I can feel it in my bones - - we're going to see a wave of new share issuances by a wide range of microcaps, very soon, due to their huge outperformance of late. If you hold a rare earth company, a minerals miner, AI startup, quantum computing, or leading edge tech company, be prepared for them to issue new stock and dilute the value of your holdings. Unless they currently have plenty of capital, they're all fair game. With high cost of capital via debt, equity raises clearly are the path forward, at the expense of their current shareholders.

Who will be among the first?

flashplayer said:

---

For some of them, having more cash is not a bad thing for shareholders. It could accelerate production. Take a deep breath. It will be ok.

---

I agree with that - if they truly NEED capital, it is an economical way for THE COMPANY to raise money, BUT it is almost always detrimental to original shareholders. The alignment of easy money and an easier path forward for management makes this a common method after a surprising runup in share price. It's simple for management to convince itself that they need capital.

All I'm saying is: Be prepared (protective puts or covered calls can be your friend - no tree grows to the sky).

I would be shocked if it didn't happen to $WWR. They need the cash and I just don't see funding falling in their lap. They have done it in the past and can't see why they wouldn't do it now given the fast rise in share price.

JbKing45 said:

---

I would be shocked if it didn't happen to $WWR. They need the cash and I just don't see funding falling in their lap. They have done it in the past and can't see why they wouldn't do it now given the fast rise in share price.

---

Strangely, I think it's appropriate in their situation, even though it comes at we shareholders' expense. I hold both SLI and WWR, and for these no-revenue startups, they would probably be better off issuing equity than borrowing at loan shark and pawn shop rates. It might give them enough runway to produce revenue, and hopefully profit one day. Right now, they're just speculative lotto tickets.

im sure they're poring over their WACC (do they even teach that anymore?) right now, deciding when to pull the trigger. I'm not pleased as a shareholder, but it's probably prudent. Hey, it kinda worked for GME and AMC, right?

I bleed maroon said:

---

JbKing45 said:

---

I would be shocked if it didn't happen to $WWR. They need the cash and I just don't see funding falling in their lap. They have done it in the past and can't see why they wouldn't do it now given the fast rise in share price.

---

Strangely, I think it's appropriate in their situation, even though it comes at we shareholders' expense. I hold both SLI and WWR, and for these no-revenue startups, they would probably be better off issuing equity than borrowing at loan shark and pawn shop rates. It might give them enough runway to produce revenue, and hopefully profit one day. Right now, they're just speculative lotto tickets.

im sure they're poring over their WACC (do they even teach that anymore?) right now, deciding when to pull the trigger. I'm not pleased as a shareholder, but it's probably prudent. Hey, it kinda worked for GME and AMC, right?

---

Really hope based on your posting history that you're messing with **** you money and not your future

Baby Billy said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

JbKing45 said:

---

I would be shocked if it didn't happen to $WWR. They need the cash and I just don't see funding falling in their lap. They have done it in the past and can't see why they wouldn't do it now given the fast rise in share price.

---

Strangely, I think it's appropriate in their situation, even though it comes at we shareholders' expense. I hold both SLI and WWR, and for these no-revenue startups, they would probably be better off issuing equity than borrowing at loan shark and pawn shop rates. It might give them enough runway to produce revenue, and hopefully profit one day. Right now, they're just speculative lotto tickets.

im sure they're poring over their WACC (do they even teach that anymore?) right now, deciding when to pull the trigger. I'm not pleased as a shareholder, but it's probably prudent. Hey, it kinda worked for GME and AMC, right?

---

Really hope based on your posting history that you're messing with **** you money and not your future

---

I'm really curious what in my posting history suggests I would invest in either of these quasi-companies with money critical to my future financial well-being?

Maybe it was you starting a thread lamenting something that hasn't happened yet and that would only happen because a segment of the market is doing great on growing its share price?

I've already got my initial investments out of the equation after 4-5x runs


House money to the moon baaaaabbbbyyyyyy

flashplayer said:

---

Maybe it was you starting a thread lamenting something that hasn't happened yet and that would only happen because a segment of the market is doing great on growing its share price?

---

So are you saying this is NOT a risk? Or are you saying you would rather not think about it? Either way, good luck!

Pichael Thompson said:

---

I've already got my initial investments out of the equation after 4-5x runs


House money to the moon baaaaabbbbyyyyyy

---

And good on you, sir! That's the way to do it.

I bleed maroon said:

---

flashplayer said:

---

Maybe it was you starting a thread lamenting something that hasn't happened yet and that would only happen because a segment of the market is doing great on growing its share price?

---

So are you saying this is NOT a risk? Or are you saying you would rather not think about it? Either way, good luck!

---

Being in those names to begin with is the inherent risk, which is where I think that other comment (which was not from me) came from. Worrying about dilution on those same names because their price is on a mega-spike is like complaining about the wine pairing with your free $75 filet. But if anyone is banking on these companies and is going to be significantly hurt by them diluting (which they won't end up hurting in the end if the company needs the cash), then they shouldn't own the name.

flashplayer said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

flashplayer said:

---

Maybe it was you starting a thread lamenting something that hasn't happened yet and that would only happen because a segment of the market is doing great on growing its share price?

