FCC just approved the new Part 100 rules 3-0, basically cutting a lot of the old licensing mess for satellites and ground stations. good for the whole US space sector and indirectly for RKLB’s Space Systems business, but of course this is not new backlog.
what are your thoughts about it especially toward RKLB?
https://www.graphiteoneinc.com/graphite-one-highlights-strategic-alignment
Hello there.. just a quick note on today G1 PR about the White House Executive Order.
Nothing crazy here..so don't take it like a game changer, but I still think it's worth to mention.
Basically G1 is saying that this new order about critical minerals / defense supply chain is going exactly in the same direction of what they are trying to build.
And honestly I agree with that.
The US wants less dependence from China, more domestic or allied sources, more traceability and faster qualification for strategic materials.
And that's basically the whole G1 story: Alaska mine + Ohio STP + future recycling.
To me the most important part is still the OHIO STP.
So yes, this PR is policy-context not a real execution news but it keeps confirming that G1 is positioned in the right political direction, especially if they want to push EXIM, DoD/DLA angle and domestic supply chain narrative.
Again, not pumping this as huge news.
The real stuff to watch is still the same: EXIM, Ohio permits, power agreement, binding offtake, final lease and actual construction.
But as a small piece of the puzzle, I like it.
Graphite One Clears Key Ohio EPA Hurdle
Hello there.. while we are watching a small tech-market sell-off.. G1 keeps it steady toward what I consider our biggest aim: The OHIO STP..
a quick sum-up: they applied for the air permit and OHIO EPA advanced it for the Technical Review. so process has just begun but I'm very satisfied that they keep the pace here, most than the mine in Alaska.
This also confirms to me one of my biggest strong point: that the OHIO site can be independent from the mine project and I hope this means that they will apply for the EXIM not necessarily in one single stack for all the 2 projects ongoing, but separately (and earlier) for the OHIO site.
Furthermore they address the timeline exactly how it was planned and that's comforting.
just as a remind tohugh you already know [...AAM production is expected to commence at the Ohio facility in Q4 2027, with natural graphite production at Graphite Creek targeted for 2029...]
Hello there.. this is my first sub on RKLB. I spent a day to refine my DD on RKLB, which I've been following closely, and to retest the Technical analysis data. PLEASE be aware that I used IA to layout the text, first of all cause I'm non native speaker, but I assure you that the analysis has been wrote down by me. so if you find any AI-slop it's just in the layout. I assure you. also all the part in bold have been carefully chosen.
The post has a sum-up, a fundamental analysis part (just a summary.. the complete one is almost 5 pages) and a tech one.. I'm no pro, so please bring your experience
TL;DR: I still think Rocket Lab is one of the best publicly traded space companies. Electron is proven, HASTE is gaining real traction, Space Systems is already the largest part of the business, and the end-to-end strategy is no longer just a slide deck. The problem is the price and the amount of execution already embedded in it.
At around $81, RKLB is sitting on a major support area, but the daily trend is still bearish. A short-term bounce toward $85–87 is reasonable. The real pivot is $90.5–93.5. Below $79, the next major support is $74–76. My medium-term base target is around $95, while $115–129 requires real Neutron de-risking and better visibility on the Iridium funding structure.
Not financial advice.
so my main question was.. the most simple yet the most difficult. at 80$ are we pricing correctly RKLB?
The current business has three proven legs:
Neutron and Iridium are the next two steps, but they are not fully de-risked.
Neutron has commercial demand and real hardware, but it still needs to prove the tank, Archimedes, integrated testing, first flight, repeatability and eventually unit economics.
Iridium makes strategic sense. It gives RKLB a network, spectrum, customers and recurring revenue. But it also introduces debt, dilution and integration risk. The question is not whether Rocket Lab can find capital. It can. The question is how expensive that capital will be for existing shareholders.
My basic view remains:
>
The current price already assumes that several difficult things go right at the same time. so my answer is
YES we're not overvalued but market is already pricing a almost perfect execution
I compared RKLB with the Nasdaq across the major events since May 2025.
The daily correlation with NDX was around 0.45, with an estimated beta of roughly 2.3. But the Nasdaq explained only about 20% of RKLB’s daily price variance.
So yes, RKLB is a high-beta stock. But most of the large moves were still company-specific.
| Event | RKLB reaction | Extra vs NDX | 5-day result | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2025 results | -11.2% | -11.2% | +10.7% | Initial sell-off fully reversed |
| $750M ATM | -12.6% | -12.5% | -2.1% | Clear dilution shock |
| Hungry Hippo qualification | +5.1% | +5.4% | +13.0% | Technical de-risking rewarded |
| $816M SDA award | +10.0% | +9.5% | -0.1% | Strong repricing, then consolidation |
| Neutron tank issue | -1.3% over two days | -3.4% | -0.7% | Damage priced gradually |
| Q4 results + Neutron delay | -4.9% | -4.6% | -3.5% | Schedule mattered more than the quarter |
| $1B ATM + $190M HASTE | -8.5% | -6.8% | -7.3% | Dilution outweighed the contract |
| Q1 2026 mega-cluster | +34.2% | +31.9% | +58.8% | Genuine and persistent re-rating |
| Nasdaq-100 announcement | -10.8% | -11.4% | -12.6% | Sell-the-news/distribution |
| Iridium announcement | +15.9% | +13.7% | -1.3% | Strong first reaction, no follow-through |
| VICTUS HAZE full success | -0.1% | -0.3% | -2.8% | Good news, but already expected |
A few conclusions are pretty clear.
First, ATM announcements have consistently been negative in the short term. The market understands that Rocket Lab is willing to use its share price as currency.
Second, the market rewards material Neutron de-risking and large government awards, but not every operational success creates a new valuation level.
Third, the first reaction can be misleading. Q1 2025 dropped 11% and then recovered everything. Iridium jumped almost 16%, but the gain disappeared within a week. Follow-through matters more than day one.
The strongest reaction in the whole sample was the Q1 2026 cluster. It had everything you want from a real re-rating:
Iridium had a good first day, but failed the last test.
Price reference: $81.04
| Timeframe | Current condition | Main takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly | Below fast averages, above 50-week EMA | Primary trend damaged, not yet broken |
| Daily | Lower highs/lows, below 5/15/50-day averages | Still bearish |
| Hourly | Momentum stabilising near support | Possible base, not confirmed |
RKLB is below:
But it is still above the 50-week EMA near $74.7.
That makes the $74–76 area the real long-term line in the sand. A weekly close below that area, followed by a failed recovery, would seriously damage the primary trend.
The daily chart remains bearish:
The positive part is that RKLB is testing several supports at the same time:
This is a reasonable area for a bounce. It is not yet proof that the bottom is in.
The hourly chart is showing the first signs of stabilisation:
But the stock is still below the important hourly averages. At this point it is a base-building attempt, not a confirmed reversal.
| Area | Meaning |
|---|---|
| $79–80 | Immediate support and 200-day EMA area |
| $74–76 | Major weekly support, 50-week EMA and long-term trend area |
| $62–65 | Next major downside zone if weekly support fails |
| $56 | Structural support / origin of the latest major impulse |
| $82–84.7 | First resistance and short-term recovery test |
| $85.9–87.4 | First meaningful breakout area |
| $90.5–93.5 | Main pivot: Fib, averages and anchored VWAPs |
| $97–101 | Heavy supply and previous support turned resistance |
| $107.6 | Last major lower high; daily reversal confirmation |
| $115–129 | Medium-term bull-case targets |
| $150–151 | Previous high, not a base-case target |
The most important area is not a single number. It is $90.5–93.5.
That zone includes the 61.8% retracement, fast weekly averages and the anchored VWAPs from VICTUS HAZE and Iridium.
