Yesterday in Niocorp, this action occurred in the near term options expirations:

July 2nd 2026

Strike

$4- Volume of 203 on OI of 1; today's resulting OI = 202
$4.5- Volume of 1878 on OI of 35; today's resulting OI = 1896
$5- Volume of 506 on OI of 88; today's resulting OI = 558

July 17th 2026

Strike

$5- Volume of 13,113 on OI of 383; today's resulting OI = 12,959. wow.

This is an enormous amount of option premium that was either used to buy to open or sell to open. It's roughly $394,000 in option premium based on yesterday's prices. This is highly concentrated, so I would expect it's a couple parties with very bullish, speculative positioning OR one massive piece of a covered call strategy. You'd have to own a ton of shares to be selling that many contracts. I find it hard to believe this is not a speculative, bullish buy to open. We've seen them before, notably in May, but this is the largest we've seen by a mile. Also, I think it's worth noting that those short term speculative buys came during an expected catalyst period- and that positioning should've been expected. Given the timing of these and the short term duration, they are quite a bit more peculiar. Maybe just a player trying to make a quick buck on an obviously undervalued stock, or maybe somebody knows something.

Anyways, just thought this was interesting enough to share. If we can move through $5, those options could be a hell of a lot of fuel. Not financial advice. Do your own due diligence.

I think that what we saw at the end of this week was a massive de-leveraging across the Nasdaq, and certainly in most every name associated with the raging Ai bull market. A near 5% single day drop in the Nasdaq is going to hit everything hard, and certainly any high-beta or high volatility stocks. Critical minerals were not spared. Yet, there was a large divergence between the Nasdaq and the S&P 500, and an even larger divergence between the Nasdaq and the Dow. This was obvious all day.

I wasn't encouraged to see what happened across the critical minerals, but there's very little reason to think this extremely high volatility sector would be spared. To be honest, I think that over the last year the critical minerals sector has attracted many of the same short term gamblers that got smoked in the Ai trade yesterday. All you have to do is follow a sub like CriticalMineralStocks to see much of the same nonsense. To be fair, bonds did get hit yesterday while this was happening, and higher rates are going to be a force multiplier to the downside in the sector. However, one thing stuck out to me- the 10yr futures contract opened down quite a bit, and considering the blood bath that continued elsewhere all day, those bonds pretty much held their ground for the rest of the day. That was encouraging. And, as a huge believer in the Niocorp project, I moved some money so I can pick up more as soon as possible. It wasn't until this afternoon that I really wished I would have moved that money last week.

The weekly volume footprint divergence that happened on Friday is kind of astonishing. I pay a lot of attention to the POC. That's the center of gravity. That's the fair value for the last week. That's where most of the business occurred last week. And where is it? At 6.15. It held 6.15 in the face of the late week slaughter. That's a signal, not noise. Also, the bottom price zone of the week saw very aggressive selling and no aggressive buying. You don't need to be aggressive if you can just put limit orders at 5.40 and 5.30 and 5.20 and 5.15 and actually get all the inventory you want when people are throwing their shares out the window at you. The last time this happened was the first week of April and the next week Niocorp jumped nearly 30%. It doesn't mean Niocorp can't trade lower, and it doesn't mean it's going to turn around on Monday and jump 50 cents right out of the gate. I am not Nostradamus, and I can't see the future. But I have to take the totality of the context and make a decision- that's what we do. Not financial advice. Do your own due diligence.

https://preview.redd.it/1cy49dr4rq5h1.png?width=1507&format=png&auto=webp&s=8c9d0e17c90943423741966b46e12752d9df65fa

If you believe (as many do) that Niocorp is on the cusp of signing their binding offtake with Traxys, dropping their updated DFS, and closing on roughly $800 million in EXIM financing...it's worth considering how much of the gap in their valuations (relative to fully-financed critical minerals operations and partially-financed critical minerals operations) will close once financing risk goes to zero.

