Talk about your daily plays, ideas and strategies that do not warrant an actual post.

This is the place to request buy/sell advice from the community.

Remember to keep it civil.

Trade responsibly.

Trading penny stocks can be incredibly risky. Most beginners lose their money because they buy into hype without looking under the hood.
Before you buy any penny stock, run it through this simple 5-point checklist to make sure you aren't walking into a trap.

1. Share Dilution (The Silent Killer)

This is the main reason penny stocks lose value. Most penny stock companies don't actually make a profit, so they survive by creating and selling brand new shares to the public.
Think of the company like a pizza. If there are 8 slices and you own 1, you own a good chunk. But if the company suddenly slices that same pizza into 100 tiny pieces, your piece is now practically worthless.

What to check: Look up the company's "Outstanding Shares." If that number keeps going up every few months, the company is diluting its stock. Stay away.

2. Trading Volume (Can you actually sell?)

A stock price doesn't matter if you can't find anyone to buy your shares when you want to sell.
Many penny stocks have very few buyers and sellers. If you buy into a stock that hardly anyone is trading, you might get trapped. If bad news comes out and you want to sell, there might be literally zero buyers, causing the price to crash instantly.

What to check: Look at the "Average Daily Volume." You generally want to see millions of shares traded daily. If it's only a few thousand, it's too risky

3. Social Media Hype (The Pump and Dump)

Be extremely careful of stocks that are being heavily hyped on Twitter, Reddit, or Discord with rocket emojis.
Usually, the people hyping the stock bought it when it was dirt cheap. They create a frenzy so that beginners rush in and push the price up. Once the price spikes, those promoters sell all their shares for a massive profit, leaving the beginners holding worthless bags as the price crashes.

What to check: Ask yourself is this stock going up because of real, official company news, or just because a group of people are hyping it up online?

4. The Basic Money Check

Even at 10 cents a share, a stock can be a rip-off. Penny stock companies are often fundamentally broken. Don't just trust a CEO promising a "game-changing product next year." Look at the basic numbers.

What to check:
Revenue: Do they actually sell a real product right now, or do they make $0?

Cash: Do they have enough money in the bank to keep the lights on this year?

Debt: Are they drowning in loans they can't pay back?

5. Where is it traded? (NASDAQ vs. OTC)

Not all penny stocks are held to the same rules.

Major Exchanges (NASDAQ / NYSE): Companies here have to follow strict rules and report their real financial numbers to the government.

OTC / Pink Sheets: This is the "Wild West" of the stock market. The rules are practically non-existent. Companies here don't even have to prove their financial numbers are real.

What to check: Look at where the stock is listed. If it's an OTC or Pink Sheet stock, the risk of it being a complete scam is much, much higher.

Monitoring stocks that have experienced sharp selloffs can be prime hunting grounds for potential bottom reversals. It takes some due diligence to see if recent news can explain the weakness, but often times the down draft has been overdone. The following four stocks may see their declines stabilize and rebound with any news. But, again, do your due diligence.

Sphere 3D $ANY $1.80 is getting some attention as a small-cap digital infrastructure and bitcoin mining story focused on power capacity expansion and a pending merger with Cathedra Bitcoin.

Sphere 3D currently operates approximately 8 MW of self-owned mining infrastructure at its Iowa facility. The company has been repositioning itself as a leaner, vertically integrated bitcoin mining and power infrastructure operator with a relatively tight share structure (currently about 3.7 million shares outstanding).

However, the near term catalyst is the proposed all-stock merger with Cathedra Bitcoin, which would dramatically expand the company’s total Megawatt capacity. Cathedra contributes approximately 45 MW of power capacity across a number of facilities in Kentucky and Tennessee, while the combined company is expected to total 53 MW across five data centers in Iowa, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Importantly, Cathedra shareholders have already approved the merger, and management has indicated the transaction is expected to close in the near term, pending customary closing conditions and final approvals. The strategic thesis extends beyond its current bitcoin mining. Management has repeatedly emphasized that the merged company intends to pursue high-performance computing (HPC) and AI infrastructure opportunities, leveraging existing power relationships and modular infrastructure deployment. In the current market, access to scalable power capacity is increasingly viewed as a premium asset for AI and compute-intensive workloads.

Recent weakness in ANY shares appears tied largely to investor reaction following a disappointing 10-Q filing released after market close on Friday. Near-term financials and operating results were not viewed favorably by the market, contributing to the selloff. However, many investors appear focused less on current standalone results and more on the post-merger combined entity and its infrastructure footprint. 

One of the more notable aspects of the story is the expected post-merger capital structure. Despite the significant increase in infrastructure assets and power capacity, the combined company is expected to totalmaintain a relatively low share count of about 7.5 million shares.

The merger effectively transforms Sphere 3D from a small standalone miner into a multi-state digital infrastructure platform with significant power assets, operational scale, and optionality tied to AI compute demand. For investors, the central question is whether the market starts to value ANY less as a distressed micro-cap miner and more as an emerging power infrastructure and compute platform. Reading between the lines of shareholder approval at Cathedra Bitcoin and ANY management recently announcing the merger was on track, ANY is worth watching for news on the merger from the ANY side.

Red Cat Holdings $RCAT $8.55 has retreated sharply in recently to below $9.00 (Look at that chart!) from $16.91 in late March. It did not help when the company raised over $200 million at a discount to market price of $9.40. Traders have pointed to the oversold RSI of 32  as a reason to monitor for a bottom reversal. Fundamentally, the company continues to report rapid growth. In its recent Q1 2026 results, Red Cat posted revenue of $15.5 million, up 849% year over year, while gross margins improved substantially to 12.7% from negative levels a year earlier. The company also highlighted growing international demand for its Black Widow drone systems from NATO and Asia-Pacific allies.

