only pure plays on that layer at public-market scale, and roughly 80 percent of its revenue is already edge AI product.

The Hanwha agreement, with the ratio and the caveats

On May 28, the same day as earnings, Ambarella announced a long-term edge AI agreement with Hanwha, the Korean industrial and defense conglomerate. Term exceeding ten years. Value in excess of $800 million in potential revenue. Scope covering edge AI SoCs and software across video security, robotics, industrial automation, and life sciences, co-developed on Ambarella's Cooper platform, with the deal sponsored from the Hanwha Group level, the quote coming from Kim Dong-Seon, not just the Hanwha Vision subsidiary.

Sit with the ratio. Ambarella's entire fiscal 2026 revenue was $390.7 million. One customer signed a decade-long agreement worth more than two full years of the company's current revenue.

Now the caveats, because the ratio is doing a lot of work in the bull case and you should know exactly what it is made of.

First, the $800 million is characterized as potential revenue, not committed volume. There are no disclosed take-or-pay commitments and no disclosed minimums.

Second, Hanwha Vision retains independent control of its in-house Wisenet SoC line. This is a transition, not a displacement on day one.

Third, the timing. The street read, per Rosenblatt, is that Hanwha begins contributing meaningful revenue upside next year, as Hanwha moves from a mix of internal and external chip sourcing toward Ambarella supplying its security camera silicon, worth roughly $50 million a year in that segment alone once fully transitioned. Fifty million against a $400 million base is a 12 percent revenue layer from one logo, before the robotics and industrial scope contributes anything.

A signed decade with a chaebol that builds cameras, robots, and defense systems is exactly what an edge AI silicon company's order book is supposed to look like at this stage. It is also, today, a promise with an asterisk. Both things are true.

The print

The April quarter, fiscal Q1 2027, reported May 28.

• Revenue $100.4 million, up 16.9 percent year over year, down half a percent sequentially, slightly above the midpoint of guidance.

• Non-GAAP gross margin 59.9 percent, against 62.0 percent a year ago.

• Non-GAAP net income $5.0 million, 11 cents, versus $3.0 million a year ago.

• GAAP net loss $18.1 million, narrowed from $24.3 million.

• Cash and marketable securities $277.8 million. Debt near zero at $13.3 million.

• Q2 guide $105 to $111 million, which at the midpoint is 8 percent sequential growth and roughly 15 percent year over year.

• New $50 million buyback authorized through June 2027.

The mix is the story inside the story. IoT applications, meaning security cameras plus consumer devices, are still about three quarters of revenue, and consumer IoT declined double digits sequentially. Automotive printed an all-time record on commercial fleet adoption. The growth engine is rotating from the legacy camera base toward auto and enterprise while the consumer tail shrinks. That rotation is the whole investment question, and this quarter it worked, barely, to a flat sequential top line.

The deceleration is real and I am not going to hide it. Fiscal 2026 grew 37.2 percent. The April quarter grew 16.9. The Q2 guide implies mid-teens. The re-acceleration case rests on three named drivers, the Hanwha transition beginning next fiscal year, the commercial-vehicle automotive ramp, and edge inference volume in new categories, robots and industrial systems, that barely existed in the run-rate two years ago.

Stress test one, the GAAP losses and the stock comp

The founder note flagged it and here is the honest math. Ambarella loses money on a GAAP basis, $18.1 million last quarter, roughly $70 million trailing twelve months. The gap between GAAP loss and non-GAAP profit is almost entirely stock-based compensation, running in the low twenty-millions per quarter against $100 million of revenue. That is a real cost. It dilutes you at roughly 20 percent of revenue per year, and the new $50 million buyback, of which just $2.4 million was executed in Q1, offsets only a fraction of it at current issuance rates.

What keeps this from being disqualifying is where the money goes. R&D was $58.1 million in the quarter, 58 percent of revenue. This is a company spending like a large-cap on silicon roadmaps, 4 nanometer vision SoCs, automotive-grade autonomy chips, edge LLM silicon, while running a microcap income statement. If revenue re-accelerates, that R&D line is operating leverage. If it does not, the SBC keeps taxing you while you wait. That is the trade, stated plainly.