Until RKLB reclaims that area, I would treat every rally as a bounce inside a broader downtrend.
| Starting event | Current AVWAP |
|---|---|
| Q1 2026 re-rating | ~$111.6 |
| Nasdaq-100 announcement | ~$97.7 |
| VICTUS HAZE | ~$92.1 |
| Iridium | ~$93.4 |
| July sell-off | ~$83.8 |
This matters because a lot of recent buyers are underwater.
The $92–100 area is likely to contain sellers trying to exit around breakeven. That does not make a breakout impossible, but it means RKLB will need real volume and a material catalyst to move through it cleanly.
| Scenario | Probability | Conditions | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 45% | $79–80 holds, technical bounce | $85–87 |
| Bull | 20% | Break above $87.4, then reclaim $92–94 | $97–101 |
| Bear | 35% | Daily close below $79, no immediate recovery | $74–76 |
My short-term central target is around $85.
A move toward $85–87 would not be a trend reversal. It would simply be a normal rebound from a heavily tested support area.
The first real improvement comes above $87.4.
The chart becomes meaningfully more constructive only above $92–94.
| Scenario | Probability | Main assumptions | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 50% | Q2 broadly in line, no new Neutron issue, NDX stable | ~$95 - 101 |
| Bull | 25% | Strong Q2, tank/Archimedes progress, better Iridium funding visibility | $115–129 |
| Bear | 25% | New technical delay, weak margins, heavy ATM use or market correction | $62–65 |
My medium-term base target is approximately $95.
The $115–129 range is not my normal base case. It requires real de-risking:
A first Neutron launch could create a speculative move toward the previous highs, but one launch alone would not prove the economics. For a sustainable move toward $150, I would want to see at least a successful first flight, a credible second flight timeline and evidence that production can scale.
The immediate technical sequence is simple:
On the fundamental side, the next important items are:
I remain bullish on the company, but neutral to cautious on the stock at this exact level.
RKLB is sitting on a legitimate support area and a bounce is possible. But the daily trend is still bearish, recent underperformance has been stock-specific, and the $92–100 area contains a lot of trapped supply.
My working levels are:
The business can keep improving while the stock still struggles. At this valuation, execution is not enough. Rocket Lab needs execution that is both strong and faster than what the market already expects.
​
So AGM passed, board confirmed, PwC confirmed.
They also approved a possible reverse split up to 10:1, mainly in case they want to go for NYSE/NASDAQ listing.
Honestly this doesn’t bother me too much.
Reverse split itself is not dilution. If it helps uplisting, liquidity, visibility etc, fine.
They also approved / updated the incentive plan and granted around 6.6M awards.
Again, not really worried about that.
This is still pre-revenue, they need to keep people aligned if they want to move Ohio and Alaska forward.
The only thing I don’t like much is the 1M RSUs to an unnamed consultant, vesting in one year.
Maybe it’s something important, I don’t know.
But I’d like to know who/what/why.
Same thing with the engineering firm in the Ohio update.
They keep saying “leading firm”, “consultant”, “big EV manufacturers”…
Ok, cool, but give us names at some point.
Overall, looks more like they are preparing the company for the next phase: possible uplisting, EXIM, Ohio execution, offtake talks.
A litlle follow-up to recent news:
Graphite One Secures Key Engineering Contract
GPH’s latest Ohio update is definitely positive, but I wouldn’t call it a game changer yet.
They signed an engineering contract for the Conneaut AAM facility, completed geotech drilling, and are pushing toward Phase 1 in Q4 2027 and 25k tpy synthetic graphite capacity by Q4 2028. That’s real progress, not just fluff.
A few points of my own here:
I don’t like when they announce an agreement but don’t name the firm. I’m digging local news to understand who this engineering company is, because I want specifics, not just “leading firm”.
They also shipped samples to some big EV manufacturers and battery companies. Again, no names. That would be very interesting to know. If I had to bet, Lucid is obviously candidate #1, and maybe Panasonic too, but that’s only my speculation.
The 25,000 tpy target for Q4 2028 is a nice milestone and it lines up with the earlier FS, where they talked about 7 modules of 25,000 tpy each. The first module had an estimated upfront capex of about $607M, including around $121M contingency, while the other modules were estimated around $552M each. So this is basically the first real industrial block, not the whole long-term dream yet.