Recent press releases have showcased an aggressive expansion strategy across air, maritime, and autonomous systems. Highlights include:

• New Black Widow drone orders from NATO and Asia-Pacific military customers.
• Partnership with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense-linked Spetstechnoexport focused on next-generation unmanned systems.
• Acquisition of Apium Swarm Robotics to expand upon autonomous swarming capabilities.
• A pending acquisition of Quaze Technologies focused on wireless power solutions.
• Expansion of Blue Ops and maritime drone initiatives.(Unmanned "suicide" boats)
• Continued scaling of manufacturing capacity to support larger U.S. and allied defense contracts (which has required capital raises)

Red Cat has positioned itself as a vertically integrated “all-domain” drone and robotics platform rather than simply a hardware manufacturer. Management has also emphasized its readiness to capitalize on potentially large future Pentagon UAV and USV procurement budgets. Investor speculation remains elevated around additional Army SRR (Short Range Reconnaissance) awards and follow-on contracts. 

Modular Medical $MODD $3.33 a medical device company developing simplified insulin patch pumps aimed at the large population of diabetics who avoid traditional, more complex pump systems, has had a tough few weeks. Despite the company’s lead product, the Pivot tubeless insulin patch pump, recently received FDA 510(k) clearance, a major regulatory milestone that significantly de-risks commercialization and positions the company for an initial U.S. launch in 2026, the company's stock has been under pressure.

MODD has been highly volatile due to multiple capital raises and dilution concerns.  But the technical chart has hit oversold RSI -----after the post-financing decline and reverse stock split, with many speculative investors viewing the setup as a potential high-risk rebound candidate if commercialization milestones are met. However, dilution risk remains one of the primary concerns for shareholders.

Several analyst research reports have highlighted the company’s differentiated approach. Bulls argue Modular Medical is targeting the underserved “almost-pumper” market by simplifying insulin delivery versuscurrent systems from larger players.  

Because the diabetes-device market has been concentrated around larger cap strategic buyers, some investors believe that Modular Medical could eventually become an acquisition target for major medtech firms such as Medtronic $MDT, Abbott Laboratories $ABT, or other diabetes-device manufacturers seeking a lower-cost patch pump platform.  

Health In Tech $HIT $1.01 reported disappointingQ1 2026 revenue of $8.8 million, representing only 9% year-over-year growth as it ramped up investment in expansion efforts. The market reaction was not pretty...but the chart is now at an Oversold Relative Strength Index (RSI) of of 29. It may take some time to build a base, but any positive news on progress in the Second Quarter financials and HIT could stage a healthy bounce back.  

Management indicated that the increased spending is focused on growing its presence in the rapidly growing self-funded health insurance market through investments in sales distribution, carrier relationships, and AI-driven platform capabilities. The company currently works with approximately 900 distribution partners (in a sector that has over 1 million brokers) representing significant expansion potential.

Health In Tech also reaffirmed its 2026 revenue outlook of $45 million to $50 million (a 45%- 50% increase).

https://preview.redd.it/uiyn9h1yt42h1.png?width=1292&format=png&auto=webp&s=bff3ad12d6f96ff4a55279b7dc7c5df2321cfe41

I will continue to acquire shares of ELTP until a buyout or uplist. I'm at 7.2 million shares. Not because I'm desperate or am impatient and looking for a quick moonshot to change my life, but because I've done the research on this stock for 9 years now and went from hating it and mocking it to being a huge fan once the CEO and rest of the C suite turned the company around.

I was fortunate enough to get in early on Space X and XAi. While my returns, as a percentage will be similar to my percent return on ELTP - that will ONLY be because of the timing of the investments. POST IPO - I truly, and honestly think that ELTP will outperform my Space X position as a percentage return.

Here's why I think that. SpaceX will find it's value very quickly due to the market exposure. The second it goes public, the whole world will be watching it. It's extremely hard to find value in that scenario. The only way to make money there is on the bet that long term Space X will become a $10 to $20 Trillion company.

On the flip side, ELTP has NO exposure. It's daily volume is like .02% of total float? If even a small group starts buying up shares preacquisition or preuplist, this stock would double to triple. That's not a guess - that's based off empirical data points. Go look at the value last year at a measly 5 million shares per day volume. 100k people buying $15 worth of stock a day would move this that much.

That's why I see acquiring shares of this whenever I can to be such a good long term investment. I don't like to buy "maybes" and "hopes of an approval" etc. I love most of my investments to be based on a multiple of cashflows combined with a realistic upside of future cash flow growth. ELTP is at a 5000% revenue increase since 2020 (from 3 million to 140m TTM and expected 150m July 3rd), with lots of room to grow over the next year or two if for some reason they don't get acquired and uplist instead (Eliquis generic alone, even after an 80% price deterioration for going generic would be $300 to $500 million in revenue).

EDIT for Clarification:

Sorry I was working at the same time, and I should have added some context. This post is to highlight why I think it's important to have conviction in your valuation even when sometimes the market isn't aligning with your analysis (highlighted by my pic of the continued recent buys), compared to how a stock will be valued at peak exposure. Those two things being the case, and as crazy as it seems at first glance, I think ELTP has higher percentage gain upside (obviously not market value) than Space X.

