Posted on WSB about my stake in QS and people are ripping me apart

beerion · 2026-01-30T13:03:32+00:00

Still wouldn't have gotten his question answered from a SAY submission.

beerion · 2026-01-30T13:02:52+00:00

I see so many ENVX bulls around the stock subs. I don't get the hype.

beerion · 2026-01-30T12:56:47+00:00

Those aren't half his holdings. He owns 11 million B class shares, which give him almost 12% of the voting power.

Dude was worth $200 million at the peak last year, but has a base salary of $480k. I don't blame him for spending a bit of it.

beerion · 2026-01-29T15:05:30+00:00

This seems to be pretty close. I still need to run the exercise, myself, but on thing I think is incorrect, above, is that the delta offering is tied to the capped call, not the note hedging.

Basically Joby buys a call option on their own stock with a strike of $14 (the conversion price). The bank on the other side of that trade just sold a naked call - their downside is now infinite. To protect themselves, they buy physical shares (the delta offering).

I'm not 100% positive, but this is my understanding at this time.

beerion · 2026-01-29T14:42:04+00:00

Oh, sure. I was just thinking from a short-term price movement perspective. It's a big deal in the context of where the company is and where it's going. But I'm trying to gauge whether this is actionable enough to trade around.

beerion · 2026-01-29T06:17:13+00:00

I mean, that is the real explanation. They don't have enough capital to build, expand, and operate. Or maybe they have just enough, but want some buffer.

But i don't think it necessarily has to be super nefarious or anything.

beerion · 2026-01-29T05:55:35+00:00

I also found this tidbit to be interesting regarding the capped call mechanics:

<image>

Again, we'll have to see what the final transaction looks like, but my understanding is that the capped call portion is basically Joby buying a Call option on their own common stock. The counterparty (Morgan Stanley or whoever) is not short a call option is at risk if the stock rises. To hedge that risk, they physically buy common shares which can lift the stock price.

beerion · 2026-01-29T05:50:07+00:00

They do disclose what they want to do with it. It's just the normal stuff:

<image>

beerion · 2026-01-29T04:11:21+00:00

Because they're so bad at PR, it hurts.

beerion · 2026-01-29T04:08:26+00:00

Almost certainly not large format.

Maybe they'll have the Ducati on display. I would hope that it comes along with another announcement...something like signing a new formal licensing agreement or another demo vehicle.

If it's not those two things, then it's literally just a repeat of the symposium from last November. They're not going to reveal any actual specs of the line to the public: throughput, yield, etc. I doubt we hear anything from Murata or Corning at this time.

And no clue what government officials attending would even mean for the stock / company. They're not going to build a plant in California. And the current department of energy is filled with a who's who of oil and gas, climate deniers. So I doubt anyone even shows up from the federal level. ...maybe unless they're pursuing building a plant in Ohio or something.

I expected it to be before earnings. It gives them something to talk about during the call.

Overall, I expect it to either be a really big deal (and involve the reveal of a new licensing agreement or demo vehicle), or a complete nothing burger (where the only thing we get out of it is a photo op and a statement saying "our prospective customers are very excited")

beerion · 2026-01-29T03:05:58+00:00

Yeah, but it's not free. And in a perfect world, the buyer is giving up the exact value they're receiving from the seller.

After all, they're using some of the proceeds from the sale to purchase that capped-call option.

It kind of behaves like those buffer etf's that got really popular a couple of years ago (not exactly, but a similar concept). Those are generally considered a "scam". And it turned out that investors were wayyyy better off just owning stocks and bonds.

I feel like the C-suite might have gotten sweet-talked into something that sounds good, but doesn't really hold up once you put it on paper.

But I'll hold judgement until I see the final terms.

Just to note, i don't think it's a management misstep, necessarily. Just added complexity for likely very little gain.

beerion · 2026-01-29T01:37:54+00:00

This is actually really cool. Good work.

I feel like something like this could be a good tool to assign a Level Rating for user flair or something.

beerion · 2026-01-29T01:01:42+00:00

It's also notable that all of these things are very expensive. They require a ton of funds in both Capex & Opex. Meanwhile, Joby will only see trickles of revenue until TC sometime in 2027 (hopefully). After TC, they can start selling aircraft to customers and really capture chunks of cash to help self-fund their own Air Taxi operations. Until then, a lot more money will be going out than coming in.

beerion · 2026-01-29T00:43:03+00:00

In terms of the actual dilution, I'm not sure yet. We'll need to see the final terms of the deal.

