DroneShield (ASX:DRO) is an interesting case because the operating business is growing quickly, while the latest accounts also contain several reasons not to treat that growth as automatically translating into shareholder returns.

This is my attempt to separate the operating progress from the risks. It is not a price target or a recommendation.

What the business does

DroneShield develops counter-UAS hardware and software used to detect, track and defeat drones and other autonomous threats. Its customers are mainly military and government agencies, although management is also pursuing critical infrastructure, airports and other civilian applications.

The long-term demand case is reasonably clear: inexpensive drones have become a much larger security problem, and governments are increasing counter-drone procurement. The harder questions are how much of that demand DroneShield can capture, at what margins, and how consistently.

The bullish case

The top-line growth is real. For the six months ended 30 June 2026, DroneShield reported:

• Revenue of A$125.8m, up 74% from A$72.3m.
• Recurring revenue of A$11.5m, up 229%.
• More than 4,000 active software-enabled units in the field.
• A$180.0m in cash and term deposits at period end.
• Revenue exposure spread across Europe/UK, the US, Asia-Pacific and other markets.

Recurring revenue represented 9.2% of revenue, compared with 4.9% in the prior corresponding period. If software, subscriptions and lifecycle services keep growing faster than hardware, that could eventually improve revenue visibility and business quality.

The customer base also appears credible. The company reported repeat orders from military and government users, and US Army material confirms DroneShield was among the companies receiving awards under the JIATF-401 counter-UAS programme.

There is therefore a plausible bull case: DroneShield has established products, reference customers, substantial liquidity and direct exposure to a structurally growing defence category.

Why the latest result was not unambiguously positive

Despite the revenue growth, profitability moved sharply backwards:

• Gross margin fell from 65.3% to 60.0%.
• Underlying EBITDA moved from a positive A$8.0m to a loss of A$12.4m.
• Statutory profit after tax of A$2.1m became a loss of A$32.2m.
• Net operating cash outflow was A$10.3m.
• Employee numbers increased from 363 to 535.

Management attributed the weaker margin to product mix, third-party hardware, currency movements and an impairment of raw materials during the production-facility relocation and ERP implementation.

Some of the spending may support future capacity and product development. However, investors still need evidence that the expanded cost base will produce durable operating leverage. Revenue growth by itself is not enough if margins decline and expenditure grows faster.

Contract and customer concentration

Defence procurement is inherently lumpy. Large orders can make one half or quarter look exceptional, while timing delays can produce the opposite effect.

The first-half geographic mix was also concentrated: Europe and the UK represented 52% of revenue, while military users represented 85% of total revenue. These are attractive markets, but the figures leave the company exposed to government budgets, tender timing, export controls, political decisions and customer acceptance schedules.

MOUs and announced partnerships should not be valued like firm purchase orders. For me, the useful evidence is delivered revenue, cash receipts and repeat orders—not the size of a non-binding opportunity pipeline.

Governance remains a material risk

Governance should not be treated as a historical footnote.

The company’s February 2026 ASX announcement followed concerns involving:

• The withdrawal of a November 2025 market announcement concerning orders that were not actually new.
• Share sales by three directors during November 2025.
• Concerns raised by ASX about continuous disclosure and the company’s trading policy.

An independent review recommended tighter disclosure procedures, longer trading blackout periods, stronger approval processes, training and minimum shareholding requirements. DroneShield says those changes have now been implemented.

The half-year report also states that the company received notice from ASIC requiring assistance in connection with an investigation under the Corporations Act. That does not establish wrongdoing, but it remains a risk until the matter is resolved or more information becomes available.

What I would monitor

1. Whether gross margin stabilises or recovers.
2. Whether the larger workforce and production footprint generate operating leverage.
3. Cash conversion rather than announced contract value alone.
4. Recurring revenue as a percentage of total revenue.
5. Repeat purchases from existing end users.
6. The proportion of revenue generated by third-party hardware.
7. Any further ASIC or ASX disclosures.
8. Share issuance, options and share-based compensation.
9. Whether management’s disclosure standards remain consistent after the governance changes.

My view

DroneShield is no longer just a speculative counter-drone concept. It has substantial revenue, real deployments and enough liquidity to invest through a growth phase.

But the first-half result also showed that rapid revenue growth can coexist with weaker margins, negative EBITDA and operating cash outflow. The valuation therefore depends heavily on future execution: converting demand into repeatable, cash-generative revenue without allowing costs, dilution or governance problems to overwhelm the growth.

I see a credible business in an attractive market, but not a low-risk one. The next stage of the thesis should be judged on margins, cash flow and disclosure quality—not contract headlines or short-term share-price movements.

**Disclosure:** I hold DRO shares. I have not been paid by the company or any related party. This post is general discussion only and is not financial advice. Please verify the filings and make your own assessment.

Primary sources

• DroneShield 1H 2026 report and investor materials: https://www.droneshield.com/investor-relations
• DroneShield governance review and response to ASX direction, 25 February 2026: https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20260225/pdf/06wqj4xl40g7z2.pdf
• DroneShield December 2025 quarterly report and Appendix 4C: https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20260127/pdf/06vldx32zf9kk5.pdf
• US Army JIATF-401 counter-UAS contract awards: https://www.army.mil/article/288818/jiatf_401_advances_domestic_shield_with_counter_uas_contract_awards

Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly cash reports). No links, no picks, not advice.

One offer is most of the week. Twenty-five companies announced cash raises between Monday 5 and Friday 9 October for up to A$617.9M, and A$482.7M of that is the ceiling on L1 Global Long Short Fund's (GLS) 1-for-2 entitlement offer. It isn't underwritten, and institutions have put in A$100.9M so far. Without the top three, the other twenty-two disclosed A$55.3M between them. 15 companies halted citing a capital raise in five sessions, against 11 and 16 the two weeks before.

The week's biggest raises

The rest

Also AAU A$900K, WWG A$576K, CBY A$564K and MOM A$350K of convertible notes. SRN made a call on its partly paid shares; LSR (options offer), SLZ (entitlement) and GLL (placement) have no amount in the feed yet.

The dollar ranking isn't the dilution ranking

Each raise of A$2M or more, against the company's market value on 12 Oct (after the announcement):

Ballard's A$45M is 13.8% of the company. Cambium's A$9.9M is 62.5%, and it can't issue a share until holders vote on 9 Nov. GLS has no market value on record.

The halt conveyor

15 companies halted citing a capital raise: ALV, BM1, CPM, EGR, GLS, KZR, M4M, PKD, PMM, PRX, RKT, TOR, TZL, VRC, ZMI. Nine had raised by Friday. TZL came out with no raise: the placement of its rights issue shortfall "was not able to be finalised in totality by expiry date". Two announced Monday morning: BM1's A$45M, and CPM A$4.85M at 7.5c, "approximately a 24% discount to the 15 day VWAP", to buy a copper project. The last three came out Tuesday morning: M4M A$3.28M (including the chairman converting a A$626K loan), VRC A$1.5M at 0.4c, and PKD A$800K at 3.5c, a 16.7% premium to the last close.

32 retail offers open

15 entitlement offers, 12 SPPs, 5 rights issues, down from 33. New this week: entitlement offers from GLS, PRX, TMB, CYP and SLZ, and BM1's SPP. MCO extended its SPP (capped at 1.8c) to 14 Oct, results due 16 Oct. The oldest still listed, AEV and SPN, are from 17 Aug.

Placement capacity, counted a new way

When holders ratify an earlier placement at a meeting, those shares stop counting against the 15%. The site now hands them back where the vote matches the issue notice exactly, and counts convertibles at their maximum conversion. The counts fell, so they don't compare with last week: 143 companies past 75% of the 15%, 89 past 90%, 18 have used all of it (last week 204, 140 and 31, counted before the change). 54 of the 143 have also drawn on 7.1A. This week LSR went to about 99% and OD6 to about 98%.

Overhangs among this week's raisers

ZMI's options equal 94.8% of its register, before the 180M placement shares. LSR's are 85.3%, GLL's 52.2%, and almost none of it is in the money. The in-the-money supply sits elsewhere: PHO 31.1% of its shares, ALV 13.6%, PMM 11.4%, TOR 10.6%.

Dilution risk across the market: 589 Minimal, 334 Low, 374 Moderate, 260 High, 185 Very high, 112 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday.

If you'd rather get these in your inbox, the site's Watch page has a free email signup - one field, and the link it sends turns it on. No URL here, that's the deal with the mods.

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

Everyone in telco reckons Aussie Broadband and Superloop should merge. Phil Britt has said it, plenty of others have too. What nobody has done is put a price on it, so I went through the filings and had a go.

At Friday's close ABB was ~$1.27b market cap and SLC ~$1.30b. Basically a draw.

The earnings aren't. Superloop's underlying EBITDA adds back ~$6.1m of staff share costs and ~$7.2m of shares it pays Origin. Aussie adds back neither. Put both on Aussie's definition and you get:

ABB $165.3m, on under 9x.
SLC $109.4m, on 13x.

So ABB brings ~60% of the earnings and would get about half the merged company. At the current ratio (~0.61 ABB shares per SLC share) ABB holders give up roughly 18% of their EBITDA per share on day one and SLC holders pick up ~27%. ABB is on 9x and buying its own shares back. It isn't going to print stock to pay 13x for a rival.

It has been tried. In Feb 2024 ABB offered 0.21 of a share per SLC share and bought 19.9% for $92.9m. Superloop's constitution says nobody can go above 12% without approval from Singapore's telco regulator (SLC holds a licence there). ABB hadn't asked. The board told it to sell the excess, ABB went to the Federal Court for an injunction and lost, and it sold at $1.31. Singapore then approved the full stake anyway, about five weeks later.

ABB sold the rest at $1.66 and said it would focus on Buddy Telco. That stake would be worth ~$246m today. Buddy was sold to Tangerine for $6.5m, paid in instalments.

The wholesale growth story is thinner than it looks too. Superloop has ~317k wholesale services and Origin is 250k+ of them. Aussie has ~336k and ~269k came across with More and Tangerine. Take the one big customer out of each and there's ~67k left. Each. Both big customers were paid for with shares.

Then there are two contracts nobody outside has seen. Origin's deal with Superloop has a termination right covering "change of control events". It's in a footnote to the 2024 announcement. AGL owns ~7.2% of ABB and its subscription agreement stops it voting for a third party control deal unless ABB's board recommends it. Whichever way round you structure a merger, an energy retailer has a hand on it.

And the ACCC. Merged they'd have ~23% of NBN services but 51% of the gigabit tier.

I ran what ABB would need in synergies to justify today's price. The answer is about half of Superloop's entire cost base, which is a lot to ask of a company you just paid 13x for.

There is a ratio where it works for both sets of holders. It's a fair way below the screen and I doubt Superloop's board would take it, which is probably why nothing has happened.

Full write up with the workings, the ratio and the charts is here (free, just asks for an email):

https://www.unaudited.com.au/a-merger-of-equals/

Also in there: who is actually selling NBN below the wholesale charge (5 of 12, and two of them are Optus and Telstra under other names), and where TPG's half a million lost NBN customers went.

I wrote it. I don't hold either. Not financial advice. Just numbers.

Paradigm Bio of Australia recently announced not only a terrible result in their major Phase III test (clinical trial) but they have been Voluntary Suspended.

That's the worst right? That means all shareholders funds have evaporated completely and there is not going to be any chance of any recovery, right? I should bury me head in the sand and never comment about this stock ever again?

Wrong.

Huh?

Yes they failed totally...but like a Year 12 exam consisting typically of three parts:

1. Multiple Choice
2. Short Answer
3. Essay

Paradigm managed a super stellar result in two out of three parts (They failed USA, but allegedly passed the rest) but failing one of the sections was enough to fail overall.

In a Phase three, you can't just pluck out a Sub Group unless you negotiated that from the onset. So what I mean is that if you fail one region badly enough, it doesn't matter if you got a stellar result in other regions...

So what happened?

Well, Missing Data.

What does that mean?

We will need to get more info from them at a future point, typically it may mean that not all data was captured correctly. Usually this is the death knell. BUT it only happened in ONE market out of four. But there is some light here that MAY mean PAR ain't dead.

A couple of days ago there was an ASX ann. It stated the following:

My red underline introduced above.....EX USA data looks to be "Encouraging".

The above announcement did NOT come from PAR...it comes from the Voluntary Administrator.

These guys are totally independent. Them putting out such a statement carries real merit at this juncture.

We will need to wait for a further announcement declaring exactly what this data means, what it infers, but if it is shows that Australia, Moldova and HK indeed showed stellar results while the USA wasn't great, there is definite hope for us as a company to proceed.

Why? Because it demonstrates that the failure of the PIII wasn't because the drug doesn't work, it's because of some other extraneous (execution failure) reason. The drug actually not only worked but it completely defeated & crushed placebo in the other three regions...there was material separation between the drug (active) and placebo and importantly, the safety data was immaculate. (Subject to well, data)

^.

This one, is not yet dead.

^.

Sure, we might have to undergo some pain as shareholders (think recapitalisation, raising of new funds, the formulation of a new P3) ... but if it rises like a phoenix out of the swamp of a failed P3...this still could be the biggest and best performing OA drug all time. A few years behind...but a total success all the same...

Do watch this space.

I still, while it not at all being advice, highly commend this one to you!

ps: I've always stated there is risk with any Bio Pharma Investment play, this is no different, but despite all that has happened, this is still me number one pick.

pps: Not advice

.

REFERENCE:

https://paradigmbiopharma.com/announcements/7777875

Hi Guys,

After my last Soul Patts deep dive was well received I have written up some updated views on the company post the release of their FY26 results and reaching of an all time record share price. I've in particular got some concerns around the new global investment strategy which I've highlighted. I've written everything up on my hobby investing blog and would be keen to know what some other long term oriented value investors think:

https://thesnowballinvestor.substack.com/p/soul-patts-fy26-results-deep-dive?r=16o3tx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly and half-year cash reports). No picks, not advice.

After last week's big cheques, a week of small ones. Fifteen companies announced cash raises between Monday 28 September and Friday 2 October for about A$71.5M, and almost half of it was one deal: Challenger Gold's US$24M convertible, about A$34.2M at the rate its filing fixes. Without the top three, the other twelve disclosed A$24.7M between them. Two of the week's raises were set in US dollars. 11 companies halted citing a capital raise in five sessions, against 16 and 17 the two weeks before.

The week's biggest raises

The rest

Also NSM A$250K, and NOR a A$160K convertible note that refinances a working-capital loan.

How much runway the raisers had

Thirteen of the fifteen have a filed runway: the quarters of funding their own latest quarterly says they had, before this raise.

Seven of thirteen had under a quarter and a half. FCT and WRX have no figure on record.

The halt conveyor

11 companies halted citing a capital raise: CHW, DVL, FCT, ILT, M24, OD6, P1E, PGD, RAN, SRN, WRX. Seven had announced by Friday. Three announced Monday morning: OD6 A$6.92M at 9.5c (13.6% under the 11c close; 43,384,444 under 7.1 and 29,457,663 under 7.1A), SRN up to A$2.61M at 1.8c with an option per share, and P1E A$1.17M at 4.1c, about 16% under the 15-day VWAP, all from 7.1A. DVL followed Tuesday morning: A$3.0M at 2.2c, 12% under its 2.5c last trade, 136,363,636 shares (123.3M of them under 7.1A) with a free option per two shares at 4.5c.

33 retail offers open

17 SPPs, 11 entitlement offers, 5 rights issues, down from 38 as older offers closed. New this week: MGT and PV1's SPPs, RAN's entitlement, and ENV's 1-for-4 rights at 0.1c. FLX's SPP (2 to 16 Oct) and OCT's are running too and aren't in that count yet.