Also, for clarification for those that don't know about ELTP - it's a generic pharmaceutical company that has made some amazing progress. New FDA approved facility, excellent market penetration, healthy pipeline, exceptional growth, and unicorn level $2.2 million revenue per employee. One site shows it at undervalued by 84% right now.

Hey everyone, wanted to drop some quick Due Diligence on CXApp Inc. ($CXAI). This stock is currently sitting at its absolute 52-week bottom around $0.14, completely flying under the retail radar despite putting up an incredible Q1 earnings report last week.

If you are looking for an actual tech/AI company with real revenue, a clean balance sheet, and a tiny market cap, look at the actual numbers:

1. The Q1 Earnings Beat (May 13, 2026)
   CXAI didn't just meet expectations; they beat them. They reported an EPS of -$0.09 (beating Wall Street estimates of -$0.11) and a revenue beat.

2. Insane High-Quality Revenue Mix
   This isn’t a hype-trap biotech company with zero products. CXAI has an 83% GAAP gross margin, and an incredible 98% of their revenue is software subscriptions (recurring SaaS revenue). Once an enterprise onboard, they don't leave.

3. Massive Commercial Momentum
   During the earnings call, management confirmed they secured over $5 Million in Total Contract Value from three new major enterprise organizations. These are multi-year agreements spanning operations across 100 countries. Furthermore, they were recently named a "Visionary" in the April 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Workplace Experience Applications.

4. Deep Balance Sheet ($12.3M in Cash)
   A major risk with stocks under $0.50 is immediate bankruptcy or toxic dilution. CXAI actually increased their cash position to $12.3 million this quarter (up from $11.1 million last quarter). They have plenty of runway to scale operations.

5. The Upcoming June Catalyst (CXAI 2.0)
   The stock is currently compressed because they are transitioning from a legacy SaaS model to an AI-native licensing model (which temporarily delays revenue recognition patterns). In June, they are officially rolling out their "CXAI 2.0" Agentic AI platform. This is a purpose-built intelligent operating layer for enterprise workplaces, capitalizing on a $100B+ addressable market.

The Bottom Line:
At $0.14, the market capitalization is under $10 million, while their trailing twelve-month revenue is over $4.5 million and they have $12M+ in cold hard cash. Wall Street's current average consensus price target sits at $1.02.

There is a Nasdaq compliance timeline to monitor regarding a potential future reverse split to get back over $1.00, but fundamentally, the disconnect between a 14-cent share price and $5M in fresh multi-year enterprise contracts makes this a massive asymmetry play ahead of their June AI platform rollout.

What are your thoughts on this setup?

Disclaimer: Not financial advice. Do your own research.

Jadestone Energy is an upstream oil and gas producer operating across Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

In my opinion, this is NOT an oil price gamble. I would have been bullish on these guys before the oil price conflict, and were the straits to reopen tomorrow, the thesis, I believe, would not be materially impacted. Would love to get some thoughts on this though, maybe I'm too optimistic.

Why care?

Unlevered FCF guidance at $70 oil of $200-240mn for 2 years 2026-2027 inclusive with every 10USD move in Brent being a +-90mnUSD change in guidance.

For first half of 2026, they have realised an average per barrel price of $85.

Market Cap: 230mnUSD

Net Debt: around 70mn USD

Company bought back by 2028 at $70 dollar Brent anything above this range, you are getting into truly unreasonable valuation ranges.

Ok that's of course not the whole story, and there are a few long term risks I will go through bellow - but given the new oil pricing environment, I think the company is still at least 50% bellow intrinsic value.

Context

They are small scale, producing around 19-21kboe/d in 2025, around 12.4kboe/d of crude and the rest in nat gas and lpg.

They operate mainly mature oil assets, and they are liable for decommissioning provision (which is their largest balance sheet liability) - with the first of their wells expected to run dry around 2035.

Over that period, they expect to extract around 25mn barrels of probable oil reserves from these mature assets (valued around 1.7bn USD at 70USD crude).

But, these assets support ongoing successful expansion into long term, stable cash generating gas assets in Indonesia and Vietnam.

Akatara came online around late 2024 and has been producing nat gas and lpg, for which they have a take or pay agreement with the Indonesian government - with fixed, increasing pricing plan - producing a consistent approx 6kboe/d bringing in yearly revenues around 85mnUSD, and gross margins around 40-50%.

They also recently signed a very similar agreement to develop gas production for the Vietnamese government, with first gas expected around late 2028. 2P reserves of over 35mnboe, with over 40mnboe of 2C reserves that are economically viable to exploit at the fixed price agreement if they need to.

Falling out of love

The company has been hammered over the last 2-3 years due to a double whammy of operational setbacks and a poor oil pricing environment.

The main setback for them came after an oil leak was discovered on their Montara rig in 2022 which resulted in a 7 month shutdown sending their shares down over 70% and they've traded sideways since.

Since the leak, the rig has been repaired, and is producing around 4kboe/d of premium crude - (recently been trading over $20 above Brent).

Their other oil assets, in Malaysia and Australia, also had a full year of execution in 2025 and they are about to complete an expansion of their Malaysia rig.

Two other Australian assets, Stag and CWLH, both encountered operating difficulties in 2026. Stag was hit by cyclone Narelle, for which they have insurance coverage (both damage expense and lost production) and expect to have the rig back online in Q4. CWLH also has potential repairs required, which if confirmed, could take it offline for a month or two.