Stress test two, the concentration file

This is the section the 10-Q writes for you, and it is the most important table in this piece.

• WT Microelectronics, the Taiwanese distributor that fulfills Ambarella's sales across Asia outside Japan, was 61 percent of total revenue in the April quarter. Fiscal 2026, 70 percent. The trend line runs 53, 63, 70 percent across fiscal 2024, 2025, 2026.

• The top ten end customers were approximately 67 percent of revenue in fiscal 2026 and the April quarter.

• The largest end customer so far in fiscal 2027 is Arashi Vision, Insta360, supplied indirectly through WT to the ODMs that build Insta360's cameras.

• Revenue by bill-to location in the April quarter: Taiwan $61.0 million, Asia Pacific ex-Taiwan $23.2 million, Europe $6.3 million, and the United States $1.9 million. The Santa Clara chip company bills less than 2 percent of its revenue inside the United States, because its customers are the Asian ODMs that build the world's cameras.

• Buried in the subsequent events note: on May 12 the company terminated a development project with a customer and refunded $4.5 million of a $13.5 million deposit. Custom silicon programs die quietly like this. Worth watching whether it was a one-off.

None of this is hidden and none of it is fraud. It is the standard anatomy of a fabless vision-chip company whose demand lives in Asian supply chains. But be precise about what you own: a US-listed IP company whose revenue collects through one Taiwanese distributor and whose single largest end customer is a Shenzhen action-camera maker. Which brings us to the third test.

Stress test three, the Insta360 file, corrected

The record, in order. GoPro filed ITC and district court actions against Insta360 in 2025. In February 2026 the commission opinion reaffirmed GoPro's patent claim, and Ambarella sold off on the headline the same week it printed record Q4 results. In March 2026 the final ITC determination resolved in a way that let Insta360 keep importing, and the coverage read that Ambarella's largest customer avoided US import restrictions. There has been no adverse ruling since. GoPro, meanwhile, is being outsold by DJI and Insta360 globally, and on July 9 disclosed a $20 million loan from its own founder to stay liquid.

So the patent overhang, as of today, is resolved in Insta360's favor at the ITC, with the residual risk being appeals and the district court track rather than an import ban in force.

The real Insta360 risk is simpler and bigger than the lawsuit. It is the concentration itself. Insta360 is a private Shenzhen company, exposed to US-China trade policy, in a consumer category that just printed a double-digit sequential decline for Ambarella, and it is the largest single end customer of the company you would be buying. If Insta360 stumbles, gets tariffed, or dual-sources its next generation, the IoT base takes the hit long before Hanwha and automotive fill it. That risk does not require a courtroom.

Stress test four, the insider file

Every disclosed sale from the last sixty days, from the Form 4 flow.

Zero open-market purchases against them, insider ownership at 4.6 percent, and the CEO's sale landed the day after the Rosenblatt pop, within 20 cents of the six-month high.

Now the other side of the ledger. The amounts are small. The CEO sold a million and a half dollars of a three-billion-dollar company, almost certainly through a pre-set 10b5-1 plan that happened to trigger into strength, and executives at chip companies with heavy SBC sell mechanically because equity is most of their pay. This is not a management team dumping a secret. It is a management team that does not buy its own dip, which tells you something softer: nobody inside believes the stock is stupidly cheap here. They believe it is fairly paid compensation. Read it as an absence of conviction, not the presence of a warning.

What the street sees

Fourteen analysts, consensus buy, average target $95 to $101 depending on the aggregator, against a $69 tape. The recent tape of calls: Rosenblatt reiterating buy at $120 on the physical AI thesis, Susquehanna to $110, Stifel to $106, BofA at $96. Next print August 27, Q2 fiscal 2027.

The consensus case is the simple one. Edge AI inference is where AI deployment physically lands, in cameras, cars, robots, and Ambarella is the only clean public-market vehicle for that layer. The high-conviction versions of the thesis, Rosenblatt's version, add the Hanwha decade and the automotive record as evidence the design-win pipeline is converting.

The market's counter, expressed in the tape rather than in any note, is that 16.9 percent growth at 60 times forward earnings requires the re-acceleration to actually show up, and July's drift is the market refusing to prepay for it twice in three weeks.

The scenarios

My model, my numbers, not guidance. Fiscal 2028 basis, roughly 18 months out.

Probability-weighted value roughly $95, which is 38 percent above the July 15 close and, not coincidentally, right where the analyst consensus sits. The market is pricing the bear-to-base corridor. The Rosenblatt case requires believing the bull column, and the asymmetry at $69 is that you are paid to wait for the evidence, because the bear case at 5 times sales for a net-cash company with 60 percent gross margins and a decade-long Hanwha agreement is a shallow bear, not a zero.

The balance-sheet floor does real work here. $277.8 million of cash, $13 million of debt, a buyback in hand. This is not a story stock that dies in a downturn. It is an R&D machine that becomes cheap or becomes right.

Kill criteria, published in advance

I will exit or refuse entry, and say so in print, if any of these trip.

1. WT Microelectronics exceeds 75 percent of revenue for two consecutive quarters. Concentration ratchets are how single-distributor stories end.

2. Insta360 is confirmed dual-sourcing or replaced in a flagship generation, or an appellate ruling reinstates an import ban on its US products.

3. The Hanwha agreement produces no disclosed design win, NRE milestone, or revenue attribution by the fiscal 2028 first half.

4. Non-GAAP gross margin prints below 55 percent in any quarter. The moat claim dies there.

5. Automotive fails to grow year over year for two consecutive quarters after this record base.

The verdict

The founder note said this name graduates to a full writeup if it survives its own risk list. It survived, with scars, and the scars are the entry.

The GAAP losses are stock comp funding a 58-percent-of-revenue R&D program, acceptable while growth holds. The concentration is real, structural, and the single best reason this trades at 7 times sales instead of 15. The patent scare is resolved and was never the right thing to be afraid of. The insider selling is compensation mechanics without a conviction signal either way. Against those four accepted risks you get the only pure-play edge AI vision silicon franchise on a US exchange, a record automotive quarter, a net-cash balance sheet, a fresh buyback, a decade-long agreement with one of Asia's largest industrial groups signed at group level, and a tape that just retraced an entire top-pick rally on no news at all.

Watching for entry in the high 60s to low 70s. August 27 is the next hard data point. If commercial-vehicle automotive prints another record and consumer IoT stabilizes, the market will not leave this at 7 times sales for long. If the quarter shows the rotation stalling, the kill criteria are above and they are not decorative.

The eyes of physical AI are for sale at a discount to the average analyst target with the promoter risk already rinsed out. That is the setup. Now it has to earn the next leg with a print.

Not investment advice. Do your own work.

References

1. Ambarella Q1 FY2027 financial results, May 28, 2026. investor.ambarella.com and SEC Form 8-K.

2. Ambarella Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2026, filed June 2, 2026. SEC EDGAR, accession 0001193125-26-253198. Customer concentration, WT Microelectronics percentages, Arashi Vision disclosure, geographic revenue, subsequent events.

3. Hanwha and Ambarella long-term edge AI agreement, May 28, 2026. Business Wire.

4. Ambarella FY2026 results, February 26, 2026. Business Wire.

5. Rosenblatt Securities, second-half 2026 top picks, June 30, 2026, and reiterated buy, $120 target, Kevin Cassidy. CNBC, Yahoo Finance, Investing.com coverage.

6. Form 4 filings, Ambarella insiders, June 17 through July 9, 2026. SEC EDGAR, summarized via Finviz insider table.

7. US ITC, Certain Cameras and Camera Systems, GoPro v. Arashi Vision. Commission opinion February 26, 2026, PR Newswire; final determination coverage March 11, 2026, Yahoo Finance.