So, here is the prompt and the result from gpt. Keep in mind that they are undergoing complete vertical integration to produce Scandium-Aluminum master alloy as requested by their partners in defense (Lockheed Martin- Skunkworks). None of that value will be included in the DFS, yet, many expect to learn that NPV simply from their mining and refining operations will be $4B+- even without including the vertical integration that will provide the highest margins. The comparative analysis answer below isn't even using the updated DFS NPV that is supposed to drop any day. It is using the 2022 figure, and yet, there is still a massive gap in valuation due to perceived financing risk- a risk that can plausibly go to zero by the end of this month. According to the CEO's latest announcement, financing is expected in Q2 of 2026.

ChatGPT, Read the latest 10-K from USAR and tell me where they are in terms of production, capacity expansion, margins, etc. in relation to their current market cap of $6.9B. Then tell me where they are in those areas relative to NB's planned financing and production and revenue schedule. I'm looking at USAR's $6.9B market cap and trying to understand how much of the gap NB might close immediately upon EXIM FID, and how much of that gap they might close upon announcement of the binding Traxys offtake and the updated DFS.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001970622/000197062226000038/usar-20260331.htm

Actually, fold MP into this comparative analysis, as well. They're at a $12.42B market cap today. Here is their most recent 10-Q: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001801368/000180136826000029/mp-20260331.htm

Here is the result. I believe NB may been one of the most slept on opportunities in the space and the market in general. If and when financing risk goes to zero, I expect fireworks. Not financial advice. Do your own DD...

Yes — and the comparison is very favorable to NB if NB gets Traxys binding + a strong DFS + EXIM FID.

Bottom line

USAR is being valued at ~$6.9B while still very early commercially. In Q1 2026, USAR had only $5.7M of revenue, all from Less Common Metals, with just $106K gross profit and 1.9% gross margin. Its Stillwater magnet facility was commissioned but had not yet begun commercial neo-magnet revenue, and Round Top remained pre-mine-construction / feasibility-stage. (SEC)

That means USAR’s valuation is not based on current earnings. It is being valued on strategic mine-to-magnet optionality, U.S. supply-chain scarcity, government support, future capacity, and acquisition-led scale. USAR expects Stillwater Phase 1A to ramp to 600 MTPA magnet capacity by Q4 2026 and Phase 1A + 1B to reach 1,200 MTPA by Q1 2027; it also plans to expand Less Common Metals alloy capacity to 3,000 MTPA by year-end 2026. (SEC)

MP is different: it is already a real operating producer. Q1 2026 revenue was $90.6M, adjusted EBITDA was $36.6M, NdPr production was 917 MT, NdPr sales volume was 1,006 MT, and REO production was 12,983 MT. MP also has a DoW price-protection agreement and is expanding downstream magnet capacity, including a projected 3,000 MT/year magnet capacity commitment at Independence. (SEC)

The key valuation implication for NB

NB at ~$0.85B–$0.9B market cap is being valued much more like unresolved financing risk than like a strategic mineral platform. NioCorp’s existing feasibility-study economics (from 2022) show $2.35B after-tax NPV, 27.6% after-tax IRR, $397.5M average annual EBITDA, and 68% average EBITDA margin over a 38-year mine life. (niocorp.com)

So the question is not whether NB’s planned economics can justify a higher valuation. They can. The question is whether the market believes the project is actually getting built.

Gap-closing framework

Using your assumed 176M fully diluted shares:

Valuation Level	Market Cap	NB Price
Current-ish	~$0.9B	~$5–6
Partial USAR-style strategic rerating	$2B	~$11
Strong post-DFS / binding Traxys rerating	$3B	~$17
Post-EXIM FID / financing credibility rerating	$4B–$6B	~$23–$34
Full USAR market-cap parity	$6.9B	~$39
MP market-cap parity	$12.4B	~$71

My view: binding Traxys + strong updated DFS could plausibly move NB into the $2B–$3B valuation zone. EXIM FID is the event that could move it toward $4B–$6B, because that changes the market’s question from “will this ever be financed?” to “how much of the NPV do we capitalize now?”