CRUCIALLY: management has reiterated that neither of these materially impact the companies guidance for FCF - which we'll get to later.

New Management

They brought in a new CEO, T Mitch Little, former Executive VP of Operations at Marathon Oil. To put into perspective this guy gave up a VP position at a 70bn international oil giant to come work at Jadestone, and has been showing results. Cost of production decreased in 2025, even though production output grew. He has closed the Vietnam deal and is actively looking for organic/inorganic growth opportunities via acquisitions etc.

Along with a board reshuffle, the company has been gaining significant momentum while stewarding their existing assets in a way which maximises their lifespan and value for the firm.

The Risks

The risks lie in their maturing assets.

1. They have a net present decommissioning liability of over 600mnUSD.
2. Why is this not a big deal? This should only start to be drawn down into a cash expense around mid 2030s when their assets start to dry up. By then, they will have significant further operations in Vietnam, Indonesia and an experienced management is actively looking for new opportunities. The expense is also likely to be incurred over multiple years, as the process of decommissioning is executed.
3. Continued Capex related to maintenance of old rigs.
4. Why is this not a big deal? Although they have encountered an unlucky streak of events (one of the largest cyclones in recent history, poor management previously leading to oil leak), current management is acutely aware of the costs involved in maintaining these rigs. They are actively working on putting processes in place to maximise cost discipline across those assets. It is evidenced by the reduction in Capex to around the 50-80mn range for 2026 and reduction in cost per boe of production since 2024.
5. Non cash impairment to producing assets.
6. Thought I'd mention this, as it's the biggest expense on their 2026 income statement - a 130mn impairment on their existing assets was recorded for their end of year 2025 report. This was based on pricing environment at year end 2025, which has since shifted and this impairment has largely been eliminated if based on a USD 70+ average Brent price through 2035.

Conclusion

Jadestone is executing on an ambitious growth plan, fueled by a favourable near term oil price environment, and a reenergised, capable senior management team.

They have a very solid near term cashflow outlook, and their longer term horizons are looking increasingly favourable as they acquire new contracts and increase output.

It's not an exciting company, but I think that they really are on a path to restart cash dividends/share buybacks in the near future and return capital to shareholders.

Talk about your daily plays, ideas and strategies that do not warrant an actual post.

This is the place to request buy/sell advice from the community.

Remember to keep it civil.

Trade responsibly.

Today, we've seen the surge of co diagnostic because of the ebola essay.

But what's nobody knows is that biosynex ( albio ) a french stock has already developped a antigen test to detect Ebola in 15 mins . They have a huge presence in Africa and even in the US.

Stock is at 20m but it was almost at 600m during COVID .

Could easily do a good run if news about Ebola keep pouring on the medias .

There is also novacyt at 40m ( reached almost $1 billion valuation during COVID peak ) that already does ebola test . Its another french stock .

And to finish , as more and more viruses keep spreading , prevention and protection are keys to avoid another pandemic .

Parx materials another french stock at 5m sits at the center . They have an anti viral / anti bacteria that could become widely use in the future as the world is shifting to anti bacteria/ anti viral products ( water systems, hpne screens , textile , food packaging, basically anything public related )

Seeing how co diagnostic made a comeback today , there is a good chance that they both do a good run

Fellow investors, if you’re sleeping on Herbal Dispatch’s international export machine, wake up! This Canadian craft leader is executing at warp speed across multiple regulated markets. From record-breaking flower shipments to Germany via Portugal to high-margin gummy exports to Australia, HD is building a diversified, high-growth global revenue stream. Premium Canadian cannabis is winning big time. Here’s the full export-focused breakdown.

Key Export Milestones & Timeline (All Markets – Pure Execution Mode)

• Ongoing 2025 Foundation: Strong baseline exports to Australia and Portugal, plus first order to Brazil. Export revenue already up massively YoY in prior years, setting the stage for 2026 acceleration.
• January 22, 2026: Inaugural 298kg medical cannabis flower export to Germany via EU-GMP licensed processor in Portugal. First major European entry – proof of concept secured.
• April 30, 2026: First international gummy export to Australia – $350,000 in revenue from a single shipment! Delivered premium medical cannabis gummies to a top 3 global cannabis company. Huge validation of edibles strategy and high-margin potential. Follow-on orders expected throughout 2026.
• May 14, 2026: Exclusive strategic supply agreement with the Portugal EU-GMP processor. Unlocks scalable processing, packaging, and distribution into Germany + other EU markets. Higher-value formats (vapes, concentrates, etc.) now in play.
• May 19, 2026 (TODAY): Company-record 500kg medical cannabis shipment to Europe – largest in HD history! More permits secured, pipeline full.

Rapid scaling in action: Flower to Europe ramping hard + edibles breaking into Australia = diversified momentum. Permitting timelines are shrinking fast (from weeks to days), enabling consistent quarterly volume growth.

https://preview.redd.it/m9xfrsp5932h1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=03b1b1bda60ae7d59e3b909acf916bc5378167c7

https://preview.redd.it/nmwvx5a7932h1.png?width=627&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a48af4661537f711c64f61a38954ffacd598d7c

Global Export Footprint – Active & Expanding

Herbal Dispatch has built relationships across Australia, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Czech Republic, UK, Switzerland, Costa Rica – and more coming. Focus on GMP/EU-GMP compliance for premium positioning.

• Australia: Long-term partner with dried flower shipments + now the game-changing gummy order. High-margin edibles opening doors for recurring revenue.
• Europe (Germany focus): Leveraging Portugal as a compliant hub for the EU’s largest medical market. Germany’s imports exploding – perfect tailwind.
• Others: Brazil, Czech, UK, etc., provide diversification and future upside.