8. GoPro founder loan disclosure, July 9, 2026. Digital Camera World.

9. Q1 FY2027 earnings call coverage, May 28-30, 2026. Motley Fool transcript, Globe and Mail, GuruFocus highlights.

10. MarketBeat, July 15, 2026, AMBA down 8.9 percent, volume analysis.

11. Price and market data as of July 15, 2026 close, Yahoo Finance and StockAnalysis.com.

Marked to the July 16, 2026 tape. Common market cap roughly $374 million on 96.5 million shares. Cash $122.8 million against zero debt as of the March 31 balance sheet. Note the word common, because the preferred stack below changes that arithmetic more than I gave it credit for in the first cut of this piece.

The split screen

In the last ten days, Merlin printed a fresh all-time low at $3.88, down 14 percent in a week on no filing, no downgrade, and no news event of any kind.

In the same ten days:

• July 8: the trade press profiled Merlin's Air Force work and confirmed the expansion path from AFSOC to Air Mobility Command and Air Combat Command, on top of the KC-135 tanker program that runs parallel to the C-130J work. Matt George, on the record: we cannot move at the speed of the defense primes, we have to move at the speed of our adversaries.

• July 9: Cantor Fitzgerald initiated coverage. Overweight, $11 target.

• July 13: TD Cowen, which initiated at buy on the military contract base, cut its target from $11 to $8 and kept the buy. At $3.88 even the cut target is more than a double.

• July 13: Cantor published a second note flagging the milestone almost nobody covered: Merlin became the first company in history to receive an approved certification basis from New Zealand's CAA in a joint project with the FAA for an autonomous flight system. The certification thesis stopped being a promise and produced its first regulatory artifact.

• July 14: the Missile Defense Agency's Golden Dome program, the $151 billion SHIELD vehicle Merlin is qualified inside, awarded $1.75 billion in new tracking-satellite contracts. The money in that pipe is moving from authorization to obligation.

Two buy-rated shops with targets between $8 and $11. A certification first. A budget vehicle disbursing. And a $3.88 print. One of those things is wrong, and the next six weeks are the referee.

Why the tape is here, stated plainly

The drawdown is supply, and it has been supply since April. The PIPE resale registrations went effective April 17 and May 13, releasing stock into a float of roughly 29 million shares. Short interest sits near 5.7 million shares, about a fifth of the float. There has been no operating disclosure since the Q1 print, no 8-K, and a company that files nothing gives an illiquid tape nothing to price except the sellers. Revenue remains certification-gated, roughly $1 million in Q1 against a fiscal-year framework that always depended on second-half task orders and milestones. That is not a broken thesis. It is a thesis with a long quiet stretch between proof points, trading in a float small enough that patience gets marked to market every afternoon.

The balance sheet is the floor under the argument, and I am going to state it more honestly than I did in the first cut. Merlin holds $122.8 million of cash against zero debt as of March 31. But the common is not the whole capital structure. Sitting above it is $260.5 million of Series A preferred at stated value, carried at $180.3 million in mezzanine, plus an $87.8 million warrant liability. Add those to the $374 million common market cap and net out the cash, and the market is paying roughly $520 million for the operating company, not the quarter of a billion the naked market-cap math implies. That is the honest number to argue with. Cantor's $11 still implies a real re-rate from there, but anyone quoting a $374 million market cap on this name is understating what they are actually paying by about half. The tape says the burden of proof is Merlin's. Fair. Here is exactly when the proof is scheduled.

The catalyst calendar, dated

July 20 to 26. EAA AirVenture, Oshkosh. Merlin aircraft on site at the largest aviation gathering in the world. Watch for demo flights, partner announcements, and whether the Condor family gets a public airframe moment. Soft catalyst, hard photographs.

Early August. The SOCOM task-order reveal window. The FY26 C-130J task order, roughly $12.5 million, sits under the standard SOCOM disclosure clause that holds awards from public view for 60 days. The window for that hold to expire lands in August. One verifiable marker for it: federal spending records show $15.96 million already obligated against the ceiling for the PDR and CDR work, last modified February 10, and nothing new obligated since. The next draw has not touched federal systems yet, which means nobody has front-run it, and USASpending is the exact-day tripwire when it lands. This is the single most important line on this list, because it converts the $105 million IDIQ ceiling from authorization into the second funded drawdown, and it is the exact catalyst the entire ceiling-is-not-revenue framework from Part 7 was built around.

August 13. The Q2 print. Street revenue estimates run from $1.3 million to $9 million, an absurd spread that tells you nobody outside the building has the task-order timing modeled. The number that matters more than revenue: backlog, disclosed for the first time alongside whether the loss narrows on plan. Second most important line on the list.

October 15. The preferred conversion reset. I had this date wrong until I went back to the Certificate of Designation, so here it is corrected. The Series A carries a $12.00 stated value and an initial $12.00 conversion price. On the twenty-first trading day after the six-month anniversary of the March 16 close, which lands around October 15, the conversion price resets to the greater of the twenty-day VWAP and a hard floor of $5.00. At $3.88 that reset to the floor is effectively locked in. It roughly doubles the eventual dilution, from about 23 million shares at the old strike to about 55 million at the floor, against 96.5 million common outstanding. The floor is also the protection: the price cannot reset below $5.00, so this is not a death spiral. And conversion is at the holder's option, not management's, which means the preferred simply does not convert while the stock sits under five. It accrues at 12 percent instead, and that accrual is the real cost of waiting.

Second half. The certification cadence. Merlin cleared the SOI-2 audit with New Zealand's CAA on October 28, 2025, so the stage-of-involvement work was already well underway and did not begin with this month's news. What the July certification basis adds is the agreed regulatory foundation, jointly with the FAA, that the remaining audits get measured against. The path from here is the rest of the SOI cycle, verification and conformity, then the supplemental type certificate that unlocks the commercial model. Each audit is a dateable event on a regulator's calendar, and Merlin's New Zealand subsidiary at Kerikeri is the operational proving ground. The 2027 commercial framework lives or dies on this cadence.

Second half. KC-135 program milestones. The tanker program is real, parallel to the C-130J work, aimed at the roughly 300-aircraft fleet, with the July trade profile confirming customer pull beyond AFSOC into Air Mobility Command and Air Combat Command. One caution I flagged before and will keep flagging: the separate Air Force KC-135 cockpit-refresh solicitation making the rounds is an avionics obsolescence program that favors the incumbent, not an autonomy award. Do not let anyone sell it to you as a Merlin catalyst. The Merlin tanker catalyst is task orders and demonstrations on the autonomy program itself.

Second half. Golden Dome and DAWG flow-through. The SHIELD IDIQ is a $151 billion ceiling with over two thousand qualified vendors, so qualification alone is worth little. What is worth something: the July 14 awards prove obligations are flowing, and the FY27 defense appropriations cycle prices the DAWG autonomy accounts Merlin's programs draw against. Watch for task orders, not press releases.

Standing tripwires, no dates. The GM Maritime seat is still posted and open, and a fill there is the org-chart signal that the maritime line is spooling. The GM Tactical Autonomy seat, vacant since last November, has come off the careers page entirely, which means it was either filled quietly or shelved. Worth knowing which. The first New Zealand line-operations or Part 135 posting still marks the commercial 2027 spool-up beginning. And one correction to my own prior framing: the venture debt is gone. The March 31 balance sheet carries zero long-term debt and zero convertible notes, both extinguished at the de-SPAC. There is no 2027 refinancing wall. The senior claim that matters on this cap table is the preferred, not a loan.

What the bear needs and what the bull needs

The bear case at $3.88 needs the August task order to slip past its window, the Q2 backlog disclosure to disappoint, and the October reset to land with the stock still far under five, locking in the wider dilution. That is a real parlay and it pays the shorts, a fifth of the float, if it hits.