Placement capacity

Off the last 12 months of 3Bs, before any ratification: 204 companies past 75% of the 15% (196 last week), 140 past 90% (135), 31 have used all of it (31); 90 of the 204 have also drawn on 7.1A. This week CHW went to about 90% and PGD to about 87%.

New: a runway that has run out says so

When a company's last cash report, carried forward at the spend it reported, would already be used up, the site now says "Used up" and the month the cash would have run out, instead of a negative number. 134 of the 1,043 companies with a runway today. It's arithmetic on the last report, not the bank balance; a later raise or report resets it.

Dilution risk across the market: 584 Minimal, 335 Low, 380 Moderate, 259 High, 167 Very high, 101 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday.

If you'd rather get these in your inbox, the site's Watch page has a free email signup - one field, and the link it sends turns it on.

The full edition, every name linked to its filings: dilutionlens.com/watch/2026-10-05/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=reddit-ausstocks-link

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

Only just started investing and want to build a 20k core of bgbl. I am yet to get my w8ben form approved. Does anyone have any suggestions or advice? I'm currently not a big fan of the Australian market as I believe it has limited growth and concentration in sectors that are lacking growth.

I have been digging into ASX:1TT. I know it's a dog of a stock that over the years has tried it's hand at everything from SaaS, HR software, wellness content, influencers, consulting and whatever else has been added to the deck this quarter. Market cap is around $5.7 million.

The bit that caught my eye is the Thrive Tribe Home Base. The company says this is meant to be a physical hub for client activations, networking events, creator collaboration and community-led growth.

The financial statements show leasehold improvements of roughly $2.8 million, up from about $3,200 in the previous year. I assumed this was the Home Base. But I cannot find an address, photos, a lease announcement or any evidence that it actually exists.

The company website gives the registered office as: Level 57, 19-29 Martin Place so it's not there. So what exactly is this Home Base? Is it just a $2.8m desk, a meeting room and a very optimistic PowerPoint description? Or is there another site hiding somewhere?

Before anyone reaches for the fraud button, I may be reading the accounts incorrectly. The $2.8 million could be a gross cost rather than the net book value. It could relate to another group entity, a previous project, a reclassification, or some asset that has nothing to do with Home Base. But if it is genuine fit-out spending, the obvious questions are:

1. What exactly makes up the $2.8 million?
2. Which entity owns the asset or signed the lease?
3. Where is the premises?
4. Are there any related-party disclosures?
5. Has anyone found this place or attended an event there?

Accounting people, Sydney people and anyone who has actually seen the 1TT Home Base, please explain what's going on?

Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly and half-year cash reports). No links, no picks, not advice.

Twenty-seven companies announced cash raises between Monday 21 and Friday 25 September for about A$468M in disclosed proceeds, and it was a week of big cheques: seven placements of A$42M or more carried A$404.9M of it. The other twenty disclosed A$63.4M between them. Five of the seven stated a discount, from 0.9% to 16.9%; AIC Mines priced at the close and Meeka stated none. 16 companies halted citing a capital raise in five sessions, against 17 and 11 the two weeks before.

The week's biggest raises

The rest

Also PTX A$6.0M (SPP + placement), MCO A$1.5M SPP, MHK A$1.2M at 9.5c, PR2 A$1.1M at 1.8c, and IOD, NYM, AOK, MDX, SAN A$2.8M between them.

Where the seven big placements found their shares

The 7.1A mandate is approved a year at a time at the AGM. About three shares in four reach the register without a vote on that raise.

The halt conveyor

16 companies halted citing a capital raise: 3DA, A1M, AUE, FLX, MEK, NYM, OCT, PR2, PTX, PV1, SLZ, SVL, TGN, UM1, USL, VBX. Twelve had announced by Friday. 3DA halted for a raise and then announced it had postponed its U.S. IPO. FLX (A$5.54M placement + SPP) and OCT (acquisition + raise) announced Monday morning, and PV1 a convertible note facility and SPP Monday evening.