Why This is Explosive – Market Tailwinds Everywhere

• Germany/Europe: Record imports (140+ tonnes in first 9 months of 2025, Q3 up 176% YoY). Annual quota ~192.5 tonnes. Market projected to ~USD 835M by 2028 at 28.5% CAGR, with 600k+ patients. Canada is a top supplier.
• Australia: Strong medical demand + telemedicine growth. HD’s gummies hit the sweet spot for convenience and margins.
• Broader: Global medical cannabis boom. Canadian exporters gaining share in regulated markets.

Bullish Projections (Export Side Only)

• 2026: 100%+ YoY export revenue growth targeted. Multiple 500kg+ Europe shipments + Australia gummy follow-ons. Several tonnes potential through Portugal channel alone. Edibles adding high-margin layer.
• 2027-2028: Triple export volumes company-wide. 2-3 new markets per year. Europe as major pillar, processed products boosting margins, diversified footprint de-risking the business.
• Longer-term: Recurring revenue streams from key partners (Germany via Portugal, Australia gummies) + new deals = compounding growth engine.

This is execution, not speculation. From $350k gummy pop in Australia to record 500kg Europe flower – Herbal Dispatch is turning international exports into a core growth driver while maintaining craft quality.

Reddit, what’s your take? $HERB / $LUFFF – next global cannabis winner? Price targets? Drop your DD below! 🌍🌿📈

(Not financial advice – DYOR. All info from company releases and industry reports as of May 2026.)

https://preview.redd.it/abe7z6v8932h1.png?width=1025&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9a75d3ee1b12b1e9aaf1bcf61f40f9cb24e5a95

$MDAI Spectral AI Inc stated in their latest earnings call that they are expecting positive determination from the FDA by the end of Q2 2026 for their Deepview AI burns diagnostic system following a15mth study in which DeepView AI significantly outperformed the clinical judgment of experienced burns physicians in predicting wound healing, following FDA clearance, Spectral AI will target its first commercial sales in the U.S. starting late 2026

Catalysts:

Q226 - FDA Approval pending

Q226 - Delivery of Handheld Prototype to MTEC

H226 - Unlock $60m in BARDA funding

H226 - Expand sales into the UK, Australia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council nations

UK clinical evidence indicates that DeepView is 92% accurate in distinguishing between tissue that will heal naturally and tissue requiring surgery. This significantly outperforms traditional clinical judgment, which typically ranges from 50-75% accuracy & requires long observation time 3-4weeks

Govt Support: $86.6m funding from BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) including a $31.7M award in March 2026, suggests that the U.S. govt views this medical technology as vital. BARDA continued financial backing signals additional confidence in the device’s regulatory path

Upon FDA approval, the company expects to unlock approximately $60 million in remaining non-dilutive funding from its existing BARDA contract. This includes subsidized distribution of up to 30 DeepView systems to major U.S. burn and trauma centers

Pending U.S. clearance, Spectral AI plans to update its UKCA authorization in late 2026 to include an improved version of the DeepView system, potentially triggering sales in the UK, Australia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council nations

Spectral AI has a "first-mover" advantage in AI burn imaging, additionally Spectral AI is developing a Handheld Device, Under its contract with Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium (MTEC), Spectral AI is scheduled to deliver a fully functional prototype of its handheld DeepView device by the end of Q2 2026, opening the possibility of military and portable medical Emergency Room (ER) and Urgent Care markets

Back again. Stock’s up since PART 2 and the story just got better and cleaner. Heidmar just announced 5 more crude tankers added to its commercially managed fleet – with record VLCC/Suezmax earnings as the backdrop.

https://ca.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/heidmar-adds-five-tankers-to-commercially-managed-fleet-93CH-4648442

The one real red flag everyone raised – concentration risk with a single fleet owner – is now being addressed in real time.

This is the only stock I’ve seen where:

• Market cap ≈ cash pile
• Revenue > market cap
• 90%+ locked by insiders & still buying too
• Asset-light, zero debt, cash generative
• And now actively DIVERSIFYING its fleet exposure across more counterparties, not just one large owner

You wanted an update? Here it is. Prove me wrong.

💥 NEW FLEET UPDATE – RISK ACTUALLY IMPROVING

Heidmar just dropped fresh news: 5 additional crude tankers into the commercially managed fleet, on top of the existing platform growth.

New vessels:

• 1× 2026 eco-design Suezmax
• 2× Suezmax (2009, 2013)
• 1× VLCC (2006)
• 1× MR1 (2006)

This lands in the middle of:

• VLCC spot hitting record day rates after Hormuz closed
• VLCC 1Y time charter around six figures per day
• Suezmax 1Y fixtures in the mid five-figure to low six-figure range

Translation: they are plugging more tonnage into an already red‑hot rate environment, with no ships on their own balance sheet. Fleet expansion today = higher fee potential tomorrow, without newbuild risk, without leverage, without steel.

Every new owner that joins the platform reduces the risk that one customer (Capital Maritime) “owns” the entire story. The red flag around concentration is now a shrinking part of the thesis, not the core of it.

SEE PART 1 & 2 HERE for context before going further -

https://www.reddit.com/r/pennystocks/comments/1tgoytc/part_2_hmr_nasdaq_uber_of_ships_called_it_up_30/

🚨 THE “ONE OWNER” RED FLAG – WHAT’S CHANGED

Last time, a bear point was: “Too much fleet from Capital Maritime. If they walk, the story dies.”

