Anpanman - Let's discuss Scotia's downgrade, which was basically spoon fed by HF short clients

[00:00:06] Speaker A: This is the AST SpaceMobile Podcast.
[00:00:09] Speaker B: It will just basically come to your phone and be seamless regardless of where you are. We don't want the user even to know that it's connected by satellite. Listen, the opportunity that we have is very, very, very large.
[00:00:25] Speaker A: Hey everyone, thanks for joining. I'm, uh, I'm in my car because I'm at my son's soccer practice and I'm waiting outside. So I figured I have about an hour's worth of time, so I figured I'd do the space this evening. But, um, give me a thumbs up if you can hear me. I just want to make sure. I've had problems with in the past, um, doing this from the car because the— I guess like sometimes it connects to the car or connects to my iPods, but let me just see, make sure that people can hear me. Okay, I see thumbs up. So yeah, pretty crazy day. We had this overnight downgrade from Scotia, and I just wanted to talk a little bit about that downgrade, some of the content that's within it, that's, you know, was in the report. that I guess led this analyst, Andres, to downgrade the stock from a valuation perspective. But he threw a bunch of stuff in there. But then also talk a little bit about the dynamics of sell-side research and in particular Scotiabank and this analyst in particular. So maybe I'll just start by saying that the way these investment banks are set up, sell-side research is a tool It's just a tool that investors use, whether it's institutional or retail, but it's kind of a sell-side research is a conduit for information where research analysts, if they're good, they actually provide unique insights. They do valuation work, and if they're good, they're independent and they obviously make calls hopefully you get them right. And then, you know, from that perspective, they build up a reputation. And in an ideal world, you have institutional clients that like speaking to a particular analyst and getting their insights, you know, beyond what's published. They might do calls with them and they'll pay for that. They'll pay for it in a number of ways. It can be hard dollars or soft dollars, but usually it's just commissions. And so When I was at a hedge fund, you know, I would, if I liked particular analysts and I thought they provided value add, then I might direct trades to them and generate commissions, and that's how I'd pay them. And so analysts kind of serve, you know, they kind of have to balance things because they also, you know, obviously interface with the investment banking side. They help facilitate You know, capital markets transactions. And so, you know, they do want to, to the extent possible, they do want to manage their relationships with the companies that they're covering. Like they don't want to get shut out and they want to have some type of rapport with management because in the future there could be investment banking fees, whether that's raising convertible bonds, equity, debt, Oftentimes a company, you know, when they engage with a bank, they will, they will select banks based off of their execution. It might entail also, you know, research coverage, you know, whether that coverage is good or bad. You do need research coverage because that generates institutional interest. Because, you know, oftentimes when, when investors first want to learn about a company, you know, they'll, they'll obviously look through company filings, go through transcripts, earnings calls, but they'll also look at research reports. Because the Street, even though everyone likes to poo-poo the Street, you know, research analysts, they are important because they form what is called consensus. And so when they do their projections, they project out estimates, and then those estimates are all aggregated and form what is consensus, whether that's First Call or Bloomberg, you know, an average of estimates, which then companies, of course, like, you know, on a quarterly basis, they will either beat, meet, or come under estimates for that particular quarter. And then obviously people will look for guidance, whether it's the next quarter or full-year guidance. And so, so yeah, analysts do play an important role in Wall Street and some are good, some are bad. And in particular, this analyst, what's interesting is that Andres actually started writing about AST SpaceMobile, I guess it was like in 2022, 2021. And he kind of wrote it, wrote about AST from a tangential perspective because he actually is the LATAM, he covers Latin American MNOs and tower companies. And so he started writing about AST kind of out of interest. He probably has, I mean, maybe he got some exposure through Abel or somebody, I don't know, but He didn't actually cover the company. So he wrote about the company because it was, in his view, it was going to impact the players in Latin America. So these tower companies, like he wrote several pieces where it's like, hey, these tower companies are going to get hammered eventually because AST's technology is game-changing to the point where, you know, MNOs aren't going to spend CapEx. And so, you know, this technology is going to be that disruptive where Not only, you know, tower companies are gonna get disrupted because there's not gonna be the CapEx needed to spend on, you know, tower expansion, but then also MNOs, like the MNOs who have this service are going to, and this was part of the thesis that I wrote about back in 2021, but this service was kind of like a kingmaker, right? Like if you can offer your customers 100% broadband coverage and you're offering that to a subscriber base versus, you know, another MNO that can't offer that, then that would be a huge competitive advantage. It was like, and Abel, you know, referenced this example too, but it was like, it's like akin to AT&T selling the iPhone when they had the exclusivity for several years. Like AT&T took a tremendous amount of share from Verizon and T-Mobile because everybody wanted an iPhone and AT&T's network. frankly, back then wasn't geared to handle all that data, all the data demands from the iPhone. And so, um, that was like a pretty interesting time, but, but, um, to the extent that carriers had exclusivity with AST SpaceMobile, that, that was going to be a big competitive edge. And so, um, so yeah, this guy was like pretty early and he was very bullish on the name. And over the years, eventually, you know, he also leveraged SpaceMob research, you know, referenced Base of Mob quite a bit. And candidly, like, there's been a few of us who've interacted with him. But then, you know, it's, and then he finally initiated coverage on the company, which is good for Scotiabank from a commercial perspective because they did participate in some of these financings. And, you know, they were not, they weren't lead arrangers, you know, joint, they weren't book runners for the equity offerings or converts, but they were or the ATMs, but they were, you know, co-managers, you know, smaller managers that got paid some amount. But over time, what was interesting is that this analyst, you know, heading up, he was quite bullish. He had like the highest price target on the street. And then I think over the summer, over this past summer, clearly like whether they were short sellers or also people who own Starlink, SpaceX, um, you know, private shares. And there's quite a few people who, who own SpaceX shares. They actually short Rocket Lab and AST SpaceMobile as kind of a sector hedge. But clearly, like, a number of these people got to him, right? And they turned him. And, and I heard this from, like, a few people who, who have had conversations with him where his tone completely— it was like an overnight change, right? Like in June when he came out that negative report, and downgraded the company. He went from buy to, I think it was like sell actually. Maybe it was. Yeah. And then, yeah, it was a buy to sell 'cause the stock, you know, the stock had, was performing well and then it is sell. But then he went to, when it did eventually pull back, he went to underweight 'cause he was like, oh yeah, the valuation has cooled off. And then he went back to sell obviously now. But it's interesting