Phase 1 is different: around 10,000 tpy in Q4 2027, focused on finishing/blending/coating. That could help them enter the market earlier, qualify customers, and maybe start building some revenue path before the full Alaska-to-Ohio chain is ready.
The positive side is clear: Conneaut looks better than Warren, especially because of rail, Lake Erie access and existing power infrastructure. For synthetic graphite, power is not a detail. It’s central.
The macro story is also still strong: North America needs a domestic graphite supply chain, China dominates anode material production, and GPH is trying to build both upstream and downstream in the US. That’s why I still think the strategic angle is real.
But I don’t want to overhype it. We have a clear execution de-risk, but we still need to see how the EXIM funding goes.
one note.. market is not reacting at all to this news.. they are showing commitment in keeping the timeline and swift changes to enter the market early with the STP, but still no movement. that clearly shows they are pricing funding and dilution possibilities over exec risk/cost.
thanks to u/Apfelmoes_ that asked to higlight the matter.
on Jun 26th, 0900AM Vancouver time, the AGM will be held to vote and discuss the following subjects:
I want to dive into items 5 and 6 because I think there is plenty to discuss here. I’m not putting a TL;DR because I think this deserves a full read.
Let’s start!
Item 5 is about approving the amended 20% fixed limit Omnibus Incentive Plan: this is the company’s equity compensation plan: stock options, RSUs, PSUs, DSUs, etc.
The notice says G1 can now move ahead with this amended plan because it raised about $49.7M since the prior AGM through private placements, public offerings and warrant exercises.
That’s not automatically bad, but it matters. It means we shareholders should keep an eye on future stock-based compensation and dilution from incentive awards. IMO, and looking at similar situations, management incentives are normal for a pre-production company, but size and timing matter.
Item 6 is the bigger headline.
Shareholders are being asked to approve a possible share consolidation / reverse split, up to 10 old shares for 1 new share.
Important: this does not mean the reverse split is happening immediately. It gives the Board the authority to do it before the next AGM, if they decide it makes sense.
The stated reason is important: G1 says this would give the company flexibility to pursue a potential NYSE or NASDAQ listing and improve access to U.S. capital markets.
Personally, I’m positive about this. NYSE / NASDAQ always looked like the natural long-term goal to me.
I’ll try to do some math around this in the coming days, but for now my main concern is timing.
A reverse split done after, or around, a major milestone like FAST-41, EXIM progress, financing, or a credible uplisting path could make sense.
A reverse split with no major catalyst around it could hurt investor sentiment.
So my view is pretty simple: yes, I want them to have the ability to move quickly if the right window opens. I tend to trust management here, and I still think we may get important news within the next year, or even this current one!
I’m leaving some official links here, including voting materials. I’ll keep them in the resources section until the AGM is completed.
Notice of AGM
Management Information Circular
Voting Instructions Form
Financial statement req form ( in case you can download it directly from https://www.sedarplus.ca/ )
I will also add a poll here: ITEM 6 POLL in order to see what's the sentiment around.
Hello dudes.
Recently we had some up&down over the stock. let's do some consideration around.
Last year in June daily volume was an average of below 100k, now it sits around 200k (doubled).
Still it's very scarce of course and inherently this can lead to pump n dump mechanic which is pretty common in this very early stage of any stock.
After the fall occurred in February, we never went below the 1$ CAD and now we are lateralizing in a "channel" that has roughly a 33% width ( too huge to call it a channel somehow...)
What is my take over this? We had some nice news and communication from the management but without some real milestone this is terrain for speculations.
Since I'm here for the long game I try to accumulate whenever I can after every fall, but I'm not going for the trading game over this one. Me personally, I'm allocating 1/3 of the dedicated capital for G1 in this phase, passing to the 2 tranche only when at least the FAST-41 is completed, hopefully before they apply for the EXIM.
If you have any thought about it.. jut hit it!