Here’s why that is even less true today than it was when I wrote PART 2:

• Heidmar continues to add vessels from multiple owners, not just Capital Maritime. The latest 5-ship package is further proof the platform is attractive to other counterparties.
• Capital Maritime’s presence is a signal, not a death sentence. Large, sophisticated owners don’t hand over dozens of ships to a weak operator. They do it because the pool outperforms what they’d get on their own.
• As the managed fleet grows across more owners, any single-client risk mathematically shrinks. The more ships they sign, the less any one owner can dictate terms or threaten the entire fee base.

Concentration risk always cuts both ways:

• If Capital stays, the scale + data + track record magnetizes more owners.
• If Capital ever trims exposure, the underlying platform and 40-year relationships still exist. This isn’t a two‑year SPAC baby; it’s four decades of trade flows and chartering history.

You don’t buy this as a “Capital Maritime tracker.” You buy it because it’s a fee machine plugged into a structurally tight tanker market.

📈 MACRO STILL LOADED – HMR GETS PAID ON GROSS

Recap of the setup:

• Heidmar’s model = percentage of gross voyage revenue + fees, not ownership of the hulls. Whether a VLCC earns $50k/day or $400k/day, they clip a slice of the top line.
• Post‑Hormuz closure, crude tanker markets repriced hard. Even after some normalization, you’re still looking at multi‑year high earnings in VLCC and Suezmax.
• Supply is tight:
  • Low orderbook
  • Aging fleet
  • Trade routes distorted by geopolitics
• Demand is sticky:
  • Restocking
  • Longer tonne-miles
  • Energy security policy shifts

Who wins in this structure?

• Not necessarily the most levered owner.
• The platform that sits on top of the voyage revenue and gets paid first, with no drydock capex, no steel risk, no refits, no scrap decisions.

That’s why “Uber of ships” is more than just a meme line. Owners supply the metal. Heidmar supplies the commercial engine.

💎 CHECKLIST RE-RUN (UPDATED)

From PART 2, and still valid today:

• Market cap below revenue
• ~4× forward PE vs 15–20× for peers
• 93% full-year revenue growth, 373% Q4 vs Q4 growth
• 55%+ gross margins, high-margin service model inside a shipping ticker
• Zero long-term debt, meaningful cash pile approaching a huge % of market cap
• Positive operating cash flow, self-funding
• 90%+ of the stock locked by insiders, CEO at ~45% ownership and adding
• Float under 6M shares, basically no borrow – doesn’t need a squeeze, just needs buyers
• 40-year operating history. Clients like Shell, BP, Aramco, the big trading houses

Now add:

• 5 new crude tankers into the managed fleet at the exact moment crude earnings are elevated
• Fleet exposure is broadening, not narrowing – directly addressing the “one owner” risk
• Each incremental vessel equals incremental fee potential, without touching the balance sheet

The one serious red flag from last time (fleet concentration) is now trending in the right direction.

🧨 SO WHAT’S LEFT?

I’ve now:

• Walked through the financials
• Walked through the float
• Walked through the macro
• Walked through the governance and insider behavior
• And now walked directly into the biggest bear case: client concentration

Heidmar just answered that with more ships, from more counterparties, in the middle of the strongest crude earnings window in years. The model is scaling. The risk is diversifying. The market still prices it like a mistake.

I'm soooo excited for earnings!!

Every investor dreams of finding companies that multiply by 5, by 10, or by 100. It is the philosopher’s stone of investing, the holy grail, the elixir of life for people obsessed with looking at charts and reading fundamentals.

When I started investing, one of the books that fascinated me the most was 100 Baggers: Stocks That Return 100-to-1 and How to Find Them, by Chris Mayer. It was incredible. The promise was that instead of finding stocks that would make me rich at 67, they could let me retire at 35.

Since then, I have read other “studies” on the topic with the same enthusiasm. Unfortunately, they all have one fatal flaw: anecdotes, qualitative analysis, and little evidence of causality. My engineer soul was missing something more rigorous.

Luckily, I recently came across a paper that tries to go one step further: The Alchemy of Multibagger Stocks, by Anna Yartseva.

Although the paper is not perfect, far from it, it brings a more methodological and scientific approach to the subject. It does several things I like.

It starts with a review of what has traditionally been said about multibaggers, which is perfect for anyone who has never read anything on the topic. Then it tries to study what characteristics these companies shared, starting from the Fama-French five-factor model, and later adapting the model to multibaggers. In the process, it uncovers a few things that had rarely been discussed before.

Today’s post is about this paper and some of its most interesting conclusions. I have published the full article on my website, with a more detailed analysis, interactive widgets, and a more rigorous critique for anyone who wants to read it. In this article, I am only going to comment briefly on some interesting conclusions.

In the original post, I also go through the “anatomy of a classic multibagger”, which summarizes what was commonly known about multibaggers and is also very useful for anyone interested in the topic.

Experiment

The study analyzes companies listed on the NYSE and NASDAQ, including ADRs, between 2009 and 2024.

The window starts just after the financial crisis and covers 15 very eventful years: bull and bear markets, COVID, inflation, interest rates, the banking crisis, wars, and commodity shocks.

It identifies more than 500 stocks that reached a 10x return, but only keeps those that maintained that level until the end and removes those with incomplete data. The final sample consists of 464 multibaggers.