The bull case needs exactly what is already scheduled: one funded task order, one clean backlog number, one more certification stage. No heroics, no new contracts, no narrative change. The difference between $3.88 and the $8 to $11 the two covering analysts publish is not a story the company still has to invent. It is a calendar the company has to execute.

None of the seven kill criteria have tripped. The cash covers the burn deep into 2027 before the preferred conversation gets hard. I added to the position into this drawdown and the add is underwater with the rest of it. The calendar above is the list of dates on which I find out whether that was conviction or stubbornness, and you will read the verdict here either way, in print, against the same criteria I published on the way in.

Not investment advice. Do your own work.

References

1. Cantor Fitzgerald initiation, Overweight, $11 target, July 9, 2026, and certification note, July 13, 2026. Investing.com, Daily Political, Ticker Report coverage.

2. TD Cowen, buy rating, target cut from $11 to $8, July 13, 2026. MarketBeat, Moomoo coverage.

3. CAANZ and FAA joint certification basis, first approved certification basis for an autonomous flight system, per Cantor Fitzgerald note, July 13, 2026.

4. Inside Unmanned Systems, Merlin Labs: Bringing Autonomy to the Air Force's Bread-and-Butter Fleet, July 8, 2026. C-130J program history, KC-135 parallel program, AMC and ACC expansion, Matt George quotes.

5. Golden Dome tracking-satellite awards, $1.75 billion, July 14, 2026. Washington Times, Benzinga, GovCon Wire. SHIELD IDIQ program scope, Missile Defense Agency, December 2025 qualification lists.

6. USSOCOM C-130J IDIQ, $105 million ceiling, and task-order disclosure mechanics. Prior coverage, Parts 7 and 10, research.shawarmacapital.net.

7. Series A preferred terms: $12.00 stated value, 12 percent cumulative semi-annually compounding dividends paid in kind, holder-optional conversion, conversion price reset to the greater of the 20-day VWAP or a $5.00 floor on the twenty-first trading day after the six-month anniversary of the March 16 close, company call at 150 percent of accrued value, holder put after the fifth anniversary. Merlin, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, filed May 15, 2026, Note 10, Mezzanine Equity. Balance sheet: cash $122.8 million, zero debt, warrant liabilities $87.8 million, Series A carried at $180.3 million. Corrects the mid-August framing in the first cut of this piece.

8. PIPE resale registration effectiveness, April 17 and May 13, 2026. SEC filings.

9. Market data as of July 16, 2026, Yahoo Finance. Short interest and float, exchange-reported.

10. Prior series: MRLN, The Complete Thesis, research.shawarmacapital.net/p/mrln-the-complete-thesis.

Closed this cycle

Three positions came off the book, one a rotation and two fast round-trips.

PGY, +37 percent, rotated. In mid-June I sold Pagaya at $15.68, up 37 percent from my $11.47 basis, and rotated the proceeds into building Ouster and Amprius. Pagaya did nothing wrong. It printed its first clean GAAP profit and the tape finally repriced it. I took the win and moved the capital into two names with nearer catalysts.

BGDE, +14 percent. I bought Big Digital Energy at the first-post level on June 17 and sold at $11.10 into the re-rate a week later. A failed bitcoin miner sitting on scarce, grid-connected PJM power, insiders buying from four dollars to over eight, and a shell repricing from sixteen to forty million dollars. The trade was the re-rate, and it came fast, from the mid-eights through eleven and change and straight back down. That swing is what I stepped aside from. I still cover the name and shipped a Part 2 on the financing tell, and I am watching for a cleaner re-entry.

CCXI, +19 percent. I bought Agility Robotics through the CCXI trust at $16.40 on June 29, as it broke off the ten-dollar floor, and sold at $19.50 into the spike two sessions later. The stock ran from ten to nearly twenty in two weeks and gives back three and four dollars in a day. I booked the move and I am letting the volatility cool before I decide on re-entry.