38 retail offers open

21 SPPs, 13 entitlement offers, 4 rights issues. Last week's 38 included a July entitlement offer that had already closed, so like for like it's one more. New this week: NYR's SPP (opens 12 Oct), LMG's entitlement (opens 30 Sep), FG1's rights, and SPPs from PTX, UM1 and MCO.

Placement capacity

Off the last 12 months of 3Bs, before any ratification: 196 companies past 75% of the 15% (192 last week), 135 past 90% (129), 31 have used all of it (30); 86 of the 196 have also drawn on 7.1A. This week WC8 went to about 91% and SAN to about 99%. NVQ is at 100%, which is why its placement waits on a vote.

New: an option expiry calendar

88 option and rights classes across 71 companies expire in the next 30 days, to 28 October. 79 are options that only become shares if holders pay the strike; 8 are performance rights or shares that convert on a condition.

Dilution risk across the market: 586 Minimal, 339 Low, 388 Moderate, 250 High, 175 Very high, 112 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday.

If you'd rather get these in your inbox, the site's Watch page has a free email signup - one field, and the link it sends turns it on. No URL here, that's the deal with the mods.

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

Anyone heard of or used

https://beyondsecurities.com/ ?

I have been cold called from them about the Anthropic IPO

Hi there, in my late 20's and wanting to invest $5000. I've dabbled with RAIS and crypto in the past but wasn't very sure where to invest.

I'm not familiar with the different types of stocks. but am looking for advice as to where would be the best place to start is.

I've heard about the S&P500 and other stocks but obviously don't want to go into a investment venture blindly.

Thank you all.

Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly and half-year cash reports). No links, no picks, not advice.

Sixteen companies announced cash raises between Monday 14 and Friday 18 September for about A$360M in disclosed proceeds, and one placement was most of it: MI6 raised A$250M with an SPP of up to A$30M behind it. Without the top three, the other thirteen disclosed A$42.7M between them. Six of the sixteen (TZN, KAL, MHC, DWG, BRY, CYQ, about A$45M) landed on the Monday and Tuesday and were in last week's post; this one covers the ten that followed. The halt conveyor doubled: 17 companies halted citing a capital raise in five sessions, against 11 and 21 the two weeks before.

The week's biggest raises

The rest, and it is the small end that carries the dilution

This week's two Sydney conferences, through the filings

Coffee Microcaps is Tuesday (8 presenters), ASX SMIDcaps Wednesday (27). Presenters pay to pitch and the organiser scores nobody, so here is what the filings say about the Coffee room:

FID and RZI have no cash raise in the last 12 months. EVE placed A$904,000 at 2c in March with two free 4c options per share, and consolidated 40-for-1 in May 2025; it pitches again in Melbourne on 20 October.

What happened after last year's rooms:

Eleven of last year's 27 SMIDcaps presenters have no raise event on record at all, so 3 is a floor. Across the three 2025 rooms measured (these two plus Melbourne): 59 presenter slots, 15 followed by a raise inside 90 days, 13 companies, A$157.3M. Of this year's 23 SMIDcaps presenters with a ticker, 13 are rated Minimal and only ATH is High (20.7% overhang).

The halt conveyor

Seventeen companies halted citing a capital raise in five sessions: ABX, ATT, BUY, CC9, CDO, ENT, ENV, FG1, HIT, IOV, LMG, M2R, MHK, MI6, NXM, NYR, WC8, against 11 and 21 the two weeks before. Eight had announced by Friday. BUY (an acquisition and a raise), CDO, LMG and WC8 halted on Friday and were due back today (Tuesday); ENT, NXM (a raise and a resource upgrade), NYR and MHK were due back Monday morning.

38 retail offers open right now

Holders in 38 companies are inside a take-up window: 20 share purchase plans, 15 entitlement offers, 3 rights issues, up from 32 last week. Opened this week: TZN (rights issue), BRY, DWG and ATT (entitlement offers), ABX (underwritten SPP), with ENV's 1-for-4 and MI6's SPP to follow. Oldest still running: PR2 and X2M, opened 24 July.