What is interesting is that it does not only look at the 2009-2024 increase, but also at the companies’ prior history from the year 2000 onward. The idea is not simply to celebrate winners after the fact, but to look for signals that were already present before the big move.

Starting point: the Fama-French five-factor model

The analysis starts with the Fama-French five-factor model, one of the most widely used frameworks to explain why some stocks earn higher returns than others.

The idea, simplifying a lot, is that a stock’s return can be explained by its exposure to several factors: market, size, valuation, profitability, and investment.

https://preview.redd.it/jgkmio6f922h1.png?width=1506&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d84979d401232a544e01622879d338094fa725b

In other words, the model tries to explain how much a stock has earned by comparing it with what a risk-free asset would have earned and by seeing how much of that return comes from different known factors.

https://preview.redd.it/mo49unng922h1.png?width=1628&format=png&auto=webp&s=de5edd773aded66713c88165063f4990e045f8a7

The appeal of the model is that it lets you ask a very useful question: did multibaggers earn so much simply because they were exposed to known factors such as size, value, or profitability, or was there something else?

And that “something else” is exactly what the study tries to find.

https://preview.redd.it/4919o6si922h1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d07657d452c642931f6929a9b00153c6ec37ef3

https://preview.redd.it/3fititlj922h1.png?width=1508&format=png&auto=webp&s=6cd28ebdf673fd874d87f0e4bcba470d797e0e03

Alpha and beta

In a factor regression, beta measures how much a stock moves relative to the market. A beta of 1 means it moves more or less like the market; above 1, it is more sensitive; below 1, less so.

Alpha is what remains after explaining the return using the model’s factors: market, size, value, profitability, and investment. Put simply, it is the part of the return that the model cannot explain.

But be careful: alpha is not an explanation. It is a clue. It may reflect a real company advantage, a missing factor in the model, or simple statistical noise. That is why it should be treated as an interesting signal, not definitive proof.

The study uses the Fama-French five-factor model to see whether it can explain the historical returns of multibaggers.

The basic idea of the model is that, over the long term, small, cheap, profitable companies with prudent investment tend to do better. To test whether this also holds here, the study sorts the companies in the sample, between 2000 and 2024, into different groups:

• Size: small, medium, and large.
• Valuation: low, medium, and high, using book-to-market.
• Profitability: robust or weak.
• Investment: conservative or aggressive, based on asset growth.

When all of these are crossed, the result is 36 different portfolios.

The objective is twofold:

1. To check whether the classic factors also work within the multibagger universe.
2. To measure how much unexplained alpha remains. If a lot of return remains outside the model, it means these companies have something that the five factors do not capture well.

And that is where things start to get interesting: looking for more specific variables to understand where that extraordinary return really came from.

The results

The table groups the companies by size, valuation, profitability, and investment, and colors the return of each combination to quickly show what works best.

https://preview.redd.it/7glxh1lq922h1.png?width=1782&format=png&auto=webp&s=4963488717f91ac9e60849064829ca741f0db2d9

The best portfolio appears among small, cheap, profitable companies with aggressive investment. In other words: small caps, with high book-to-market, good operating profitability, and strong asset growth.

The main conclusions are quite clear:

• Size helps: small companies beat medium-sized companies on average, and medium-sized companies beat large ones. But the median is not as clean, so simply buying small caps is not magic either.
• Valuation matters: even within multibaggers, cheaper companies tend to do better.
• Profitability also matters: companies with weak profitability deliver worse results than profitable ones.

And the big surprise is investment. According to Fama and French, companies that invest aggressively should do worse. But here, almost the opposite happens: companies with higher asset growth achieve better returns. It makes sense. A company that wants to multiply cannot stand still. It needs to reinvest, grow, and build something much bigger.

Then, the study runs a regression to see how much the five factors explain. And here is the important part: operating profitability contributes little, these stocks have high beta, and alpha remains too high.

Translation: the five-factor model does not explain multibaggers very well. It captures part of the story, but it misses something important. And that is exactly where the interesting part begins.

Improving the model

Because the classic Fama-French model leaves too much alpha unexplained, the study tries to adapt it better to the case of multibaggers.

To do this, it tests different metrics for size, valuation, profitability, and investment: market capitalization, enterprise value, sales, book-to-market, P/E, price-to-sales, margins, ROE, return on capital, asset growth, EBITDA, and free cash flow.

In an intermediate version, the study changes some variables: it uses TEV for size, P/E for valuation, and EBITDA margin for profitability. But P/E ends up losing weight because it adds too much noise: it does not work for loss-making companies and explodes when earnings are very low. That is why the most useful valuation metrics end up being B/M and FCF/P, meaning how much free cash flow the company generates relative to the price paid.

The most interesting part is investment.

The study introduces a variable that detects when assets grow faster than EBITDA. And the result is strong: when a company expands assets faster than EBITDA growth, the following year’s return falls by around 22.8 percentage points.

The interpretation is quite clear: multibaggers need to invest, grow, and expand capacity. But that investment has to be accompanied by real EBITDA growth. If assets grow and EBITDA does not follow, the company is probably buying bad growth, inflating its balance sheet, or reinvesting at mediocre returns.

In short: the best multibaggers are not only small, cheap, and profitable. They also know how to invest aggressively without destroying returns. It is not about growing for the sake of growing, but about growing with profits behind it.

Static and dynamic return models

Here the objective changes: the author is no longer trying to see whether multibaggers fit into Fama-French, but to build a more complete model to explain their future returns.

