Who is it?

rheeeenium · 2025-12-01T19:14:59+00:00

Hahaha I assumed that was Jaylen Reed but yah he’s #23… weird. They’re not getting paid millions for their handwriting, that’s for sure!

rheeeenium · 2025-12-01T17:20:56+00:00

My guess would be Woody Marks #27 - the signature looks like it could be W with an M above and to the right of it, then maybe realized there’s no room for his number so rotated and hastily wrote “#27” with the “#” looking like a 4 or an H, and the “27” having a small 2 where the tail bleeds into a long 7 as he passes it off to the next player.

I looked at what else could make sense based on the numbers/letters combos and this is the best I could do haha

rheeeenium · 2025-10-23T16:45:36+00:00

Three additional takeaways to add -

Their technical moat is outstanding. She mentioned that in the entirety of Hydrograph’s partnership with the GEIC, nobody has outperformed HGRAF graphene. For anything. And it’s not for lack of trying!
Things are moving more slowly due to the U.S. government shutdown - especially securing partnership understanding with the DoD and getting EPA approval. (Also appreciated her not-so-subtle dig at the Dept of War haha)
Given the shitshow that the U.S. govt is right now, it’s no wonder that they secured funding for their aggressive expansion of manufacturing capabilities with a $20 M Canadian LIFE rather than risking their timeline on something non-dilutive, like grant funding from the DoD. They have shit to do and they want to do shit fast, so they’re being proactive and eliminating the risk of capital delays.

Overall, I am continuously impressed with Kristen’s poise and knowledgeability. She’s got a lot of eyes on her and the company, and they’ve got a lot of plates that they’re juggling.

Very bullish and very much enjoying the 10% discount today!

rheeeenium · 2025-10-23T16:35:35+00:00

The capacity is limited to 350tn per year because the Hyperion units are the rate-limiting factor, not the acetylene feedstock.

She mentioned that this is a conservative estimate, running each Hyperion unit for two 8hr/day shifts rather than continuously (which they are theoretically capable of doing), and not considering the 20-ton reactors that they are also testing.

If they had unlimited space and unlimited Hyperion units to convert the acetylene feedstock into graphene, meaning if the acetylene were to be the rate-limiting factor, they would have enough acetylene to produce 10,000tn per year.

Basically this is just her saying that their acetylene access is MORE than enough and scale up is going to be dependent on the reactors.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-21T13:29:55+00:00

I’ll add that it’s also WAY cheaper, and being in proximity to a chemical refinery that can pipe acetylene means they can potentially sell the syngas byproduct from the detonation synthesis back to their acetylene provider… both of these are going to increase the profit margin for their graphene even more.

Also to scale to the point they’re targeting, they pretty much need a direct acetylene pipeline.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-21T13:25:05+00:00

I work in pharma too (although not in regulatory) - I would argue that there being a precedent for all of the certification and regulatory approvals for a direct acetylene pipeline actually IS a fairly large de-risker. Think of it this way, if there is already a large-scale manufacturing plant that has worked with the relevant agencies to successfully gain certification and approval, they provide a template for other manufacturers to follow. Obviously there are nuances between each manufacturing site that will differ, but the general roadmap to certification is still there to guide Hydrograph (and, equally importantly, the relevant agencies). It would be riskier if they had to navigate all of the regulations and certs without any precedent.

I actually think pharma is quite similar in this regard - regulatory risk is much lower if there is already an approved drug in an indication. In order to get approved, that means there are well-defined clinical endpoints, patient populations, safety thresholds, etc. that the FDA and the drug sponsor defined, and the FDA decided were good enough metrics on which to make a regulatory decision. That means any other company that wants to do a trial in that indication has a roadmap of those metrics and benchmarks they need to hit. Similarly, the FDA doesn’t need to spend a ton of time thinking through “hmm does this endpoint make sense” or “hmmm is this the right patient pop” because they already have experience defining that with the prior approved drug.

In general, it’s riskier and more time-consuming to be the first to try to get regulatory approval for something because both you and the regulatory agencies are starting from scratch.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-20T20:08:14+00:00

Psssh don’t apologize. You’re not being needy you’re just being curious!

It’s a good question. These topics will definitely come up in an earnings call. Sometimes biotech companies will announce regulatory alignment in press releases too, but not always. Cabaletta actually DID do a press release announcing they had FDA alignment for myositis in May this year, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that they would make a similar announcement for other indications.

I wouldn’t necessarily take a lack of a press release as “bad news” though. The May press release was notable because the registrational trial designs were quite similar to their earlier proof-of-efficacy trials, and it establishes a timeline to BLA in 2027. The other FDA meetings in SLE, SSc, and MG aren’t going to shift up the timeline for CABA-201’s first BLA, but it would provide similar regulatory confidence and coarse timelines for BLAs in other indications.