because like when he went negative, The talking points that he had, all the bullish talking points like went out the window. And then all of a sudden he was basically repeating the same shit that we've been seeing from these harebrained short sellers for the last 5 years. Like, I mean, if you look at the report today, it's basically the same stuff, right? Like, I think Anthony Boza over at Lakewood says the same thing. It's like, oh, well, Starlink's going to crush these guys and it's going to be game over and there's going to be no breathing room for anybody. And it's like, Guys, this is a duopoly. Like there's no, it's not gonna be a winner-take-all market. No one's ever said that. And yeah, Starlink has gotten 650 satellites up in space. They got a minimally viable product out in space and it sucks. It's a piece of shit. Like it does texting and it can't do voice over LTE, like through these like dumbed-down apps. It can do some some amount of like data and messaging, but it's not broadband, right? And then, and of course, like, you know, SpaceX comes out and says, hey, well, we're going to sell you a bill of goods market, like, because we're raising a shit ton of money, we're going to go public because we really need the money. Like, you know, one of the things that's kind of funny is like people assume that SpaceX has money coming out of their ears. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't have paid EchoStar SpaceX stock. They would've just paid them all cash. Like, why would you dilute shareholders and issue stock to EchoStar and let them ride, right? Ride the upside. You would just pay them cash, but they didn't because they didn't have cash. And so, you know, obviously like Starlink has scaled up and it does generate cash, but it's not as if, you know, when you blow up like several Starships every few months, like that costs money. And so So anyway, like the, this whole idea where I think Mach 33 and, you know, I respect those guys, like they're long SpaceX and it's part of, you know, they're, they research, they, you know, they're just like us, right? Like they, they talk their book. And, and I think, what was it? SpaceX recently put out this annual report and they're talking about like V3. It's going to be, it's like the next, it's the biggest thing since sliced bread. Like the satellite's going to perform And I guess I'll go into detail a little later, Scotia, but it's going to have multiples of performance of V2 and it's going to be great and it's going to be dispensed from Starship and they're going to have their own silicon and, you know, it's going to be game over, right? And it's funny because like if you kind of dig into the details, it's like Starship's not viable right now. I mean, I don't know when, maybe the next generation will be successful and God bless, like, I hope it is for them. But to get to a commercial cadence, it's going to take some time. And V3 is dependent on that. And in this report that Scotia talks about, they're like, oh, they're going to have this new ASIC and it's going to be gangbusters, right? Like, yeah, it could be gangbusters, but you're talking about something that's not going to happen until '27 or '28. Like, the ASIC is still in development. Like, even today, Starlink satellites all use FPGAs. Like, they don't have their own ASIC. And we actually, AST SpaceMobile took the last 5 years to spin up and tape out an ASIC, and now they're producing it. And so this stuff takes time. Like, I think if you talk to SpaceX bulls, like, they'll tell you that the ASIC that that SpaceX has been developing, they probably have, you know, 12 months of development already under their belt, and maybe it's going to take another year and a half. But as we've seen just from our own experience, like, it takes a long time, and you have to iterate that. And, you know, maybe you're lucky and the first one that comes out is flawless, but it actually takes iterations. Like, you have to go back, fix some, you know, correct some things, and, you So a 2, 2.5-year development timeline, which I think SpaceX bulls would say is what they're targeting, like that's a very short timeline. If you talk to anybody who designs semiconductors, like ASICs take, you know, 3, 4, or 5 years of development. So anyway, I mean, maybe they've, you know, maybe they've, they're able to accelerate that, throw money at the problem. Who knows? Right. But But anyway, I think it's a bit rich to say that V3 is going to do all these things, but yet it's not. I mean, it depends on Starship and then a lot of these features are going to, you know, we'll see, like it's going to, they actually have to make the satellite and, you know, go through the same process that we are. And, but yeah, so it's interesting that this Scotia analyst, and this is the dynamic I want to talk about, like, If you work at a hedge fund who's paying a shitload of commission dollars to the street, and in particular, like, let's say if you're at Point72 and you pay a lot of money to Scotia, which by the way, like Scotia's a third-tier bank and they'll get money, they'll, you know, their meat and butter, their bread and butter is probably Canadian listed names. You know, they do some stuff in the US, but, you know, for them to get any commission dollars, from trading is like a pretty big deal, right? And so if you're one of these large hedge funds who's short AST, and, you know, I was talking to one of the Space Mom members who actually is still at a hedge fund, and this guy was talking about how a fund he knows is short AST in size. He wouldn't say who it is, which is fine. Like, I don't, you know, I can imagine whoever that might be, but they're short in size and it was a huge negative impact for them in 2025. And of course, for 2026, it's it's been a nightmare. It's not good, right? And so, I mean, imagine like writing a letter to your LPs and you're short this company that went from, you know, $20 to $100. And, you know, how do you, your thesis is basically the everyman's thesis, which is, you know, Starlink's going to crush these guys. They have all these satellites already up and then you lose a ton of money on it. And so how do you, How do you face LPs? And you're like, oh, you know, in 2025 it didn't work, but I guarantee you like 2026 it's going to work, right? Like, yeah, the company, forget about the fact that the company has $3 billion of capital raised and, you know, they're about to embark on this multi-launch campaign and the Department of Defense has like 9 contracts with these guys and they're about to, you know, dole out a big Golden Dome award, you know, Verizon and all the, and AT&T and Vodafone and Google, like they all have commercial agreements with these guys. Yeah, forget about that stuff. Like, trust me, 2026, this trade's going to work. And oh yeah, yeah, forget about like the administration saying that space dominance and, you know, having strategic superiority is like a key focus. And the FCC is like backing these guys and, you know, forget all that. Like this trade, I guarantee you, like it's going to work. Like I read the Scotia report today and and fair value's like 55. So I'm going to make, I'm going to, we're going to make some of our money back. Like, forget that we were short at 20, we got our faces ripped off. Now the short went against us up to 100, but we're going to try to make some of our money back. Like, that's awful. That's terrible. Like, if I was an LP, I would pull my money out because clearly, like, there's no risk management and/or like research. But in particular, like when it comes to Scotia, what's interesting is as I was going back, sorry, I went off on a tangent, but in June they changed their tone and they went from being outright bulls, right? And bulls to the point where they were, you know, they actually, and the reason why I was saying spoon-fed today is like, that is totally possible with these guys, right? Because like they were, taking a lot of points from Space Mob and, um, and incorporating that into the research. And then you've got, you know, I don't know what the exact process, you know, how it unfolded, but, um, you know, you had these hedge funds probably get to Andres and his team, you know, whisper in their