Goodwill Impairment

$eose Plugging my firm bc it is a good shop that does good work. Not going to reveal the name publicly bc my tweets don’t represent the firm’s beliefs. If you are unhappy with your current firm or need service your current firm cannot provide reach out to my DM’s.

If you’re wondering what type of network will be competitive going forward; ”Space OR terrestrial?” You’re asking the wrong question. It’s the hybrid of the two thats most efficient: Space✖️Terrestrial fusion That’s why the winner is the network that sides with the MNOs $ASTS

I hope you realize how bullish SpaceX execs crashing out over the JV is for $ASTS

@ww_elliott I will also tell you when it says “benefit” it just means Eos doesn’t have to feel the impact of the depreciation expense from frontier’s books bc it was experienced in the year of sale.

@ww_elliott So rather than reducing frontiers income by depreciation, Eos backs it out of their income/loss. In this instance, the asset is in CIP so no depreciation has been recorded.

$eose My comments on how sales to new JV will be accounted for. If you know debits and credits you’ll know that on my statement, “income from investment in JV” is actually a loss, reducing net income so you’ll just have to excuse my poor labeling.

I will also add that formatting screwed with my original plan. $150k is Eos’s equity , $155k is CCM’s equity (49% & 51%)

I will always caveat by saying I do not have all of the facts, and nobody does right now but the company. This is my interpretation of the structure and how the reporting will unfold.

The carrier JV is triggering a lot of debate. SpaceX President @Gwynne_Shotwell called it "David and Goliath (X3)." @SpaceX fans are saying DOJ will block it as anticompetitive. Let me cut through the noise. SpaceX is a $2 trillion company calling itself David. The three carriers combined are worth $600B. The JV press release explicitly says it will "expand access" and enable "more satellite service providers to compete, invest, and grow." That's the opposite of anticompetitive. SpaceX doesn't need these carriers. They just bought 65 MHz of their own spectrum. The carriers can't block @SpaceX from doing anything. Here's what I expect in coming days: SpaceX fans will flood every $ASTS post with "DOJ will kill this" and "collusion." Elon will likely tweet about it. The X debate gets tribal and loud. Ignore the noise. This month, more JV details will emerge -- which spectrum, which satellite partners, what timeline. $ASTS likely named explicitly as a technology partner. SpaceX public S-1 drops and includes their D2D strategy. The competitive picture gets clearer. What matters: All three carrier CEOs have publicly said they won't do an MVNO with SpaceX. T-Mobile's CFO called SpaceX D2C "low usage, geographically contained." The carriers want an independent partner. That's $ASTS . My suggestion: Don't get pulled into tribal @SpaceX vs $ASTS arguments. The thesis hasn't changed. Two business models. Two TAMs. @SpaceX owns direct-to-consumer. The carrier JV goes through $ASTS . Both markets are massive. Stay focused on the catalysts: BB8-10 launch mid-June, Russell inclusion May 22, SpaceX IPO repricing the sector, and now a carrier JV forming around $ASTS technology. Let X argue. We watch the fundamentals. $ASTS 🛰️

$ASTS: 🚨 AST SPACEMOBILE = YOU ARE NOT BULLISH ENOUGH

Starlink can’t believe the news It’s truly GAME ON for $ASTS

If this is the case (it is my dream scenario), rather than a bolt-on subscription people have to opt into, then I don’t see how this company is not going to be one of the biggest companies in the US economy. $ASTS

It’s fucking time ⏰

@xEBITDA It is a bridge. At the end of the day, demand needs to materialize.

Audi selling Audis financed by VW Leasing is still selling cars to you, not to themselves... and it shows up in the P&L

Just listened to the $EOSE call. Picked up some shares here. Selloff makes no sense to me.

@Browpeak They certainly can be and it’s better to have your customers finance the projects no doubt.

@goodwillimp It could entirely be just the lumpiness and difference in deal structures. The CAs are good. Id like to see the CLs increase again. I think they were a leading indication in the past

$EOSE Contract liabilities are the most telling forward signal. They've collapsed from $43.4M a year ago (Q1 2025) to just $9.0M now. A year ago, EOSE had $43M of customer cash already in hand waiting to be worked off. Today that cushion is nearly gone. Combined with the $31M RPO, the contracted revenue foundation for the remaining ~$240M+ needed to hit $300M guidance is extremely thin. The advance payment flow ($25.8M in Q1) would need to accelerate dramatically to rebuild that pipeline. With my trust of Joe at zero and some of the numbers I am seeing I am having a hard time believing where the revenue is going to come from.

@duedillengence The equity method investment is to help fill the void between orders being delivered and production capacity. Doesn’t change the fact that they need to land orders ASAP.

I’m open to the idea I’m wrong here. Can someone correct me on where I’m wrong? The insurance backing is nice to make the projects bankable. The lockup being extended is nice to see. Still, I don’t get what’s going on here. It seems almost too easy to be short for a day trade.

I own $EOSE but can we please not pretend like fair value adjustments should be included in results?

Equity method investments and related party profit. For you GAAP nerds, refer to ASC 323. They briefly touched on it on the call but I will put something out later that details how this will be accounted for. $eose

@ohnonotcameron @endless_frank Fair point

@goodwillimp @endless_frank Receipt doesn't, but milestone achieved might. The CFO attributed the Q1 miss to "timing of gateway deployments and milestone recognition". Terms aren't public though.

$ASTS Did we really lose 4.6b in market cap today because of a 25m revenue miss that was likely just pushed out to Q2 given the timing of FCC approval and how that pushed Verizon’s $45m milestone payment to Q2? 🤡🌎

@NetMelc Agreed there will be a big gain, not sure if it results in a big pump of the SP.

this is what Claude is giving me. +$256M FV gain on non-related party warrants (April/May/Dec 2023) or +0.75 EPS +$257M FV gain on Cerberus warrants or + 0.76 EPS +$200M FV gain on Convertible debt embedded options or +0.60 EPS all warrants are deep ITM so no vol sensitivity, 100% IV used for Converts. so warrant + convert impact = 2.10 EPS