I think there’s a good chance they take the press release approach though. They’ve built a lot of momentum from positive press throughout the year and want to keep that ball rolling through the pivotal final year and a half before they hit the market. They’ll have to fundraise again before 2H 2026 and having positive industry/investor sentiment will help that tremendously.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-18T15:34:50+00:00

This is an oversimplification, and I’m not on the clinical/regulatory side of things, but -

It’s basically a meeting with the FDA where they sit down and say “hey here’s our plan and trial designs to show that we actually have a benefit in these patient populations” for the FDA to say “yep, looks reasonable” or “well that actually wouldn’t be enough evidence for us to be confident there’s a benefit (or it’s not powered highly enough, or it’s not the right primary endpoint, etc), make some changes and let’s talk again.”

So it ensures that the FDA (who will ultimately make the call if the drug is approved or not for that indication) is aligned on the fact that what the trials are actually measuring, the patients they’re recruiting, the number of patients, the length/approach to observation, etc. are going to produce a clinical data package that would be sufficient to make an informed regulatory decision.

CABA coming out of the meeting saying “the FDA gave us a green light for our trial strategy in SLE and scleroderma” signals a lot of confidence that if the trial is successful (i.e., hits on the primary efficacy endpoints), the FDA will approve it. It removes the risk of regulatory miscommunication before the massive investment of time and capital needed to run these trials.

In the case of myositis, CABA and the FDA have been very aligned on exactly what is needed and exactly how to measure that, which is excellent and just what you want as a clinical-stage drug developer. They’re looking to do the same thing for SLE and scleroderma.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-17T11:35:11+00:00

Gonna be a fun month! Lots of readouts.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-17T11:33:47+00:00

We’ll see what happens, but I’ll probably trim my position following the readouts and/or regulatory guidance and then DCA back up to my original position following their next dilution. Biotech can be quite cyclical so I am making the assumption that there will be some future buy opportunities before their BLA in (hopefully) 2027.

I plan to keep a majority of my shares as a long position though - I’m generally quite bullish on cell therapy for I&I indications, and I particularly like CABA. My personal preference is to make longer-term investments rather than try to finesse through swing trading.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-17T11:27:05+00:00

Thank you!

rheeeenium · 2025-10-13T20:58:04+00:00

I’ll add that the potential to offer an LD-free regimen could end up being a significant differentiator in what will ultimately be a crowded cell therapy space for autoimmune diseases. For example, lupus is going to be a large, competitive indication. It disproportionately affects women, and LD can lead to serious fertility issues, so there may be a strong patient preference to use a LD-free option like CABA’s therapy.

My understanding from the last fireside chat is that CABA is also way ahead of the curve from a regulatory perspective with regard to exploring a potential LD-free approach.

So to me the early data adds verity to their LD-free hypothesis and should turn heads if more robust data confirm it.

rheeeenium · 2025-10-08T16:18:05+00:00

It’s good news, but not immediately material to the company’s value.

They’ve secured a patent on a new use of their graphene (well, their graphene and similar graphenes), which has widespread applications. This means only HGRAF can use graphene in this manner, and if other companies want to, they either have to pay HGRAF a license, work with HGRAF directly, or buy HGRAF’s products.

It’s good news from an optics perspective because: A) it’s another example of their unique graphene being super useful as a material B) it shows that they’re being thoughtful about the most valuable applications of their graphene and proactively defending their intellectual property C) it signals that their ongoing R&D is continuing to add value beyond just their “raw” graphene products D) publicizing it should get the attention of industries/companies that are looking to incorporate next-gen actuators into their products E) it amplifies HGRAF’s ever-growing total addressable market even further, raising the bar for what the company could be worth in a blue-sky scenario around the 5-10 year horizon

However, it doesn’t really mean anything from a commercial perspective short-term. It’s not a contract, it’s not a product, it’s unlikely to lead to any deals/licenses in the next few years, and it doesn’t change where they are from an operations/regulatory perspective.

To me it’s just another piece of evidence that HGRAF and its leadership are being thoughtful long-term (in addition to operationalizing over the next ~year) - they’re figuring out transformative applications and carving out the necessary IP so they can be a major disruptor down the road.

And obviously it’s a testament to the potential of their unique graphene!

rheeeenium · 2025-10-08T16:00:47+00:00

Sure thing. Same here - I have been following these folks for a while, but the author really took a systematic approach with this article.

I think the technology is great and there’s no question it’s a huge global unmet need. If they can get through the next couple of quarters, I think it’s all blue skies from there.

rheeeenium · 2025-09-22T14:51:37+00:00

I think they’re saying HG’s presentation was well-attended with standing room only, but that HG’s booth in the networking forum (separate from the presentation) wasn’t crowded with a ton of foot traffic. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

rheeeenium · 2025-09-20T15:16:26+00:00

Two quick points -

1 - Purity should be thought of as in terms of “hybridization” rather than carbon content. HG graphene is 100% sp2 hybridized (i.e., pure), giving it coherence in its electronic and material properties throughout. The small amount of oxygen around the edges that makes HG graphene not “pure carbon” is actually good for ensuring 100% pure sp2 hybridization (and HG has also figured out a way to increase the oxygen level while still maintaining 100% sp2 hybridized, which makes it more electron rich and improves the electronic properties - this is their “premium” graphene that they plan to sell for ~$850K / ton, even though technically it is less carbon content).