ear, like, what about SpaceX? There's all these things happening. And then, you know, in research, there are, there are times when you have the director of research come to you and it's like, you know, are you sure about this company? Because like they're getting heat from, You know, the prime broker side, like, okay, this hedge fund is a really important client of Scotia. They have a lot of assets here and they trade, they trade quite a bit. We're maybe we're doing stuff with them on the credit side. And so they're giving us like, you know, they're putting pressure on us to reevaluate like our view on this company. And, you know, it's like, it's kind of a dirty secret in Wall Street. Like it totally happens. Like if you disagree with an analyst, one of the things you do is like, as a PM or an analyst, you call them up and you argue with them, right? And you try to get them over to your side. But then there's other ways to kind of bend people to your will. And that's the thing is, is like corporate issuance for Scotia, like they're going to make some decent amount of money from commissions paid to them by the company. But then what's And that's for like, again, the offerings. But what's going to be bigger for them is trading commissions, right? And so if you have trading commissions and prime brokerage, right? And so if you have a hedge fund client that is really important to you, you're going to listen to them, right? And so this, the timing of this report, I think, you know, obviously, you know, the stock started ramping. You know, they changed their rating to neutral, I think, when the stock was you know, had this, had a pullback back in November. And then, of course, the timing now is like, hey, right before all these positive things are going to happen and the stock is like working, they downgrade it because they, from a valuation perspective, to sell, which is going to, on the one hand, like people say, well, these analysts don't matter, but it does matter to algos and trading and sentiment and momentum indicators and all these things, right? Like these are all inputs that people use to trade. And so what happened is, you know, they downgraded the stock. Whoever was short, they bailed them out. The stock, you know, came off. This morning I actually took advantage because I actually had a decent amount of call options, which, you know, for luck or— yeah, primarily luck. But since they had, you know, I'd done quite well on them, I monetized more than half of them. Yesterday. And so I had a bunch of cash and I had some additional cash as well. And so today I actually used the dip to reload some of my risk. And, you know, who knows, like the stock may pull back more, but given what we have kind of in front of us and, you know, I joked about this before about how people shorts are going to be surprised as they enter the meat grinder. I do think that we are about to enter a meat grinder because based off of our due diligence, there's like a number of things that are kind of cooking in the hopper that could come out anytime now. Right. And so, and I think these are like game-changing type of things. And so I think being short, yeah, you got a day of reprieve from Scotia. You know, it took you spoon-feeding this analyst. who initially like kind of thought on their own, but clearly now they're getting spoonfed what to write. But it took that for you to get a day reprieve, which, you know, God bless you. Like, that's the game. That's the investing game. Like, there's an aspect of Wall Street where you, you know, this is part of the dynamics, right? Like, people go to war, they try to influence analysts, whether that's through words or monetarily. And they tried to get things going their way, right? And that's similar to what, you know, quite frankly, what Space Mob does. Like we, it's like the first time where retail kind of works together and through due diligence and, and, you know, work like, oh yeah, you get people to work together as a collective and, you know, underwrite an investment and kind of spread awareness. Like that's never been done before. Whereas like, hedge funds and all these other institutions, like that's been the game for a long time and retail's never had access to that, whether it's like going to idea dinners or, you know, people don't, people, it's a dirty word, but people do, they do coordinate. I mean, it happens all the time. Like activist investors coordinate, they form wolf packs, they go after companies, they do all kinds of shit. So yeah, it's, you know, when I, when I look at what happened today, it's not, I mean, it's not a surprise. Like clearly Costello, when you, Coelho, when you read his stuff, he's being spoon-fed a lot of these points by, you know, short sellers, which actually gives me quite a bit of comfort, right? Because like when I read this stuff, it's just completely harebrained. It doesn't make any sense. Like, and maybe, maybe that's a good segue to kind of start Going through this. I mean, so let's take a look at his note here. So he starts off like, you know, downgraded to sell based off evaluation. Starlink space leadership means ASTS faces an uphill battle. What leadership are they talking about? Like, if you're talking about direct-to-cell, yeah, Starlink has 650 satellites orbiting the Earth. They're in very low Earth orbit because they can't They can't actually make the link budget work and provide any decent amount of data throughput. So they actually had to lower those things originally. If people remember, those were supposed to fly at like, I think, 550 kilometers, but now they're at 350. So they had to bring them closer to Earth in order to communicate with cell phones. And hopefully they, by doing that, they didn't have to increase the power. And then we've— I don't have to go into the whole rigmarole of talking about interference, but, but yeah, like Starlink had to make a lot of adjustments in order to get their solution to work, and it doesn't work that great. The other thing I would note is that by orbiting in very low Earth orbit, their satellites don't have much time out in space because when you do that, they, it requires a lot of energy to keep them at that orbit, and then eventually They'll fall. And as we've read recently, Starlink, for the fixed wireless service, they're actually lowering the orbits of all their satellites. You know, there's like various debates as to why they're doing that. But yeah, it's what that is going to increase is, you know, more deorbits of these things are going to burn up in the atmosphere from an environmental perspective. That's pretty bad. But I guess for SpaceX, that means that they get to launch more rockets. And so, you know, that keeps the circular money machine going, I guess. But anyway, but yeah, so this initial, I guess this headline, it doesn't make sense because like, yeah, ASTS faces an uphill battle. Well, like against who? Like Starlink Direct to Cell is not a competitor. They're making inroads and I'll give them that. And they have a service, an MVP, a minimally viable product, but it's not broadband. And, um, you know, I, I can go more into that, um, as we read through this thing. But, but yeah, so, um, this guy starts it out, uh, without a single retail customer and facing challenges of orbiting 50 satellites for continuous service. Um, the, the, the stock price is priced basically for perfection, right? Like it's overshot to irrational levels. And so, you know, AST has a market cap of $37 billion. That's irrational, right? Because, you know, Starlink and SpaceX going, you know, raising capital at $800 billion and then of course going public at $1.5 trillion next year, or sorry, this year, sorry, in 6 months, $1.5 trillion in 6 months. That's rational. But for AST to have a market cap of $37 billion, That's irrational. So let's get, let's get that out of the way. What's funny is like, then this guy says like evidence of slow user adoption in the US and Japan, modest ARPOs and high CapEx, which I mean, and he talks about like the fact that you need duplicate satellites for new frequencies. Like, where's this guy been? Like, didn't you know that there are 2 shells of satellites that will be up? One is low band and the other one is mid band. Like, Did this guy think that you could do, you could serve low band and mid band frequencies all from the same satellite? I hope he, I hope he didn't assume that, but you know, whatever. I guess maybe he just learned that or, or maybe a short seller was like, hey, did you know that the satellites actually can't do low band and mid band? You actually need 2 different ones. But yeah, that's, it's kind of weird that, that this guy didn't know that. But, but going back to Evidence of slow user adoption. Like this guy's making a comparison to Starlink's service that it's been, there's been slow adoption there, which of course, like, yeah, of course there, this, there's been slow adoption because the service sucks. Like it's, it's low band. It's not full broadband. You've got to use dumbed down apps. And so it's not, it's not seamless. And so the adoption, you know, he talks about like the US and Japan. You know, in Japan, Japan has pretty good cell coverage. And so I don't think that's probably a good, you know, analog to what the adoption's going to be in the US, which is a much bigger country. You have, you know, 70% of the country that's not covered by cell coverage, right? In Japan, obviously there are, you know, in mountainous areas and And, you know, obviously there's also the other aspect of Japan, which is not just 100% coverage, but it's also disaster recovery where ideally in Japan, you'll have a first responder type of network because unfortunately Japan has earthquakes and, you know, typhoons and all these other natural disasters. But anyway, I think trying to use Japan as a comparison doesn't make sense. And then of course, For T-Mobile in the US, like, you're offering basically the same service as Apple's, you know, Globalstar. And so I don't really think that's a good comparison, although, you know, based off— but then this guy like also admits like, you know, T-Mobile hasn't disclosed the numbers. So I have no idea like where he's getting assumptions. But anyway, but it's funny because like then he talks about how Starlink's accelerated fixed wireless growth and global brand recognition means that AST competes with a leader that already has, in terms of revenue, the equivalent of 340 million direct-to-cell users. So like, so this is like some real like mental contortion. It's like, what are you talking about? Like you're comparing, you're saying the revenue that they generate from fixed wireless is the equivalent of this many on direct-to-cell. And so they're going to be a dominant leader, which it doesn't make any sense. Like you're comparing 2 separately separate different markets that are not comparable. One is, you know, basically like high-speed broadband internet to your home. And then the other one is direct-to-cell, like broadband to your cell phone. Like it's apples and oranges, right? And so what's funny is like this guy says, because they have accelerated growth on the fixed wireless side, like it's game over for AST, which it's like, yeah, I really don't know what to do with that. Right. And he also talks about like global brand recognition. And so yeah, Starlink has global brand recognition. That's their game. They spend a lot of money on that because what are they doing? They're selling dish terminals directly to consumers. And so people need to know that, oh, this is a Starlink service. I'm going to get this instead of Spectrum or Verizon Fios or, you know, some, you know, Charter Communications, like I'm not going to get broadband internet from them. I need to go call Starlink and order a dish terminal that they send to my house and then sign up for the service. So of course they're going to have more brand recognition. Like that's how they sell their service. And AST is not in that business. In a perfect world, AST SpaceMobile people who use the service, they're not going to know about AST. Like, we are a wholesaler. We provide a white label service that AT&T is going to use. And God bless, like, AT&T, they've continued to say our name and, and, you know, social media accounts, whoever runs that, you know, hypes up AST SpaceMobile. But for all intents and purposes, like, we're, we're the infrastructure layer. We're the provider of the constellation reusing, you know, reusing their spectrum for the low band stuff. And so AT&T and Verizon, at the end of the day, like when they go to their customers, it's going to be Verizon satellite service or it's going to be AT&T satellite service. It's not going to be T-Mobile TSEP powered by Starlink, right? Like AST SpaceMobile is not going to be that. And that's not our aim. Like, but that's why the business model works as well as it does because we don't have to spend any marketing. Starlink has to spend marketing because they have to go get fixed wireless customers and And ultimately, um, you know, we, we joke about this Trojan horse, but it's true. Like Starlink eventually will get into the wireless business. Like I think whether they do that, um, through an MVNO partnership, you know, maybe they'll start Starlink Mobile and they'll, they'll, um, you know, they'll, they'll resell service from T-Mobile and then, um, and then of course leverage their satellites too. Maybe they'll do that at some point in the future, but that's not in AST SpaceMobile's cards. Like, The company is a wholesaler and works in partnership with the MNOs. And so branding is not something that matters to the company. The only people who care about branding are quite frankly us, you know, because we're out there kind of vandalizing like what the company's doing and the investment. But for all intents and purposes, like the company does not want to spend any money on branding. That's up to AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, Rakuten, you know, Orange, you know, Satco JV, Google, you name it, like all those other guys, they're spending the money. And that's why the business model, that's why you're able to get eventually like EBITDA margins that are going to be 90% because you're not spending, like Cook would say, you're not spending money on customer acquisition costs. Right. And, and, you know, I'd be really interested to see How much Starlink spends on customer acquisition costs? And again, this is just for the fixed wireless business. But but yeah, this guy is like he's comparing two two different things. Like he's saying because Starlink is dominant in fixed wireless and they have brand recognition, it's gonna be hard for AST Space Mobile to catch up. And it's like AST Space Mobile is not in that business. They it's direct to sell, it's broadband, and they're selling through MNOs. Like they don't want brand awareness. MNOs They want the MNOs to go in their selling motion to customers and say, hey, here's broadband. Maybe they'll say it's powered by AST, maybe not, but they'll say, here's broadband, it works. And do you want to pay $15 a month more or $20 a month more or a day pass for $10 or whatever it is, right? Or if you're on your, if you're flying on your airplane, you're just going to use it. Like you're going to bypass this Starlink, you know, service that, that's on United. You'll just connect to your phone directly to satellite. But anyway, but yeah, so, so this guy's saying that, and this is the type of shit that, like, if you go to hedge fund idea dinner, and you have like some guy who's short your name, this is the type of shit that they would say. They would be like, well, you know, Starlink has the equivalent of 340 million direct to global direct to sell customers, which is 680 million. equivalent of that by the time ACE Team launches in select markets. It's like, what are you— you're making shit up. Like, it doesn't make any sense. Like, you're basically like trying to throw scary numbers out there. And this is what, by the way, like activist short sellers do too. They create these big numbers that are scary, but then you look at it and it's like, this makes— this analysis makes no sense. Like, you're telling me that fixed wireless revenues, which are clearly like the ARPU's are higher, right? Like, Someone's paying $80, $100, $150 a month for all-you-can-eat internet at your home. That's a very different proposition than, you know, sporadic use on your mobile phone when you're out, like you're going to pay $15, $20 for peace of mind, right? And I think this is another point that people forget, which is like, you know, there you have these bears that say, well, you know, it's a luxury, no one's going to pay for it and it's not going to get used that much. Yeah, that's true. That's 100% true. It is a luxury, number one. And number two, it is a service that's not gonna get paid, you know, that's not gonna be used that much. It's gonna be used sporadically, right? Like those times that you don't have coverage, you're gonna, but those are the times often when you need coverage, that's when you're gonna use it. And that's why that's the beauty of the model, which is like the amount of subscribers that you can actually serve on the constellation is massive because not everybody's using it at the same time. And then, but then people will push back and say, well, why would I need that? And it's like, well, you do know, like when you use your cell phone, you pay whatever it is, like $100, $60 to $100, $120 for the privilege of using that cell phone for about maybe 5% of the day. Like you're the 5% where you're out and about and you use it. Like you pay that huge premium to use that phone. But most of the time, like that phone, you're looking at it and it's connected to Wi-Fi. It's either in the office or it's in the home, right? Or it's indoors somewhere where you've, you're connected to some, you know, some Wi-Fi or hotspot, right? And so, like, think about that. People pay this massive premium to use your cell phone for about 10% of the day, 5% of the day. You pay Verizon, you pay AT&T for that. And so for satellite services, like you're, you know, I went skiing this past weekend and The entire mountain, the only, only in the lodges could you get service. And then outside of that, like there was no service whatsoever. And so my, my wife is like on Amazon looking at all these walkie-talkie solutions and yes, we're going back to that shit. Like, 'cause the kids are older now and they, they, they want to go ski on their own. And it's like, my God, like when, when we do have Mm-hmm. AST SpaceMobile service, like we won't have to buy these damn walkie-talkies. to stay in touch with the kids. Like they can just use their, their Apple Watches, which, you know, on the mountain they don't work because there's no wireless service. And so, you know, am I going to pay? Maybe I'm not, you know, maybe I'm not your like model customer. Maybe I'm at the higher end, I guess. But I would pay $15 a month more for that so that I can communicate with my kids during ski season. And then on top of that, you know, we've talked about this before, but like if your kids get lost You know, for example, in New York, like if they're on the subway and they get lost and they're in this area where there's no cell reception, like that's unacceptable. Like I'm paying the premium for that, right? Or if your kids, I don't know if you're, if you live in Boulder, Colorado and you have teenagers and I don't know, they go out drinking on the mountain somewhere and there's no cell reception and something bad happens. Like you want connectivity all the time. You want to be able to keep tabs on them. You want them to be able to call you. Like for the price of 2 cups of coffee a month or 3 cups of coffee, I mean, coffee's pretty expensive now. You're, you're gonna tell your wife like, you're not gonna subscribe to that. Like you're, you'd be nuts. You'd be insane. Right. Um, and so, yeah, I mean, this past weekend was a, a great reminder of the fact that there is no coverage. Um, even in this developed, you know, in New York State, uh, you know, in, in an area where there's a ton of people doing this, you know, doing activities and they've got disposable income. There's no cell coverage. And so there's, there is a huge market for this. But anyway, I guess I'm going really slow because I'm not even through the first paragraph. But yeah, it's, I guess like this guy is refraining. Let me see here. You know, it's been an ordeal that the company has launched 7 satellites since 2017. Again, this is the type of shit like short sellers write. Yeah, since 2017, the company just started in 2017. Like, They didn't get their first satellite up, BlueWalker 1, until I guess it was like 2019 to prove it, to do testing and proof of concept. But like, if you want to play that game, let's go back to when Starlink started and how long it took, or SpaceX started. I mean, you know, I use this as an example, like, if you want to play that game, like SpaceX Starship was supposed to be landing on the moon 3 years ago. like 2022. Like, guy, this stuff is hard. It takes time. It takes longer than you think. And the way that the mentality works in space industry is like you set aggressive timelines because you need suppliers, you know, your employees, you need everybody to work towards a specific goal. And if you set something that is more realistic, and I put that in quotes, like you're gonna slip beyond that, right? And so you do set aggressive timelines. And so I think like, um, the fact, you know, this guy's saying that the company's only put up 7 satellites, but then Starlink in 2025 alone orbited 3,169 units. Um, yeah, but we're, again, we're talking about like apples and oranges, right? Like those, those Starlink satellites that were sent up to space are, what is it? V2s and V2.5s. They're much smaller, right? And that's for fixed wireless. And And in order to scale the fixed wireless network, they need to keep sending those things up, right? It's interesting to see, like, you know, Starlink actually hasn't expanded the 650 direct-to-cell satellites. I wonder why. You know, I could speculate as to, you know, they obviously are trying to improve the service and they're going to try to do that with V3. But why aren't they sending more direct-to-cell satellites up in space? Why are they stuck at the 650? So anyway, but yeah, it's this guy, I guess, to earn some credibility back. He says, we disagree with those seeing ASTS as a meme stock. And so clearly, like, there he's telling you, like, yeah, we talked to a lot of short sellers and in order to kind of cloak this as somewhat of a balanced report, we disagree with those short sellers who say this is a meme stock. And, you know, they say, The technology remains highly disruptive, has potential dual use, but we also disagree with those dismissing AST's multi-year delays and Starlink's unstoppable growth. Okay. And so they use that as justification that the company should be valued more at $45 a share. So going back to the valuation, like, you know, you've heard people, whether that's Cook or, you know, I see like Endless out there, Orion. Yeah, there's, let's talk about valuation. Like the company is, if it was worth $37 billion, you know, we can do some of the parts like Legato is probably worth $15 billion. And so you're getting commercial business for, I don't know, $20 billion as of yesterday's valuation, that is, but you're getting it for $20 billion and that doesn't even count like the military side. Right. And so, Any which way you cut it, like, I think the valuation is justified based off of the potential for the business. And we're at this point now, you know, what's funny about this research report is like they don't talk about the company's— they focus on the fact that it's taken longer than people expected. And I give them that. You know, for example, they talk about like how the company in, let me see, I think in late 2020, the company was guiding to having 110 satellites in orbit by 2023. And so yeah, clearly things slipped, like it took longer to develop. The capital markets also shut down. You know, the company went public right as, you know, the same year as the, you know, SPAC bubble kind of blew up and then rates went through the roof in 2022. And so that all, for all intents and purposes, like all the growth companies got completely hammered and then, you know, capital markets were pretty much closed. And so the company had to slow down. But yeah, it's, so yeah, we're, you can look back and say like it took longer, just like it took SpaceX longer to get Falcon 9 going. It's taking them longer to get Starship going. For