Hello there.. Here is the sum up if you don't want to read the pdf above
WWR shareholders just approved increasing authorized shares from 200M to 400M.
They also approved conversion-related share issuance tied to convertible notes. Translation: more dilution risk if EXIM or non-dilutive funding doesn’t arrive.
Another 6.1M shares were added to the company incentive plan. So yes, management compensation dilution is also increasing here.
Being honest this filing reads pretty clearly: they’re preparing financial flexibility because current capital needs are becoming too large to ignore.
We need EXIM Loan.. I mean this is not dilution directly of course and gives flexibility for the high CAPEX projects and overall it was expected so no big deal.. But it's time to get some funding other than this.
As usual do your own research about it
Hello there.. as you may have seen, I try not to spam this sub with no-sense just to get daily views... news may be scarce but that's inherent to the state of the company.
So let's talk facts (first) and opinion (second):
We have this interesting update from G1 today and probably one of the most concrete Ohio-related updates we got in a while.
Key points:
To me the most important part is EXIM-related.
People often forget Ohio represented the biggest share of the potential EXIM support (~$1.4B out of the ~$2.07B LOI package). This update makes the Ohio case look much more concrete from a financing perspective:
site control, logistics, power access, phased development plan and customer qualification pipeline.
The company also approved new RSUs/options compensation grants. Not ideal for dilution-sensitive investors, but at least now we have a more updated picture of the cap structure, but again.. this is not fallin-off the sky. They stick to the plan and in such early stage noone should be really worried about it, provided they stay on track.
Bottom line: to me they're reactive and keep taking decisions in order to advance on schedule.
as usual.. do your own reasearch and share yourh thoughts!
.
so in my perspective a high PPI like today is usually bad for non profitable/cash burning company like PLUG ( due to a hawkish outlook over the money cost.. fed less likely to cut interest.)
I'm curious to see how it's gonna react today when market opens.. I mean if it stays above 3.5 or slightly less with such a macro.. wind have changed.
how do you feel about it? or am i reading uncorrectly the PPI outcome?
Well.. this was not a disaster, but not a fix either.
cash burn looked more controlled than I expected, and that is a positive. also they did not seem to smash the stock with heavy dilution in Q1, at least not like some feared.
but the core issue is still there.. Kellyton still needs more financing.
so to me the story has not changed that much. the thesis is not broken, but it is not repaired either.
as for Coosa.. I still see it more as long term value than near term catalyst. right now Kellyton is what really matters. if management talks too much about Coosa without giving real clarity on Kellyton funding and commercial progress, I think the market may read it as a distraction more than an accelerator.
so overall.. still alive, still moving, but still stuck on the same key point: funding.
May 13 call is the real test now.. let's see if they actually say something concrete.
not financial advice of course.. do your own research
(disclaimer..yes I used AI to write down my own thoughts.. but the content is mine)
link for the call: Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Earnings Call
After reading the full ABAT earnings call transcript, I think the market may still be misunderstanding what this company is becoming.
This was NOT a “lithium hype” call.
Management spent the vast majority of the presentation talking about:
The most important numbers from the quarter were not just the record $7.8M revenue (+64% QoQ), but the fact that cash operating costs only increased ~11%.
That is the real story here.
For the first time, ABAT achieved positive gross margin at its Nevada recycling facility. Ryan Melsert specifically emphasized that “many startups never get to” this stage. To me, that was one of the most important moments of the call.
ABAT increasingly sounds like a company trying to transition from a speculative lithium story into a real industrial recycling and critical minerals manufacturing business.
Another detail that stood out was the AI/data center angle.
Management explicitly stated that a significant portion of recent feedstock came from large energy storage systems supporting data centers and AI infrastructure. That potentially opens a much broader narrative than just EV battery recycling.
The company also confirmed:
Meanwhile, the Tonopah Flats lithium project was discussed in a much more disciplined and less promotional tone:
No exaggerated timelines. No lithium price pumping. No overhype.
At the same time, risks absolutely remain:
But overall, this call felt materially different from prior quarters.