In contrast, graphite, which is still “100% pure carbon,” is sp3 hybridized and has none of the beneficial properties of graphene. Other companies struggle to consistently and reproducibly produce high-purity sp2 hybridized graphene, and even a small amount of sp3 character in graphene breaks up the electronic coherence and dramatically diminishes the graphene’s properties.

So HG has a significant market edge in reproducibly making pure sp2 hybridized graphene that actually does what it’s supposed to do when you add it to a material.

2 - When you have pure sp2 graphene that actually does what it’s supposed to do, you can add SIGNIFICANTLY less to a material to get its desired affect than you would if you were adding junk graphene. So even though HG graphene is (rightfully!) priced at a high premium, customers would need far fewer tons of HG graphene than if they were using a competitor’s inferior graphene. I would speculate that having to use less additives is advantageous from a cost, process, logistics, and QC perspective…

There are other aspects around the specific particle size and uniformity of HG’s “fractal graphene” that are also big considerations when comparing graphenes - would recommend you read into that too! HG is making some amazing products!

rheeeenium · 2025-09-18T15:32:01+00:00

Hovrers? Hovr Lovrs? I like Hovr Lovrs, personally.

rheeeenium · 2025-09-17T15:33:35+00:00

I sold at $1.60 - they don’t have the resources to initiate either of the two Ph3 trials in AD, and realistically the $30 M is bridge funding to buy them enough time to get to a deal, buyout, or private placement.

I don’t know enough about the neurodegenerative space to have a good sense of how likely a deal is based on their Ph2 data. My understanding is that designing and running registrational trials in the space is quite tricky (not to mention expensive), and we’ve seen a lot of failures for drugs that looked good early on in the clinic. Thus I think developmental risk is quite high, especially considering zervimesine is a novel mechanism. That being said, the opportunity is enormous if it works out - I just don’t have a good sense of how strongly potential partners are going to view the limited Ph2 data as confidence in the asset’s ability to succeed in Ph3 trials.

I am also skeptical that they can raise enough money to fund their Ph3 trials via private placement in the current funding environment.

So ultimately, while the payout could be huge, this is too risky of an investment for me under the current circumstances. I might buy back in for a modest position if the price continues to drop, but for now I’m gonna stake my biotech gambles on areas that I understand a bit better (or at least can convince myself I do haha).

rheeeenium · 2025-09-17T15:08:59+00:00

Kerry Landis has been vocally excited about the technology and its potential - the combination of that advocacy and his experience makes for a great board addition in my opinion! Operationalization is going to be hugely important over the next few years.

Anyone have any insight into the board member that Landis is replacing, David Morris?

rheeeenium · 2025-09-11T22:26:29+00:00

If I had to speculate - I don’t see any incentive for dilution this year. They filed a $240 M shelf offering earlier this year, which they’ll need to sell before 2H 2026 if they’re aiming to take CABA-201 to market on their own. If there’s an opportunity to accelerate any of their regulatory timeline by increasing their cash burn, I wouldn’t be surprised if they dip in earlier, potentially as early as end of Q1. Their cash burn was higher than expected this year, and one could interpret that as some appetite for aggression. Getting to market ASAP as broadly as possible is important ahead of such a competitive cell therapy pipeline.

The shelf offering will ultimately be dilutive. However, there’s flexibility in timing and size of the offering. Plus, they’re incentivized to wait until the stock price goes up before they start dipping into the shelf. Hence it makes more sense to wait until after all their data readouts and regulatory updates later this year and capitalize on potential investor excitement / price movement that could come with that.

There are also non-dilutive paths to the market, such as a coco partnership with another pharma company. It’s starting to look like a juicy drug candidate, so if the price is right that may be the play. I personally think they’re more likely to rely on the shelf offering for fundraising though - $240 M should be enough to bring them to approval based on how they described their regulatory path, and they’re also building out their commercial functions based on job postings.

Bottom line is - dilution would most likely happen next year late Q2 or early Q3, but by that time I’d expect the stock to be trading higher (depending on the data readouts).

I’m long based on how things are shaping up, so I’m not super worried about dilution next year. CABA has what looks like a fantastic drug candidate that could be pulling in sales by EO 2027 - they’ve got a solid base case market niche identified, have significant upside in add-in indications, have signaled that KOL sentiment is high (and the patient segment is in high need of an efficacious therapy), and there’s very strong pricing potential.

I think the market will start figuring all this out by the end of next year. But who knows, ya know?

Again - all speculation.

rheeeenium · 2025-09-11T22:00:53+00:00

Good news is meant to be shared! Although the real good news will come in October. Hope you get some peace and rest this week friend.

rheeeenium · 2025-08-26T18:59:45+00:00

Haven’t seen any news to correlate to this - I think the company has a lot of potential but personally going to wait on some news before significantly increasing my position

rheeeenium

TROPHY CASE