u/popeyesboy

​"Over the next 90 days, you can expect us to deliver on these five key priorities..." — Marius Haas, Chairman

​[x] 1. Secure a binding tenant agreement — DELIVERED ($6.5B TensorWave lease)

​[x] 2. Maintain capital discipline to support liquidity — DELIVERED

​[?] 3. Hire our next CEO — PENDING ??? 👀

​[?] 4. Deliver power at our project site — PENDING 👀 (Turbines on route)

​[x] 5. Explore strategic partnerships for power/data deployment — DELIVERED (2.6 GW Hillcore BOOT alliance)

​

Just want to preface this by saying I am rooting for a good contract and hope they announce one before earnings. But, in case they miss my theory surrounds the 400M capital raise.

Theory: What if a contract actually was "imminent" (like Toby said [June 24]), but the tenant didn't walk away—the board did?

​The Concessions: If a hyperscaler signs a lease before first power, they have to help fund the buildout. In exchange, they demand massive long-term discounts on the power rate and heavy equity kickbacks.

​Betting on Themselves: What if the board raised that 400M so they could finish the heavy construction without a tenant's money? In their PR they said they "sized the offering to carry a healthy cash balance that takes the timing of initial tenant commitments into account and allows construction to continue without interruption. A larger, well-capitalized balance sheet also reinforces the Company's credibility with sophisticated counterparties."

​The Payoff: If Fermi gets to first power on their own, they are selling a more turnkey, plug-and-play asset (like buying pre-built furniture vs. IKEA flat-pack). They don't have to give up long-term margins or sign a bad contract.

​No doubt the dilution and the wait sucks in the short term. But it's also true that a heavily discounted contract where Fermi gives up the farm may instead tank the stock. The board might choose short-term market pain to secure a premium contract once the turbines are actually humming.

I'm no expert, but I don't think the site is vaporware (see TPatty's pics) and I do believe the current board is trying to get the most for shareholders because this path of betting on themselves (pressure from executing, construction contracts, hiring, facing investors/contractors about a tenant, and fighting a proxy [subpoena, discovery, lawsuits, etc.]) seems like a bigger headache than just selling it. This is just the only rationale I can come to that makes sense to me in case negotiations go past the earnings date.

I'd be interested to hear your​ thoughts?

Wondering what your thoughts are on Blaze Talent recruitment assisting with hiring and the newly posted jobs. Is it an adjustment to be a turn-key site as the Mizuho analysis suggested, a greenlight from a jv/incoming tenant, or smoke and mirrors to appease investors? I assume Blaze Talent is being asked to hire at large scale just as they say they did for CoreWeave, so I can't imagine it's the last option given costs and optics of hiring only to layoff soon after. But, curious to know what others thoughts are.

https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=102691&ref=320211593&type=HTML