To do this, she tests more than 150 variables: growth, valuation, profitability, quality, debt, solvency, momentum, interest rates, analysts, investment, R&D, marketing, and sector comparisons. Much more than the classic “small, cheap, and profitable”.

To separate signal from noise, she uses Hendry’s general-to-specific methodology: you start with a huge model and gradually remove what does not add value until you are left with something cleaner and more robust. First, you throw everything into the pot. Then you remove ingredients until the thing finally tastes like something.

The interesting part of the analysis is here: it moves from describing what multibaggers looked like after the fact to trying to identify which variables best explained their returns before they happened. It is not perfect, but this is where the most useful conclusions for investors appear.

Main results

The model works reasonably well: almost all coefficients have the expected sign. The market matters, size penalizes returns, valuation matters a lot, and investment only works if it is accompanied by real EBITDA growth.

The most important conclusions are:

• Multibaggers also depend on the market. When the S&P 500 helps, it helps them too; when the environment gets difficult, they also suffer.
• Size remains key: the larger the company, the lower its future return tends to be. Multiplying by 10 from a small base is much easier than doing so from a gigantic base.
• Profitability matters, but less than expected. In the dynamic models, EBITDA margin loses strength and ROA works better. Even so, FCF/P ends up carrying more weight than many classic profitability metrics.
• Accounting growth disappoints. Variables such as revenue growth, EBITDA growth, EPS growth, or free cash flow growth are not especially significant. This does not mean growth does not matter. It means that within a sample of companies that already became multibaggers, the price paid, FCF yield, and quality of investment explain future returns better.
• Investment is useful, but with one condition: if assets grow faster than EBITDA, future returns fall. In other words, growing for the sake of growing is not enough. If the company invests heavily but EBITDA does not follow, it may be buying bad growth or reinvesting at mediocre returns.
• Interest rates also matter. In periods of rising rates, future multibagger returns fall significantly. This makes sense: the more a company depends on future cash flows, the more it suffers from a higher discount rate.
• Valuation is the main protagonist. Book-to-market and FCF/P are the most powerful variables in the model. Even the best growth stocks need to be bought at reasonable prices. It is not enough to grow a lot; what you pay matters enormously.
• P/E does not work well because it breaks with loss-making companies or companies with very small earnings. That is why the study prefers B/M and FCF/P.
• Momentum behaves strangely: the effect seems very short-lived and quickly reverses. Buying right after a big move can be expensive.

There are also variables that surprisingly add little: debt, debt coverage, Altman Z-score, buybacks, dividends, share issuance, and R&D. But be careful not to misinterpret this: because the analysis only studies companies that survived and ended up being winners, there is selection bias. The fact that debt does not explain much within the survivors does not mean it does not matter when trying to avoid dying along the way.

In other words, the best multibaggers are not simply companies that grow a lot. They tend to be small, reasonably cheap, profitable companies that can invest without destroying capital and that are bought before the market has discounted too much future growth.

Conclusions

The study challenges some dogmas about multibaggers. Not because growth does not matter, but because isolated accounting growth explains less than expected. Valuation, free cash flow yield, size, interest rates, and investment quality matter more.

• The best multibaggers tend to be small, cheap, profitable companies capable of investing aggressively without destroying capital. The key is that asset growth must be accompanied by real EBITDA growth. If assets grow but EBITDA does not, that is a bad sign.
• Free cash flow yield appears as one of the most important variables. It is not enough to grow a lot: the company also has to generate cash and trade at a reasonable price.
• Interest rates also matter. In rising-rate environments, multibaggers suffer much more than many would assume. They are not immune to the cost of money.
• And momentum works in a counterintuitive way: buying near 12-month highs does not seem to help. In fact, the best opportunities usually appear when the stock is closer to its lows and after meaningful declines. That may be where the market has not yet discounted too much future growth.

In short: a multibagger is not simply “a company that grows a lot”. According to this study, the most attractive combination would look more like this: a small, cheap, profitable company, with good free cash flow yield, capable of investing without destroying capital, and bought at a moment when the market is not yet too excited.

So yeah, it was never going to be easy.

---

I have left a lot out of this article, so here is the link to my original post, where I explain everything with much more detail and nuance.

The original post includes “the anatomy of a classic multibagger”, all sections explained in greater detail, and 3 additional appendices:

• “Past studies”: a brief history of what has been done before.
• “Limitations”: this section is essential if you are thinking of using this information in your investment process.
• “Descriptive statistics of the sample”: a short section describing the growth, returns, size, and other characteristics of these multibaggers. It is very illustrative of what these companies looked like before and during the process of multiplying by 10.

Link here: https://www.jeravalue.com/en/blog/10x-stocks-the-dna-of-multibaggers

(It is completely free without paywall)

THE BIGGEST WINNERS PRE-MARKET

Stock	Move	Why It’s Moving
WGRX	+108%	Massive momentum trading and unusual volume spike.
HCAI	+98%	Heavy speculative buying and strong intraday momentum.
GOVX	+79%	Biotech/news-driven rally with high retail trader interest.
SBFM	+79%	Extremely high trading volume and momentum activity.
AIM	+61%	Small-cap biotech squeeze and speculative flows.
VRAX	+53%	Low-float momentum run with retail participation.
GCTS	+40%	Semiconductor/AI-related momentum and breakout to new highs.
VAL	+7%	Energy sector strength and oil-related momentum.

WHOEVER IS CREATING OR PART OF THESE GROUP CHAT SHORT-SQUEEZE LET ME IN !!!!!!