USAR proves the market is willing to pay billions for strategic-minerals optionality before full operating proof. MP proves the market pays much more once production, government support, and downstream integration are real. NB is currently trapped between those regimes. Traxys + DFS narrows the gap; EXIM FID is what could close it aggressively.

It's not a huge jump (we don't want that, yet).
There isn't massive volume in the options chain.
However, where the IV is rising (on a relative basis) and where the volume is rotating or building is exciting: it's in the August, November and January '27 contracts. This is a lot more constructive than huge call buying with near-dated expirations. This is more closely associated with rerating and thesis confirmation than high-stakes gambling.

This is one of the more interesting option-chain developments we've seen in NB in several weeks.

A few things jump out immediately.

1. IV is rising across almost the entire catalyst window

Expiration	IV
Jun 5	~108%
Jun 12	~111%
Jun 18	~106%
Jun 26	~102%
Jul 2	~105%
Jul 10	~96%
Jul 17	~116%
Aug 21	~106%
Nov 20	~117%
Jan 2027	~106%

The important thing isn't the absolute number.

The important thing is:

IV is rising while the stock is rising.

That's generally a bullish combination.

Normally:

• stock ↑
• IV ↓

because uncertainty gets priced out.

Instead we're seeing:

• stock ↑
• IV ↑

which means traders are willing to pay more for future upside exposure despite the stock already moving higher.

That usually means the market is beginning to assign a higher probability to a significant event occurring.

2. The August contract remains the center of gravity

You can see it in the OI.

August $7.50

Open Interest ≈ 8,845

August $10

Open Interest ≈ 5,133

Those are still enormous numbers relative to the rest of the chain.

The market is still overwhelmingly focused on:

>

That aligns almost perfectly with your catalyst calendar:

• Traxys
• DFS
• EXIM decision window

August is effectively the "event contract."

3. What I find most interesting is where NEW volume is appearing

Today's volume isn't concentrated in June.

It's appearing in:

• Aug
• Nov
• Jan

That's important.

Because those are not "weekend gambler" expirations.

Those are:

August

Catalyst speculation

November

Post-catalyst positioning

January

Production of a longer-duration thesis

4. The November chain is quietly becoming interesting

Current OI:

• 7.5 strike ≈ 707
• 10 strike ≈ 1,089

Those aren't huge.

But compare them with where the stock is.

At $6.18:

• November 10s are still significantly OTM.
• Yet traders are accumulating exposure there.

That tells me some participants are positioning for:

>

Not merely a one-day spike.

5. January is even more revealing

January OI:

• 5 strike ≈ 4,207
• 7.5 strike ≈ 2,914
• 10 strike ≈ 3,207
• 12.5 strike ≈ 1,935
• 20 strike ≈ 1,070

That is a surprisingly healthy ladder.

What that says:

The market isn't only pricing a binary June/July event.

Some participants are pricing:

>

That's a very different trade.

6. The stock move and IV move are confirming each other

Today:

• Price up ~7%
• IV up
• Volume above average
• Critical minerals sector broadly strong
• MP strong
• USAR strong

This is not a situation where:

>

Instead:

>

That's a healthier environment than a purely isolated spike.

7. What would concern me?

If IV exploded to 140-160% while price stalled.

That would suggest:

• excessive speculation
• crowding
• potential IV crush risk

Instead we're around:

• 105-117% IV

which is elevated but not crazy for a microcap with major catalysts pending. (AlphaQuery)

My read at 12:50 PM CST

The option market appears to be shifting from:

>

toward:

>

That distinction matters.

A month ago, much of the chain looked like traders waiting.

Today:

• stock is pushing through $6
• IV is rising
• August remains dominant
• November and January are seeing meaningful participation

That combination is consistent with traders beginning to price increasing odds of a catalyst-driven revaluation sometime during the June–August window.