---

So are you saying this is NOT a risk? Or are you saying you would rather not think about it? Either way, good luck!

---

Being in those names to begin with is the inherent risk, which is where I think that other comment (which was not from me) came from. Worrying about dilution on those same names because their price is on a mega-spike is like complaining about the wine pairing with your free $75 filet. But if anyone is banking on these companies and is going to be significantly hurt by them diluting (which they won't end up hurting in the end if the company needs the cash), then they shouldn't own the name.

---

And, we're saying the same thing.

At this stage of their lifecycle, companies like this are not investable.

They're speculative, and have many reasons why they shouldn't be considered as part of a core portfolio. I am trying to point out some of the reasons, and you are as well. Prudent financial risk management shouldn't stop because you've bought into something speculative.

Cheers!

Ummmmm…

WWR and BBAI announced offerings?

Like clockwork.

BBAI did not exactly announce an offering. There will be a vote in December on giving them share head room to do that

How does an offering impact the value of the shares I hold in BBAI?

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

How does an offering impact the value of the shares I hold in BBAI?

---

There is nothing directly sinister about a share offering. Companies raise capital all the time for legitimate business purposes, usually expansion into new products/markets, to make an acquisition, or to shore up cash flow, if needed.

The impact of a share offering is simply bringing in more shares (and shareholders) to divide the company's ownership, earnings, and assets between a larger denominator. Now, if the proceeds of the share sale are put to good use, to "flashplayer" 's point, it can be good for all shareholders, even the ones who now have a smaller percentage of ownership than they did before the offering.

The recent "MEME stock" phenomenon has given rise to an opportunistic share offering by management of the MEME-affected company (think Gamestop, AMC, or others) where they "know" that the current share price is unsupported by financial fundamentals. This is sticking it to existing shareholders, for the most part.

Example: WWR is worth $0.75-$1.00 per share, but news/hype/pump/momentum causes it to rise to triple its' former "normalized value". Management takes advantage of the situation to issue shares at $3.00, and when it retreats back to fair value, there are the same company assets/revenues/profits (well, no revenues or profits in WWR's case) divided between more shares, meaning existing shareholders AND the new shareholders who bought in at a higher price are disadvantaged. Management uses the funds how they see fit, maybe funding bonuses and equity grants a few extra years.

Not saying that's how it goes down with WWR, but there is plenty of precedent elsewhere.

I recently got stopped out of SATL after their dilution announcement and subsequent price drop.

JbKing45 said:

---

I would be shocked if it didn't happen to $WWR. They need the cash and I just don't see funding falling in their lap. They have done it in the past and can't see why they wouldn't do it now given the fast rise in share price.

---

ATM offering capacity updated: Multiple sources say Wes****er filed an 8-K on Oct 17, 2025 noting a new prospectus supplement for an at-the-market (ATM) offering up to $75M in common stock (on top of prior sales). That's potentially dilutive and can weigh on price during weakness. stockinsights.ai+1

Not trying to be a jerk, but if you're investing in a deeply unprofitable or even pre-revenue deep tech company, then of course you're going to get heavily diluted on the ride up towards profitability and a real business. That's true whether it's private or publicly traded (every VC firm models in future financing rounds). You're betting that the increase in valuation far out paces the dilution you experience.

You should be glad they're raising money after the huge share price run-ups. That means they need to sell far fewer shares and dilute you less to raise the same amount of capital.

I bleed maroon said:

---

Thunderstruck xx said:

---

How does an offering impact the value of the shares I hold in BBAI?

---

There is nothing directly sinister about a share offering. Companies raise capital all the time for legitimate business purposes, usually expansion into new products/markets, to make an acquisition, or to shore up cash flow, if needed.

The impact of a share offering is simply bringing in more shares (and shareholders) to divide the company's ownership, earnings, and assets between a larger denominator. Now, if the proceeds of the share sale are put to good use, to "flashplayer" 's point, it can be good for all shareholders, even the ones who now have a smaller percentage of ownership than they did before the offering.

The recent "MEME stock" phenomenon has given rise to an opportunistic share offering by management of the MEME-affected company (think Gamestop, AMC, or others) where they "know" that the current share price is unsupported by financial fundamentals. This is sticking it to existing shareholders, for the most part.

Example: WWR is worth $0.75-$1.00 per share, but news/hype/pump/momentum causes it to rise to triple its' former "normalized value". Management takes advantage of the situation to issue shares at $3.00, and when it retreats back to fair value, there are the same company assets/revenues/profits (well, no revenues or profits in WWR's case) divided between more shares, meaning existing shareholders AND the new shareholders who bought in at a higher price are disadvantaged. Management uses the funds how they see fit, maybe funding bonuses and equity grants a few extra years.

Not saying that's how it goes down with WWR, but there is plenty of precedent elsewhere.

---

Looks like I called it, after all. I bought $4 puts for $1.76 (expensive, but worth it!) each in the "pump" stage, so once it gets back to sub-$1 fair value, I'll complete the "dump", for 70%+ gain. I still hold a few shares so I can play along during the next pump.