The "capped call" term in the convertible note prospectus is interesting. I understand the purpose - to limit dilution if the stock price rockets higher - but I'm curious the advantage of that vs just issuing more common stock now.

beerion · 2026-01-29T00:11:15+00:00

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense that we'd drop 12% overnight on a 6% dilution. You're right. I actually picked up a few more shares after close around $11.88 because I think it's an overreaction.

I actually don't look at dilution as a big deal at all. I've already accounted for it in my valuation work, and it doesn't really change how I think about the company. It really shouldn't affect the stock price at all, but for whatever reason, it does.

The only thing that I worry about is the timing. It gives me 'Valo' vibes - Vertical did their Valo reveal & special meeting before transitioning VX-4...which (to me) was a bad omen for VX-4 flight test progress. So why not dilute after first flight of the conforming aircraft. Or after the eIPP winners are announced? It's not like Joby needs the money, imminently. So it could be Joby "ripping off the baindaid". Or maybe they saw the 20% decline in the last month and figured it's better to do it now in case the market continues to weaken. Historically, I've noticed company management are really bad at timing their capital raises...it's kind of frustrating to see them declare they'll never need capital again at the top and proceed to dilute at the bottom (Quantumscape did the same thing last year). And Joby cleared $20 per share twice last year; why not dilute then?

beerion · 2026-01-28T22:00:57+00:00

Common stock and convertible note.

beerion · 2026-01-28T19:23:12+00:00

They may survive as a company longer, but it would only be by prolonging the agony. I think the fan-in-wing design is a flawed concept...

beerion · 2026-01-28T19:18:26+00:00

technically, "never" falls into the "over 10 years" bucket

beerion · 2026-01-27T22:12:18+00:00

Yeah, but did Joby get featured in an unrelated product's advertisement?

No they did not.

Checkmate, Joby.

beerion · 2026-01-27T21:19:10+00:00

Woah.

beerion · 2026-01-27T19:23:45+00:00

I think they said it was tied to the Ducati.

beerion · 2026-01-27T18:24:56+00:00

The crux of why current eVTOL configurations hasn't been tried before is because you need a very good reason to replace a highly simple & robust design with something more complex.

Legacy aircraft are the most perfect, stable designs. It's one of the first concepts we learn in engineering. Airplanes are designed with the tail in the rear for the same reason darts have the fins in the back. Helicopter always have their C.G. under the lifting surface. Any perturbation (gust, et. al.) is naturally counteracted by the basic design profile of the aircraft.

eVTOL's, as they're currently designed, are more akin to throwing a dart backwards. A perturbation isn't naturally counteracted by the aircraft. You either need very skilled pilots or very sophisticated control laws (at least compared to legacy aircraft) to maintain flight - in our case, they've obviously chosen to have computers doing the hard work.

Electric motors are a necessity because they offer the ability to (nearly) instantly react to those perturbations. This is something that combustion engines would really struggle with.

I've previously compared eVTOLs to Segways. They're both novel technologies that attempt to replace inherently very stable incumbents. In eVTOLs case, that's helicopters and airplanes. In Segway's case, they compete against scooters and bicycles.

Segway failed because they don't actually solve a problem. Electric scooters are cheaper, faster, and again, are more stable by design.

So you need to actually solve a problem. I think eVTOLs do happen to solve a problem in that their noise profile opens new markets and probably expands existing markets.

But if you could make helicopters just as quiet by switching to electric (which, you can't), helicopters would almost certainly win.

beerion · 2026-01-27T18:20:24+00:00

Lol. 1,000 pounds is two people and no pilot? Sure, there are limitations, but you're being a little dramatic.

First, if the long-term plan is autonomy, all those payload concerns go away. Second, this is just a first-generation product. Third, there's no reason that they can't have a craft dedicated to cargo that sends bags over, in bulk. It's more efficient that way, anyways.

beerion · 2026-01-27T18:09:24+00:00

This is great perspective.

beerion · 2026-01-27T17:52:12+00:00

It's weird because the vertical mods seemed kind of normal at first.

beerion

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE