JC

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $MTN It was a disappointing season operationally.

Skier visits were down. Through the fiscal 2025 reporting cycle, North American skier visits fell about 3%, and pass sales growth was weak.
Management repeatedly acknowledged results were below expectations and that they were not achieving the growth they wanted.
The 2025–26 season itself was hit by unusually warm weather and poor snowfall. By April 2026, Vail reported North American skier visits down nearly 15% season-to-date, with declines in lift, ski school, dining, and rental revenue.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT One of the biggest flaws in the ABAT bull case is the assumption that lithium processing is some untapped opportunity waiting to be captured.

It isn't.

Lithium processing is already a well-served industry populated by established producers, major chemical companies, vertically integrated battery-material suppliers, and heavily funded newcomers. The market already has companies with operating facilities, commercial customers, global supply chains, and years of processing experience.

ABAT is not entering a vacuum. It is attempting to carve out a position in a business where competitors already possess scale, capital, infrastructure, and customer relationships. Today's grant announcement doesn't change that reality.

Investors cheering the news may be overlooking the fact that ABAT still faces the same fundamental challenge: proving it can compete profitably in a mature and increasingly crowded industry while carrying roughly 300 million shares outstanding and a long history of shareholder dilution.

[JC @1960NH]

ABAT bulls are trying to spin today's DOE grant reinstatement as some kind of breakthrough, but the reality is far less exciting.

This is not a company stepping into an empty market. Battery recycling, lithium processing, and battery-material supply chains are already crowded with bigger, better-capitalized competitors that have stronger partners, deeper pockets, and more advanced commercial footprints. The industry is not waiting around for ABAT. In many ways, it is already being carved up by companies with far more resources.

Meanwhile, ABAT is dragging around roughly 300 million shares outstanding, a massive dilution overhang that bulls conveniently ignore whenever good news hits. A $115 million grant may help fund part of a project, but it does not erase the bloated share count, ongoing losses, execution risk, commodity-price exposure, or the possibility of more dilution down the road.

The harsh truth: government funding does not make ABAT a winner. It only gives the company another chance to prove it can compete in an industry where the real players are already miles ahead.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT ABAT bulls are trying to spin today's DOE grant reinstatement as some kind of breakthrough, but the reality is far less exciting.

This is not a company stepping into an empty market. Battery recycling, lithium processing, and battery-material supply chains are already crowded with bigger, better-capitalized competitors that have stronger partners, deeper pockets, and more advanced commercial footprints. The industry is not waiting around for ABAT. In many ways, it is already being carved up by companies with far more resources.

Meanwhile, ABAT is dragging around roughly 300 million shares outstanding, a massive dilution overhang that bulls conveniently ignore whenever good news hits. A $115 million grant may help fund part of a project, but it does not erase the bloated share count, ongoing losses, execution risk, commodity-price exposure, or the possibility of more dilution down the road.

The harsh truth: government funding does not make ABAT a winner. It only gives the company another chance to prove it can compete in an industry where the real players are already miles ahead.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT Investors are celebrating today's DOE grant reinstatement, but they're glossing over some major risks.

ABAT operates in industries that already have numerous competitors, and the history of the sector shows that government support alone doesn't guarantee success. Just look at Li-Cycle. It was once viewed as one of the premier battery recycling companies in North America, attracted major partners, raised substantial capital, and received government backing—yet still struggled with project delays, cost overruns, financing challenges, and shareholder dilution.

Meanwhile, ABAT has roughly 300 million shares outstanding, meaning existing shareholders have already absorbed significant dilution. The grant is positive, but it doesn't eliminate execution risk, competition, future funding needs, or the challenge of turning ambitious projects into profitable operations.

A grant can help build a facility. It cannot guarantee a successful business.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT Investors are rushing to hype today's DOE grant reinstatement, but many seem willing to ignore the elephant in the room: roughly 300 million shares outstanding.

The $115 million grant is positive, but it doesn't erase years of dilution, ongoing losses, execution risk, or the possibility of future capital raises. A government grant doesn't automatically translate into a profitable refinery, commercial success, or shareholder returns.

The real question isn't whether today's news is good. The real question is whether the market is overlooking the massive share count and the long road still ahead to justify the valuation.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT One of the main bearish arguments against ABAT is that it is entering industries that already have several well-funded https://t.co/K1tlMXlpqv battery recycling
ABAT competes against much larger and better-capitalized companies such as:
Redwood Materials (founded by former Tesla CTO JB Straubel)
Li-Cycle
Cirba Solutions
Umicore
Various Asian recyclers and integrated battery-material companies.
Redwood in particular is a formidable competitor. It reportedly processes over 20 GWh of lithium-ion batteries annually and has become a major player in North American battery recycling and materials https://t.co/DCKOeW1K31 lithium refining
ABAT also faces competition from:Tesla's lithium refinery in Texas
Albemarle (one of the world's largest lithium producers)
Piedmont Lithium
Standard Lithium
Electra Battery Materials
Other domestic and international lithium chemical producers.
The bullish counterargument
ABAT bulls would argue that:The U.S. needs multiple domestic lithium suppliers, not just one.
Demand for lithium and battery materials could be large enough for several winners.
ABAT has a unique claystone-to-lithium process and a large Nevada resource.

ABAT is not competing in an empty market. It is competing against companies with larger balance sheets, larger facilities, established customer relationships, and in some cases commercial-scale operations already producing or recycling battery materials. Even with government support, ABAT must still prove it can scale economically and capture market share while carrying a share count of roughly 300 million and continuing to burn cash.That competition risk is one reason many investors remain cautious despite the DOE grant reinstatement. The grant helps fund the project, but it does not eliminate the challenge of competing against much larger players that are already further along commercially.

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $ABAT While investors are celebrating the reinstatement of ABAT's $115 million DOE grant, the announcement does little to address one of the company's biggest concerns: shareholder dilution.

American Battery Technology remains an early-stage, loss-making company with limited revenue relative to its operating expenses and development ambitions.The company now has roughly 300 million shares outstanding, a dramatic increase from earlier years, significantly diluting existing shareholders. Even with federal support, the company still faces substantial execution, financing, and commodity-price risks before its lithium refinery generates meaningful cash flow.

The reinstated grant reduces funding uncertainty but does not eliminate the need for additional capital. Large-scale lithium processing projects are notoriously expensive, prone to delays, and dependent on favorable lithium market conditions. If further funding is required, shareholders could face additional dilution.

The market's enthusiastic reaction focuses on the return of government funding, but the underlying challenges remain unchanged: a large share count, ongoing cash burn, uncertain project economics, and the long road from government support to profitable commercial operations.

[JC @1960NH]

$ORCL @stocktwits Market decline accelerating. Tight labor market and higher rates confirmed with job figures this morning. Market at all time highs with no room for error. Decline risks getting ugly going into close. $ORCL has gap to fill at 190

[JC @1960NH]

@anyatrades $ORCL @Stocktwits $ORCL Data Center Debacle

11:28 AM EDT, June 05, 2026Updated 34 minutes ago, June 5, 2026 at 11:28 AM EDTOracle Faces Questions Around Pace of AI Data Center Buildout, RBC Capital Markets Says

ORCL-8.03%
11:28 AM EDT, 06/05/2026 (MT Newswires) -- Oracle (ORCL) is expected to provide clarity on the pace of its data center buildout to show whether capacity is coming online fast enough to meet the demand pipeline it has been signaling, RBC Capital Markets said in a note Thursday.
Management has consistently pointed to supply, not demand, as the constraint for Oracle Cloud Infrastructure growth, the brokerage said, adding that it will be watching for any update on megawatt additions and new campus announcement, among others, when the company reports its fiscal Q4 financial results on June 10.
The brokerage said investors will also likely focus on AI infrastructure buildout financing following the roughly 18% job cuts in April to free up capital as well as on the Stargate restructuring.

Questions remain around Microsoft-backed (MSFT) OpenAI's competitive positioning and implications for Oracle as its primary infrastructure partner, RBC said. However, OpenAI's latest

model cycle is encouraging for its market positioning among large language model providers, according to the note.

RBC Capital Markets raised its price target on Oracle to $190 from $160, and maintained its sector perform rating.

Shares of Oracle were down 5.9% in Friday trading.

Price: 222.33, Change: -14.02, Percent Change: -5.93

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $LULU Probably did not cut guidance enough. With the plunge in the stock over the last year and the rising competition and pricing issues this analysts questions if $LULU management is pessimistic enough on forecast. Read on:

11:40 AM EDT, June 05, 2026Updated less than 1 minute ago, June 5, 2026 at 11:40 AM EDTAnalysts Question Whether Lululemon Cut its Guidance Enough -- Market Talk

After Lululemon Athletica trimmed its guidance for the year, Deutsche Bank analysts say the key question now is whether the company lowered the bar enough ahead of any potential product or strategy changes that incoming CEO Heidi O'Neill will make when she takes the reins in September. Analysts say they are having trouble getting comfortable with compounding quarters of markdowns ahead of plans for an influx of new product. "The lack of visibility into LULU's go-forward earnings power keeps us cautious and on the sidelines," they say, cutting their price target on the stock to $127 from $171. Shares fall 9%. ([email protected])

[JC @1960NH]

@anyatrades Let me guess. You have been myaking alot of money then took some losses because you didn't want to blow up your account. But then you were upset because if you would have waited longer thoses losses would have been profits.....

[JC @1960NH]

@Stocktwits $LULU Just another dead retail fad.

[JC @1960NH]

@anyatrades As old as the moon...

[JC @1960NH]

@anyatrades 60

[JC @1960NH]

@Stocktwits $LULU With the negative outlook expect continued slide back to $77 and then $39

[JC @1960NH]

@stocktwits $LULU Now on the trash heap. Here's why :

Lululemon's earnings report confirms what the stock market has been signaling for months: one of retail's most celebrated growth stories is running out of momentum.

While management highlighted a 4% increase in first-quarter revenue to $2.5 billion, the headline number masks a rapidly deteriorating business. Revenue growth was driven almost entirely by international markets, where sales surged 22%. Meanwhile, the core North American business is shrinking. Revenue fell 4% in the United States and 3% in Canada, while comparable sales across the Americas declined 5%.

For a company that built its reputation and profitability in North America, those numbers should alarm investors.

The profit picture is even worse. Gross profit declined 3%, and gross margin collapsed from 58.3% to 54.2% in just one year. Adjusted earnings per share plunged 35%, from $2.60 to $1.69. Despite years of premium pricing and industry-leading profitability, Lululemon is now seeing both margins and earnings move sharply in the wrong direction.

Management's response was to slash guidance.

The company now expects full-year revenue of just $11.0 billion to $11.15 billion, implying flat to negative growth. Wall Street had been expecting approximately $11.47 billion. Earnings guidance was cut to $10.95-$11.15 per share, well below analyst expectations of $12.27.

That means management is effectively telling investors that growth is stalling while profitability continues to deteriorate.

Perhaps most concerning is management's explanation. Executives cited "negative commentary" and unsuccessful product launches as reasons for the weaker outlook. Strong consumer brands typically overcome bad headlines through compelling products and customer loyalty. Companies rarely blame media narratives when demand remains robust.

The reality appears simpler: consumers are becoming less excited about Lululemon products.

The company has spent the past year battling product quality concerns, criticism from founder Chip Wilson, slowing traffic, inventory challenges, and intensifying competition from Alo Yoga, Vuori, Nike, and a growing number of premium athleisure rivals. Now management is openly acknowledging that recent product launches failed to meet expectations.

This is particularly troubling because product innovation is supposed to be Lululemon's competitive advantage. If customers are no longer responding enthusiastically to new releases, the entire premium-brand thesis comes under pressure.

Investors have already rendered their verdict. The stock is down nearly 40% year-to-date and more than 50% over the past twelve months. Following the earnings release, shares fell another 11% in premarket trading.

A company once valued as a high-growth retail leader is now guiding to zero growth, shrinking margins, declining North American sales, and weaker earnings. The question is no longer whether Lululemon is slowing down. The question is whether management can reverse a decline in brand relevance before the slowdown becomes a long-term structural problem.

[JC @1960NH]

@KindHeartChloe @stocktwits $LULU Lululemon's latest earnings report looks less like a temporary setback and more like a brand in decline.

The company was forced to slash its full-year outlook after admitting that negative publicity, weak customer traffic, and disappointing product launches are hurting the business. Management now expects annual revenue of just $11.0 billion to $11.15 billion, compared with its previous forecast calling for 2%–4% growth. Instead of growing, sales are now expected to be flat or even decline by up to 1%.

The profit picture is even worse. Lululemon cut expected earnings per share to $10.95–$11.15, down from $12.10–$12.30 previously. That represents a reduction of roughly 9% in expected annual earnings in just one quarter.

While management highlighted "negative media commentary" as a factor, the numbers suggest deeper problems. North American revenue—the company's most important market—fell 3%, while comparable sales declined and traffic weakened. Executives also acknowledged that recent product launches failed to resonate with customers, an alarming admission for a company whose premium valuation depends on innovation and brand desirability.

Even the headline first-quarter results reveal cracks beneath the surface. Revenue increased only 4% to $2.47 billion, while net income collapsed from $314.6 million to $195 million, a decline of nearly 38% year over year. Earnings per share fell from $2.60 to $1.69.

The contrast with Lululemon's historical growth story is stark. This was once a company that consistently delivered double-digit growth and expanding margins. Today, it is reporting declining profits, shrinking North American sales, failed product launches, deteriorating brand perception, and guidance cuts severe enough to wipe billions from its market value in a single day.

Investors should be skeptical of management's attempt to blame external commentary. Strong brands survive bad headlines. Weakening brands use them as an explanation. The more troubling reality is that consumers appear increasingly unconvinced that Lululemon's products justify their premium prices, while competitors such as Alo, Vuori, Nike, and countless lower-cost alternatives continue to take share.

The market's verdict was swift. Shares plunged more than 10% after the announcement and are now down roughly 40% year-to-date, reflecting growing concern that Lululemon's challenges are not temporary but structural.

[JC @1960NH]

@Stocktwits $LULU Executive drops bomb during conference call :

Lululemon Athletica Executive Says As We Start Q2, Product Launches Did Not Generate Anticipated Guest Response; For Q2, Expect North America To Decline In The Low Double Digits, With US Also In That Range; For Q2, Expect China Mainland To Increase In The Mid To High Teens