Starlink direct-to-cell, I think based off of their original projections, they were off by 2 years because they said they were going to get beta service going in 2022, and then it took them till 2024, second half of 2024. So yeah, this stuff takes, it takes longer, right? And, but in this report, you know, he talks about how the fact that it's taken so long that, you know, that should dock the company, which, you know, fair enough, like, but they're getting up to their production cadence, and I do expect like we're going to hear relatively soon, um, an update on that. And, and also, you know, we, I guess we, we have talked about it to a degree, but I think FM2, uh, which is BB7, like that's, that's an SDA halo satellite or that, you know, they're going to be doing SDA stuff on that satellite. And I think, um, that one is going to go up on Blue Origin New Glenn. And so, you know, probably just based off of timing, you know, that that probably is going to happen sometime in early February. And then you've got 2 batches of Block 2 Bluebirds that will go up on Falcon 9. That will probably happen, I think, early February and late February. So yeah, we're at this point where we went through production hell and we're ramping up cadence for production and we're launching satellites, right? And so So yeah, it's kind of funny because like this guy's valuation has stayed static. Like it's been $45, $42 to $45. Like whenever the company does a financing, it's kind of funny. Like this guy includes the incremental dilution and then adjusts his stock price target. Like, so like $1.50 or $2, which is kind of funny. But, and we'll talk about his modeling in a little bit, but yeah, so it's It's taking longer, but we're now— what's funny is like we're at the cusp of launch and this guy is downgrading stock, which, you know, more power to him. Like, uh, he, maybe he's looking to make a name for himself. I mean, clearly he has amongst Space Mob, but, um, as I said before, I think he's doing, you know, some of his, his short seller, um, hedge fund clients as a service. But here, let me just take a look here. So again, he reiterates like Starlink is the absolute leader on satellite fixed broadband with over 150 countries. So what? Okay, I get it. Like, who cares? Like, yeah, there are economies of scale obviously that, you know, for on the production side, things that you learn about building satellites there, there are some, they're obviously production economies of scale and efficiencies that you can leverage. And, you know, the platform is similar for the fixed wireless satellite and the direct-to-cell satellite. And, you know, it's unclear at this point, like if they will have separate satellites or they'll just be hosted all on one satellite, which if they do, that's a lot of stuff going on. And then of course, you know, Elon's talking about putting data center applications on that satellite too. So I don't— I don't ultimately know like what that satellite's going to look like. But again, this guy confuses like fixed wireless leadership with direct-to-cell. Like immediately that means that they're going to be an absolute leader in direct-to-cell, which again, like there's room for 2 players. AST has the most MNOs and the most, at least today in terms of addressable TAM, they've got 3 billion subscribers and You know, Starlink has, I think they've ramped up to like 20s now in terms of MNOs. But again, a lot of these companies are small. They're not really big players. And so we'll see. But what's funny is like, as you move on, again, he talks about like how Starlink's global ARPU is, you know, average revenue per user is $85 a month versus what AST is going to have, which is going to be lower because obviously it's direct to cell. Again, this is the type of stuff that a short seller would say to you, like, oh, these guys have much higher average revenue per user versus what AST is doing. It's like, yeah, Sherlock, like, no shit. It's a completely different service. But then it's kind of funny because like this guy talks about how the, you know, Starlink is going to, you know, the rumors that they're going to launch service with a Mexican MNO, which I think is Telcel, which quite frankly, like, I'll be honest, I don't really know the Mexican market that well. But I guess what's funny is like the guy doesn't write about the fact that the company is working with Altan. Is it Altan or Atlant? Atlant in Mexico, which is government owned. And so for those that don't know, Atlant is, they own 70% or sorry, they own 700 MHz spectrum in Mexico that covers the entire country. It's basically like a government concession where the government tasks them to blanket the entire country with wireless coverage. They, the previous entity before went bankrupt before accomplishing that, and then the government took it over. But now ASD Space Mobile is testing service with them because that company is a wholesaler. Is the whole goal of that company is to enable additional competition in Mexico. So provide basically like wholesale services to any MVNO or MNO. And so conveniently, this guy doesn't talk about the fact that AST is working with the Mexican government to provide broadband connectivity to Mexico. He just, he's focused on the potential that maybe Carlos Slim or somebody else might work with Starlink to do direct-to-cell, which by the way, like I doubt it's Carlos Slim because If you guys will remember, Elon Musk called Carlos Slim like a drug dealer. So, and then Carlos Slim said he's never working with Starlink. So I don't think it's them. But anyway, yeah, so, but it's funny because like this guy talks about how losing Mexico is somehow going to mean like it's game over for the rest of the globe. Like, you know, he's already working with the Mexican government. They're going to provide 100% coverage to the country. And so you're not even talking about that. But then let's say even if they do lose Mexico, lose meaning one of the players there decides to work with Starlink, which means like the other players probably will work with AST. But that doesn't mean you can't project that forward to mean like AST is going to lose global leadership. It doesn't make any sense. Like if you want to play that game, let's talk about Europe. Like Starlink is pretty much locked out of Europe except for Ukraine. But in terms of Europe's European focus on sovereignty, like Vodafone, the Satco JV, I think Europe is going to be locked up. And, and AST is going to get the 2 GHz of MSS spectrum that's going to be allocated in May of 2027, which I don't think EchoStar is going to get that because I think the EU will totally look through EchoStar. You know, they'll look through that veil and know that ultimately it's going to be Starlink that's asking for that spectrum. And they're not going to get it. Or if they do, they're going to get an allocation of 5 by 5 or maybe 10 by 10, but AST will get a 10 by 10 allocation as well. So anyway, but yeah, it's, yeah, when you read this stuff, it's, again, it's like something that you would expect from a short seller if you're at this idea dinner where they're just trying to like, you know, hem and haw and look, make something sound really You know, fantastic that, oh, this, these guys have the equivalent of 340 million direct-to-cell customers based off of their Starlink fixed wireless numbers, which, you know, that's by revenue. It's like, it doesn't make sense. Like you're not comparing apples to apples here. Anyway, let me go through this. Well, I'm already at like 50 minutes. But yeah, this guy talks about like how AST's like losing timing advantage, whether it's 48 hours. I don't know where the 48 hours come from, but yeah, if you talk to Scott and he said this publicly, like they think they're a good 5 years ahead of everyone else. And that means like Starlink and everyone else because they're doing actual broadband, unlike what Starlink is doing. And yeah, it's a race. It's not really a race against Starlink because again, the market structure is probably going to be a duopoly. It's really a race against time, you know, themselves, because obviously, you know, they've raised $3 billion, but every quarter that goes by, they still have fixed operating costs