The held book, by return

Nine positions now. Four up double digits, from a Rubrik near a double to an AmpliTech at plus forty-nine. Ouster roughly at cost. Four underwater, including one of the two June adds and the flagship I just sized up into weakness.

RBRK, +98 percent. Rubrik nearly doubled from my basis. The Q1 fiscal 2027 print beat every metric and raised guidance across the board, subscription ARR up 32 percent to $1.57B, revenue up 39 percent, and the subscription contribution margin widened to 13.2 percent from 8 percent a year ago. The AI control plane thesis is playing out in the numbers. No exit.

IQEPF, +81 percent. IQE signed the multi-year indium phosphide epiwafer supply agreement with Tower Semiconductor for AI data-center optics and settled the old IP dispute in the same stroke. The stock spiked on the print and gave some back into the semis pullback. Position grew through price action, no fresh capital added.

LPKFF, +80 percent. The activist standoff went to a vote on June 4 and management won. The German listing gave back part of the pop into the small-cap pullback and trades near seventeen and a half euros, still a double from my basis. The glass-substrate AI packaging monopoly thesis is intact and Part 4 is live.

AMPG, +49 percent. AmpliTech is a ten percent position I opened on June 1, on its own and separate from the Pagaya rotation. It ran through the seven-dollar target I underwrote it against and pulled back to the high sixes with the microcaps. A twenty-four-year-old RF house turned 5G open-RAN radio OEM with a quantum tail, 48 percent gross margins and zero debt. The first conversion is on the record, FCC and ISED cleared the radio, and the BEAD program money is moving. Return on my June 1 basis, still the widest asymmetry in the book. Note it is a different company from Amprius below.

OUST, +6 percent. Ouster is now a full ten percent position, built through June and funded by half the Pagaya rotation. The Pentagon widened the China lidar ban to the top two suppliers, the Rev8 factory qualified for federal infrastructure dollars under Build America Buy America, and the company raised two hundred million into strength. Blended basis around forty-one dollars, trading in the low forties. A conviction position now.

BMM, flat. Blue Moon Metals sits right on my basis after the consolidation. Springer in Nevada is still the only permitted US-domiciled ammonium paratungstate hub, and Nussir in Norway carries the EU Critical Raw Materials strategic designation. It is one of the two largest positions in the book, roughly a fifth of it, and I am still building toward the target weight. The probability-weighted expected value against a six-and-a-half-dollar print keeps the asymmetry wide.

MRLN, -17 percent, doubled down. The one I owe you the straight version on, and the biggest position change this month. Merlin is my highest-conviction name, and when the PIPE resale registrations went effective and pushed the stock into a thin float down to a fifty-two-week low near four-thirty, I treated the supply as a gift and added about a hundred thousand shares into the forced selling. That takes Merlin back to the top of the book at around thirty percent and pulls my blended cost down from $6.03 toward the low fives, so the mark is nearer minus seventeen than the minus thirty it would show on the old basis. The move was supply, not story. The C-130J critical design review cleared with USSOCOM, the program moved into aircraft integration on the hundred-million-plus IDIQ ceiling, the defense budget the thesis points at keeps inflecting, and none of the seven kill criteria have been met. I built Merlin World so you can walk the fleet yourself.

CODA, -17 percent. Coda Octopus is still below my basis after the microcap drawdown. Real-time 3D sonar for defense and offshore energy, profitable and debt-free, with defense primes including Anduril moving into the channel. Thesis intact, and the plan is to size back in on dips.

AMPX, -29 percent. Amprius is the other half of the Pagaya rotation, and it is underwater. I built it to a ten percent position in June around sixteen dollars, and the silicon-anode complex has since sold off hard with the rest of the microcaps, taking it to the low elevens. The operating case has not broken. Amprius is the only Western silicon-anode pure-play, Q1 revenue was up two and a half times year over year to $28.5M, it printed its first twenty percent gross margin, and it raised the FY26 guide to a $130M floor with positive adjusted EBITDA. Defense and drone customers include Anduril, Skydio, and Switchblade. Q2 earnings on August 6 are the next read. I show it red because it is red.