It's that the longest-dated speculative contracts (Aug, Nov, Jan) are attracting attention at the same time IV is firming.

That is usually where the earliest signs of a catalyst repricing show up before they become obvious in the common stock.

Today’s volume footprint was one of the more interesting things I’ve seen in a while. Relative to total volume, the delta was more positive than any other day since last August. I checked every single day going backwards, and I just decided to stop when I got to last August. The only two days that were even close to this positive relationship (and they weren’t as good as today, on a relative level) was September 10th and September 11th last year. We all know what happened after that. I’m not expecting a huge spike and new all-time highs without catalysts, but perhaps I need to put the horse before the cart. This action in the plumbing implies nearby catalysts- far more so than any day in March or April when catalysts were possibly on tap. That just caught my eye, so I wanted to share.

Then, I decided to take the volume footprint and ask Mr. Robot to be very specific and play the alternate possibility- and by alternate, I mean opposite. Passive accumulation (what I believe we’ve been seeing everyday for months- and factually supported by a large swath of 13Fs) has some of the very same characteristics as stealth distribution. Has the accumulation reported suddenly reversed and turned into stealth distribution over the last few weeks? Mr. Robot, parse the differences and examine what we’ve been seeing. I’ll post that answer as a reply to this one.

These two environments flash many of the same signals, but they do have key differences. I know what to look for, and I’ve already read the answer. The situation checks many boxes for both, as it certainly would in the instance of either reality. Let’s go, Mark. I’m looking forward the rerating.

I pulled the entire .csv from fintel.io at around 5:15pm CST today. Here is the chatgpt summary and analysis (unedited) of the data from the file...

Executive summary

From the equity 13F file:

Metric	Result
Total institutions/rows	232
Adders / new positions	127
Reducers / exits	66
No change	39
Current institutional shares	51.89M
Prior institutional shares	34.26M
Net share increase	+17.63M
Gross shares added	+23.97M
Gross shares reduced	-6.34M
Current market value	~$229.6M
Institutional ownership vs. 176M fully diluted	~29.5%

The headline is clear: institutional ownership increased materially during the Jan. 1–Mar. 31 reporting period. The net increase was roughly 17.6M shares, equal to about 10.0% of the fully diluted share count.

The biggest adders

Institution	Current shares	Change
Citadel Advisors	6.20M	+6.00M
Brevan Howard	6.49M	+3.92M
Alyeska	4.31M	+2.71M
Goldman Sachs	3.29M	+2.37M
Citigroup	1.14M	+1.12M
Vanguard Portfolio Management	1.01M	+1.01M
BlackRock	7.02M	+636K
Squarepoint	563K	+563K
Jump Financial	370K	+308K
State Street	2.07M	+300K
HITE Hedge	903K	+268K
Alps Advisors	584K	+258K
Geode	1.56M	+250K
Bridgewater	883K	+237K
Point72	506K	+235K

The most important point: this is not just tiny RIAs adding a few hundred shares. The largest net adds came from multi-strat / hedge / quant / broker-dealer-style institutions.

The biggest reducers

Institution	Current shares	Change
Millennium	207K	-985K
Dayah Capital	0	-840K
Counterpoint Mutual Funds	0	-610K
Soviero	0	-380K
Balyasny	92K	-352K
Foursixthree	0	-352K
Gilder Gagnon Howe	0	-345K
Jane Street	392K	-329K
Morgan Stanley	442K	-324K
Deltroit Asset Mgmt	868K	-203K
Arosa	0	-200K
Nuveen	723K	-156K

There were meaningful reductions, especially from Millennium, Morgan Stanley, Jane Street, Balyasny, and several full exits. But the gross adds overwhelmed the gross reductions.