they've got to cover. And there is some risk, right? Like, if you don't deliver service on time to customers, then they'll be unhappy, right? Like, MNOs will be unhappy. However, one of the luxuries of this is that The alternative is Elon Musk, right? And so for an MNO facing that prospect where Starlink's fixed wireless business already competes with what you're doing for 5G home and fiber to home, that's not something you want to do because it's Starlink, they're selling directly to customers. They want to own the customer. And so do you want to invite that Trojan horse where You know, the way that the Starlink direct-to-cell network works is that they actually take the customer and it's off on a separate roaming network. It's not actually integrated into the MNO core. And so, so that's not good, right? But anyway, but yeah, it's, I think when it comes to timing, clearly like the company's had production hell and, you know, customer requirements have changed on the military side. But, you know, we're at the other end of that or almost, and any day now there's going to be quite a bit of news that's going to be positive. And I get, like I said before, I think the Scotia report has given these short sellers some level of reprieve, maybe a day or two, but hopefully they took the advantage of covering some of their positions today because you don't get these often. But let's see, I won't even go into this Netflix analogy, which doesn't make any sense. And for those who haven't seen the report, our Our short seller buddy, Federal Capital, the ultimate inverse, he actually posted it and then he basically highlighted everything in the report, which is kind of funny because literally he can't articulate the short thesis, but Scotia can because everybody, the short sellers have told him that. And so he just posts it without comment. But anyway, but yeah, this whole Netflix analogy, I really don't get. You know, again, this guy talks about like how Starlink, the, I guess he got like wowed by the annual report they put out a few days ago, but, you know, he talks about like how fixed wireless is that it only took, it took them a year to add 1 million subs and then 47 days to hit 9 million subs. Again, like this is comparing apples to oranges, right? Like, I don't understand what this guy's trying to do. So this is a fun one. He, this was a, this was a point he made. I think it was back in June where he was like, Starlink has such an advantage that AST's customers may lose interest in Grow A Patient and then switch to Starlink. And so his claim to fame, of course, was back in June he wrote that. And, and this was like a point that was being echoed by our friend Dim Spacebar, Tim Farrar, who was like, oh, I think Verizon is going to switch to Starlink. And then Like it was 24 hours later when he published that report that Verizon signed their definitive agreement with AST, which is hilarious. Was that September or was— I'm sorry, was that June or was it October? I forget. But anyway, but yeah, so it's funny because like this guy, he's now written about this, I think 3 times about how customers may move, but then in no report has he actually acknowledged that Verizon Signed a defender agreement with AST. And he also does not talk about Saudi Telecom, which is probably like the biggest outside of AT&T and Verizon. Saudi Telecom is probably the biggest win for the entire industry, right? Like you've got this company that has committed to $1.8 billion over 10 years, $175 million prepayment. That's about as good as it gets. And like, if this guy wants to peel back layers of the onion. Like Saudi Telecom is owned by PIF, which is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. PIF also owns a shitload of SpaceX. And they know Elon Musk very well. And so, yeah, like that's a pretty important point of validation. Like Saudi Telecom evaluated Starlink for how many ever years. And at, in October, they signed a deal with AST SpaceMobile, this, this little startup out of Midland, Texas over The giant behemoth that, you know, Scotia is glazing over. They didn't pick them. They picked AST. But funny enough, like this guy hasn't written about it, nor will he write about it because he's, again, he's just kind of reiterating the short sellers' selling points, right? And so this guy also talks about like how, let's see here. I mean, this is a bit of mental gymnastics, but like, You know, Starlink has signed Virgin O2 in the UK. Ooh, that's really scary. Yeah, Starlink signed them because that company, Virgin O2, couldn't sign with anyone else because AST SpaceMobile and Vodafone have exclusivity in the UK. And so even if AST wanted to sell their service to Virgin, they couldn't. And, you know, the other thing that people KDDI and T-DOCOMO and SoftBank have signed with Starlink in Japan. The only reason why that is, is that AST SpaceMobile can't sign with those guys because Rakuten has exclusivity and Rakuten truly believes like AST is going to allow them to differentiate their service and deploy their spectrum more efficiently. And so they, they're the small 4th player in that market. And so they see a tremendous amount of market share grab that they, that they could go after. So why would they give up exclusivity? Um, and so similar to Japan and the UK, um, yeah, Virgin had only one party to sign with and that was Starlink. So I don't know what the big deal is. Um, excuse me. And then let me see here. You know, this guy talks about like EchoStar acquiring the 10 MHz of AWS H block and 40 MHz of AWS 4. Um, that spectrum they acquired, by the way, is for the US only. And so they still have to work out with EchoStar global rights. Um, whether they get those rights, you know, we'll see. Um, but it was only for US. And so I think that is important that that $23 billion Or 20, yeah, sorry, $19 billion for the first transaction. That was only for US spectrum. And so again, that gives you kind of a data point as to, you know, the value for Ligado. But let me look here. So then this guy goes into this like tirade about how the next generation of Starlink direct-to-cell satellites will feature custom SpaceX silicon. Yes, it will. But that silicon won't be available until 2028, 2027, probably. Advanced phased array antennas. Okay, sure. 5 by 5. It is, it is, it's advanced and it's, it's going to be bigger than 2.5 by 2.5 meters, which is what they have now. It'll be 5 by 5, which is better, but it's not great. And it will be solely mid-band, right? Because they don't, in order to serve low-band cellular spectrum, you have to build the much bigger phased arrays. Let's see here. Thousands of spatial beams. Okay, AST has that too. AST in particular for low band has, what is it? I think like 3,000 cell beams. And then for mid-band BlueBurns, it'll be about 10,000 cell beams. But okay, yeah. Deliver 20%, sorry, 20 times higher throughput per satellite, 100 times overall more system capacity, enabling 5G experience. So like, This guy is, or his analyst, his junior guys or whatever, they basically just like copied and pasted this from the Starlink presentation. So, okay, that's fine. Satellites will operate at 360 kilometers in altitude and they'll have a laser mesh network of 9,000 satellites that will function as cell towers in space. And then, oh, and they also talk about how the net— this It has a regenerative architecture. And so yeah, we've gone— this is funny, like we've gone really far and deep on why the 2 networks, you know, how they're different and the advantages and disadvantages of both. But the network that Starlink is putting up is going to require that your cell phone basically reconnect to a satellite every 1 to 2 minutes. And so that means like your phone, the battery is going to drain. It's going to be searching for satellite constantly. And that's going to also impact their ability to allow you to do voice over LTE, which they can't do today. They probably can't do it for the foreseeable future. And so what, you know, the disadvantages of somehow this guy like contorts, he uses like all these data points and says, That it's going to be a differentiating advantage over AST, which lacks a fixed constellation for wireless meshing. So I'm a bit stumped here. I don't understand