How the book is weighted

After the add, Merlin re-anchors the book near thirty percent, with Blue Moon Metals and IQE right behind it around a fifth each. AmpliTech, Ouster, and Amprius each sit near ten percent from the June builds. The winners keep their weight, the losers stay sized to conviction, and nothing is dressed up.

What I am watching into August

• MRLN, the next SOCOM C-130J task order window and the Q2 print with backlog, the first hard read on whether the loss narrows on plan now that I am sized up.

• AMPX and OUST, both report Q2 on August 6, the first look at each balance sheet after their raises and the first checkpoint on the two new adds.

• BGDE and CCXI, both on re-entry watch once the near-term volatility settles.

• BMM, continued build toward the target weight as the Springer and Nussir permitting and financing steps land.

The full theses

Every position, in one place:

• MRLN: The Complete Thesis

• IQE: The Epiwafer Monopoly

• BMM: Blue Moon Metals

• LPKF: The Glass Monopoly

• RBRK: The AI Control Plane

• CODA: The Underwater Monopoly

• AMPG: AmpliTech

• OUST: Ouster

• AMPX: Amprius

• Every portfolio update

See you at the end of the month.

Long all held positions. The three above are closed. Not investment advice.

That is the setup. In Part 1 we said the single re-rating event was the first AI offtake, and that you were getting 129 megawatts of scarce PJM power at a liquidation price because the market assumed the offtake never comes. Nothing since has changed that. What changed is that the team just assembled the pieces you assemble right before you close one: the site, the power partner, the banker, and the cash. You do not spend that money and sign that paper unless a counterparty is close. We read the financing as the tell, and we are still buyers.

This is Part 2. It covers what happened, why the partner matters, how we read the dilution, and what has to land next.

Read more

Agility Robotics builds Digit, a bipedal humanoid robot that already works paid shifts moving totes in real warehouses, which by itself puts it ahead of a field that is still mostly demos. It is going public through Churchill Capital XI, ticker CCXI, in a deal that values it at two and a half billion dollars, a fraction of what the market marks its closest private rival. But the reason this name rewards actual work is that the robot is the least interesting thing about it. Underneath sits a rented global service and software channel that solves the hardest problem in the sector, a cap table that reads like a supply chain with every major backer owning a different link, a government and defense leg that every model carries at zero, and a coordinated regulatory campaign to wall its Chinese competition out of the American market, all timed to the listing. It is also a pre-revenue company whose flagship product has slipped two years and whose real numbers do not appear until the S-4 prints. This series holds both sides at once, the unpublished edges and the honest risks, and updates as each new filing and each new post lands.

Last updated: 2 July 2026. This page is a living document and is updated as each new post goes live.

THE SERIES

Part 1 - The Robot That Already Clocks In

Shawarma Capital

$CCXI / $AGLT The Robot That Already Clocks In - Agility Robotics

Long $CCXI. Everything here is built from public filings, the deal announcement, and public market data. Nothing here is investment advice. For educational purposes only. I may hold positions in names I discuss. Do your own research…

Read more

3 months ago · 3 likes · 2 comments · Shawarma Capital

The setup. Digit already works paid shifts at GXO, Schaeffler and Toyota, and CCXI is the only liquid, pre-close way to own it before it relists as AGLT.

The deep file. A three-front campaign to wall Chinese humanoids out of the US market, the rented go-to-market, the consortium cap table, the listed Taiwan read-through, and the honest bears.

HOW TO READ THIS

Read Part 1 first if you are new to the name. It carries the full setup. Read the most recent post if you are already caught up, since the thesis moves with the tape and the filings. Every part is written to stand on its own, but they compound in order.

Disclosure. Everything here is built from public filings and public data. Research synthesis for educational purposes, not investment advice. I am not a registered investment advisor and I do not owe you a fiduciary duty. Positions and price scenarios discussed in the individual posts are illustrative, not forecasts, and the inputs can be wrong. Do your own due diligence.