Ownership by style

Approximate classification:

Style	Rows	Current shares	Net change	Market value
Hedge / quant / market-maker / tactical	35	23.57M	+11.75M	~$104.0M
Passive / index / ETF / large asset manager	17	14.23M	+2.98M	~$63.4M
Bank / broker-dealer / intermediary	18	6.81M	+3.49M	~$30.4M
RIA / wealth / private-client	133	6.12M	-0.92M	~$25.7M
Other / unclear	23	0.99M	+0.27M	~$4.5M
Insurance / pension / long-only	6	0.17M	+0.06M	~$1.6M

This is the key read:

The institutional increase is being driven primarily by tactical capital, quant/hedge funds, market-making-adjacent firms, and large financial intermediaries — not by slow-moving traditional long-only institutions.

That does not mean all of the buying is fundamental conviction. It means NB has become a more institutionally relevant liquidity / volatility / catalyst vehicle.

Float analysis

Using the 176M fully diluted share count:

• Institutions now report ~51.9M shares
• That equals ~29.5% of fully diluted shares
• The net increase this period was ~17.6M shares
• That net increase alone equals ~10.0% of fully diluted shares

That is large enough to matter mechanically.

But I would not treat all 51.9M as “locked-up float.” A lot of this ownership is held by firms that trade actively: Citadel, Brevan Howard, Alyeska, Goldman, Citigroup, Squarepoint, Jump, Point72, Susquehanna, etc.

So the float read is:

Reported institutional ownership is now large, but a meaningful portion is tactical and potentially mobile. It can tighten float during accumulation, but it can also become a source of supply during volatility or catalyst disappointment.

Avg. share price paid

The file’s weighted average “avg share price paid” across current institutional holdings is roughly:

• Weighted by current shares: ~$5.20
• Weighted by added shares: ~$5.51
• Simple median across holders: ~$5.73

Important caveat: this should not be read as exact execution price. It is best interpreted as an estimated cost basis / average-price proxy based on reported holdings and Fintel’s methodology. 13Fs do not show exact trade dates or exact purchase prices.

The practical read:

• A lot of current institutional exposure appears centered roughly in the mid-$5s.
• That means the current trading area is very close to the estimated cost basis of many recent/additional institutional holders.
• If NB holds this zone, those holders are not deeply underwater.
• If NB breaks materially below the low/mid-$5s, some recent tactical holders may become more sensitive.

Derivatives 13F file

Derivative exposure is smaller than equity exposure but still meaningful.

Type	Current underlying-equivalent shares	Net change
Calls	2.35M	-822.9K
Puts	760K	-359K

Largest derivative items:

Institution	Type	Current exposure	Change
Susquehanna	Calls	1.37M	-871K
J. Goldman & Co	Calls	409K	+409K
Citadel	Calls	321K	+15.7K
Citadel	Puts	342K	+20.9K
Jane Street	Puts	70K	+26.5K
Jane Street	Calls	36K	+10.9K
Peak6	Calls	50K	-81.9K
Balyasny	Calls	0	-100K
Brevan Howard	Calls	0	-210K

The derivative read is mixed:

• Call exposure declined overall, mainly because Susquehanna, Brevan Howard, Balyasny, and Peak6 reduced calls.
• Put exposure also declined overall, despite some adds by Citadel and Jane Street.
• This does not scream “institutions massively loaded upside calls” during Q1.
• Instead, it looks like derivative books were repositioned or de-risked, while equity ownership expanded strongly.

That distinction matters.

My read

The equity 13Fs are bullish for institutional engagement and float absorption, but not cleanly bullish in the “long-only conviction accumulation” sense.

The best interpretation is:

NB became a much more institutionally active stock during Q1. Large tactical funds, quant desks, banks, and market-making-adjacent firms increased equity exposure materially, while derivatives exposure was more mixed and in some cases reduced.

For your trading thesis, that implies:

• the float is more institutionally held than before,
• the stock is more sensitive to catalyst repricing,
• liquidity can disappear quickly in either direction,
• the mid-$5s are probably an important cost-basis / positioning zone,
• and the name is increasingly being treated as a catalyst-volatility instrument, not just a dormant mining story.