Honestly, this sounded much more like an early-stage industrial infrastructure company than a typical speculative lithium junior.
Not financial advice. Just my interpretation after reading the full transcript.
Westwater Resources, Inc., Investors - Financials - SEC Filings - SEC Filings Details
The new 13G/A looks more like a capital structure reminder than a thesis-breaker.
What it tells us is that Ayrton/Alto/Waqas are reporting 4.8M shares tied to conversion of a convertible note, and they’re now below 5% at 3.71%. To me, that’s not the same thing as “someone just dumped the stock.” It’s a useful reminder that WWR still has convertible overhang, which we already knew was one of the main risks on the equity side.
The much bigger event is the May 13 webcast.
That’s where management needs to answer the questions that actually matter:
My take: the 13G/A is mildly negative for equity quality, but not a game-changing development by itself. May 13 is the real test.
Not financial advice :just trying to separate what is noise from what could actually change the thesis.
Graphite One just released an update on the FAST-41 permitting process for the Graphite Creek project in Alaska.
TL;DR: this is a positive update, but it should not be confused with a final permit approval.
The key point is that Graphite Creek remains “in progress” under the federal FAST-41 permitting dashboard, with the current target date for completion still listed as September 29, 2026. That matters because permitting is one of the biggest risk factors for Graphite One. Keeping the project on a visible federal timetable reduces some uncertainty around timing.
FAST-41 does not lower environmental standards or guarantee approval. What it does is coordinate federal agencies, make the process more transparent, and set a public timetable. For a small company trying to build a domestic graphite supply chain in the U.S., that visibility is important.
The bullish read is simple: Graphite Creek has not fallen off schedule, and the project continues to be treated as strategically relevant within the U.S. critical minerals framework.
The cautious read is just as important: this is still not a final permit, not project financing, not construction approval, and not a de-risked mine. The major remaining questions are still permitting outcome, possible environmental review complexity, Alaska execution risk, funding, dilution, and whether the downstream Ohio anode strategy can actually be financed and built.
For me, the biggest thing to monitor now is whether the process stays on the current Environmental Assessment path or whether anything pushes it toward a more complex Environmental Impact Statement. That would be a very different timeline.
Overall, I see this as moderately positive for the permitting thesis, but not a game-changing event by itself. The real catalyst remains progress toward the September 2026 federal permitting milestone, plus any concrete movement on funding, offtake, EXIM/DOE support, and the Ohio AAM facility.
But overall I'm very glad that the CEO keep communications on during this period in which we are patiently waiting
Don't forget you can monitor the FAST-41 for G1 directly from the subreddit - resources panel (direct link)
Not financial advice. Just sharing my current view after digging into recent developments.
Over the past days, Graphite One has dropped to recent lows (~C$1.34).
Two main drivers here:
1) The equity offering (expected)
The company raised ~C$35M issuing ~20M shares at C$1.75 with attached warrants (C$2.25, 36 months).
Pure dilution impact is roughly ~10%, but the market reaction was closer to ~25–30%.
So part of the move is mechanical — the rest is repricing / uncertainty.
2) The USITC decision (unexpected)
The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Chinese AAM imports are NOT materially injuring a U.S. industry.
That effectively removes the tariff protection angle, at least for now.
This is a meaningful short-term negative for any U.S.-based AAM strategy.
I reached out to IR (Michael from Kinvestor, who specifically deals with G1) to understand their view.
Their response (summarized):
My takeaway:
This is a shift.
Before the tariff protection was part of the bull case
Now: it’s more about policy support + strategic positioning
Next step:
I’ve registered for the March 26th company event — I’ll share anything meaningful that comes out of it.
my position now is as follow:
Narrative hasn't changed. The fundaments of G1 rely on their connection within the territory, expertise and peculiar advantage on the AAM factory. within 2026 they expect to apply for EXIM and that will be the game changer.. so maybe this drop.. i'll add more
Please, share your views, especially from those modeling the downstream economics.
stay tuned i'll put the link and the summary after the 26th March event