what fixed constellation for wireless meshing is. Maybe Katzi can help and maybe I'll ask him, but I have no idea what that point means. But anyway, I'm sure it was fed to him by some short seller, and then he just, you know, ran with it. So anyway, um, I guess we're getting closer to the end here, which is good because, um, I didn't think I was going to spend this much time going through this piece of shit, but I guess I have. Um, in the, in the final conclusion about, you know, the fact that the company is fairly valued at $45 to $55 a share, um, you know, at $20 a share, $20, $25 a share, that's basically the value of Lucado. And so, you know, then the $20, what they're ascribing to is basically the commercial and military business, which doesn't make any sense to me. But what's funny about this guy is that in order to get to a lower valuation, let's see here, he uses in his model, you know, he says, we're not being conservative in our model, but we will base our target valuation on the first year of, let's see, reasonable free cash flow, right? And so that is 2028. And so we look at 2028, he's modeling $3.5 billion of free cash flow, which is massive, right? Like if you put a 10% free cash flow yield on that, you're looking at $35 billion for valuation equity value, right? And so But, you know, he's using that number in order to, and, you know, I'm not sure when they use their DCF, I'm not sure like how they're getting to, I actually have to, I need to throw these numbers into an Excel file and see how they're getting to it. But, you know, they come to a $45 to $55 per share valuation, which assumes like 225 million paid subscribers with a global ARPU average of $2.92, which I think is really low, by the way. But what's funny is like, if you look at his outer years, like if you look at 2028, he's going to focus on that number. 2027, it's like $1.5 billion of free cash flow. 2028 is $3.5 billion, but he's using that number because that's what fits the output, right? But then if you look at 2029, it basically doubles to like $6.1 billion. And then 2030, it's $11.6 billion. And then by the time you get to like 2032, you're looking at like $18 billion of free cash flow, which is insane, right? Like he's, you know, he's arguing that the company is falling behind and shouldn't, you know, and for a whole host of reasons, like the valuation is ahead of itself, but then he's modeling like $17.8 billion of free cash flow by 2032, which is insane. And so I guess he cherry-picked, like if you really wanted to, you know, ding the valuation, maybe you would use 2027, which is like $1.5 billion of free cash flow. But I don't know, like if I sold, if I look at these numbers, like I think $100 is undervaluing the company. I mean, obviously there's going to be execution risks and it depends on how quickly or how much people discount forward future cash flows. But the thing is that when the company gets some of these military contracts and they start growing in size and people start actually layering in, like for example, this guy talks about dual use case, but then in his numbers, like the only thing I see is commercial business. He's not even taking it. He's just like taking commercial subscribers and an ARPU to get to a number, but he's not taking into account like FirstNet or he's not taking into account any of the defense use cases, which could be several billion dollars of free cash flow on their own. And so yeah, it's just, it's kind of confounding, like And this is like, this is the gymnastics that sell-side research analysts kind of go through where if they want to get to a particular like stock price target, they have to, you know, play with the numbers here. What's interesting is like the guy took 2028 numbers and based it off of that. But then if you look at his, you know, just a handful years out, basically the 20— I mean, if you were to tell someone like, hey, there's a company that in 2028 is going to go within, what is it, 5 years, it's going to go from $3.5 billion of free cash flow to $17.8 billion. Like people will be climbing over one another to try and invest in that company. I mean, that's a tremendous amount of free cash flow growth. I mean, I guess based off of the valuation here, he's showing a free cash flow yield of 45.9%, which is insane, but Anyway, but yeah, it's funny because like the guy argues that the company's fairly valued at these levels, I guess based off execution risk, that Starlink is going to crush them and they're way ahead. But then in his own model, it tells you something completely different, right? Because like if you truly believe these numbers, a valuation of $45 to $55 doesn't make any sense. But anyway, um, let me see if there's anything else here. Yeah, I mean, at the end of this report, he kind of reiterates some of the same things like uptake in Japan seems pretty low, but again, you know, you're, you're comparing a text messaging service with some sporadic data to broadband. Uh, and that's in Japan where, you know, the saturation is pretty high in terms of like cell coverage. And then let's see here. Yeah. And T-Mobile, like he says here specifically, he talks about like how US direct-to-cell adoption has been low. And then he specifically says here, T-Mobile did not provide any numbers in their release. And so I don't know where he's getting this notion that direct-to-cell adoption in the US has been low because no one's disclosed that. And by the way, like, I guess going back to my skiing example, when I was with the family, I tried to use the Apple service and I don't know about any of you guys, but I couldn't get it to work. I don't, you know, and this is not someone who's like being biased against it, but I tried to connect to it and I tried to send messages and maybe because I was moving to quickly on the ski lift or something. It didn't work, but to this day, like, I haven't got it to work. So if anybody has got Apple SOS or messaging to work, I'd be curious to hear, you know, your experience on that. But anyway, we are now at an hour and 10 minutes and my son should be done at soccer, so I'm going to end it there. But yeah, thanks everyone for joining. Hopefully that was like somewhat educational, not just about just the research report, but kind of how The sell-side business works and how these people can be influenced unduly, whether that's for your own names or for people who are working against you. But clearly the report today was a hedge fund short-selling driven type of downgrade. And the reasons for it were unjustified, at least based off the content. that I saw. And there's been a number of people in Space Mob who've written about the report, and I think have done a pretty good job as well. So, um, so yeah, I'll end it there. Um, we'll see what the next 2 weeks brings, and, um, I'll do another space hopefully soon. One thing that I promised to do was to summarize, um, you know, 2025 and, and kind of also talk about what to look forward to in 2026. I, I have yet to do that. That space, and I was also going to announce some of the award winners that from Redrum's poll that he had put out. He hasn't published that yet because he was hoping that someone would actually go through that. Maybe maybe it'll be Cook or it'll be myself. But but yeah, thanks everyone for joining, and we'll talk again soon. And take care. Thanks for listening to the AST Space Mover Podcast. If you enjoyed this episode and you'd like to help support the podcast, please share it with others, post about it on social media, or leave a rating and review. To catch all the latest news about AST SpaceMobile, make sure to subscribe. Thanks again, and I'll see you next time.
[01:09:57] Speaker B: We're doing something very, very big. Connecting with this technology, we can really affect billion lives. AST SpaceMobile is the only company that has proven technology to deliver cellular broadband connectivity directly from space to the everyday smartphone. People will just basically turn on their phone and be seamless regardless of where you are. We don't want the user even to know that it's connected by satellite. Our role is to bring this into reality, always in partnership with the MNOs. Listen.
[01:10:34] Speaker A: Mmm, waffles.