Placement capacity

Listing Rule 7.1 lets a company place 15% of its shares in 12 months without asking holders; 7.1A adds 10% for small caps with the mandate. Off the last 12 months of 3Bs, before any ratification: 192 companies past 75% of the 15%, 129 past 90%, 30 have used all of it (a 31st is suspended); 86 of the 192 have also drawn on 7.1A. This week's crossings: CYQ (about 99% used), DWG (about 95%), ENV (about 79%). MI6, by contrast, has A$71.1M waiting on a meeting because the 15% ran out at A$178.9M.

New: cash cover from the half-year and annual reports

Until this week the cash-cover band came only from the quarterly, so larger companies that stopped filing one had no band. The 4D/4E cash-flow statements are now read too. Across 1,824 companies: 868 at 4+ quarters (515 last week), 217 at 2-4, 370 under 2, and 369 with no band (742 last week). The 369 left are mostly banks, lenders, insurers, property and investment vehicles, plus companies with no cash report on record.

What the week's raises cost holders

The three biggest priced at or above the market; the deepest discounts landed on the registers already most diluted.

Dilution risk across the market: 586 Minimal, 339 Low, 375 Moderate, 253 High, 172 Very high, 99 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday.

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

I have a casual job and a fair bit of money which I don’t have that much to do with considering I’m still at school in the room my parents so I put $2000 aside and put it into the market. I’m using beta shares app so it’s only ASX and so far I put 1000 in IVV and 1000 in hack I’m currently up 11% which is pretty great but I’m looking to put in some more money and was wondering are there any ETFs or even just stocks that anyone recommends? (long and shorter term but mostly long)

I’m in my early 20s, new to investing, and currently living in Australia. I’m looking to invest long term and am comfortable with a relatively aggressive approach given my age.

My current plan is to invest in IVV (S&P 500) as my core, NDQ for a tech/Nasdaq tilt, and EXUS for some exposure outside the US. I’m planning to DCA around $500–$1,000 total per month, depending on what I can afford.

I’ve opened a Moomoo account, but noticed it’s $3 per ASX trade. If I’m buying all three ETFs every month, that’s $9 each time, which seems fairly significant when I’m only investing $500–$1,000.
CMC caught my attention because it seems to offer $0 brokerage for the first buy of each ETF per day under $1,000.

For my situation, does CMC make more sense, or are there other factors/brokers I should be considering? Alternatively, would I be better off changing my strategy, e.g. investing less frequently in larger amounts, or rotating which ETF I buy each month rather than buying all three?

Also happy to hear any thoughts on the ETF mix itself and any other general advice/sources to read up on. Thanks!

I'm trying to start investing with $1,000 on Stake and planning to add more from part-time work whenever I can. Figured I should actually put my money somewhere instead of just sitting on it, so I'm going with a passive approach.

I'm looking at 40% EEM, 30% QQQ, and 30% IWM. Emerging markets for global growth, QQQ for tech, and IWM for small-cap exposure. Seems like they cover different areas without too much overlap.

My plan is to keep this allocation every time I invest more and just leave it alone. Not trying to time the market or anything.

Don't really have anyone around me who knows about investing, so I figured I'd ask here. Also curious if anyone has experience with Stake, any pros or cons compared to other platforms?

Does the allocation look okay? Open to any feedback or if there's something I'm missing. First time doing this so I want to make sure I'm on the right track.

Hi everyone,

I'm keen to understand whether people have changed their investment strategy from growth to income stocks since the CGT changes came into effect. My core portfolio is IVV and A200 and I have been thinking of potentially switching my recurring investment into dividend focused stocks, however, I'm not sure where to find an all encompassing list nor which ones are worth exploring. Would love to get everyone's input. The plan is to continue investing and hold for the next 10-15 years.

Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly cash reports). No links, no picks, not advice.

Nineteen companies announced raises between 4 and 10 September for about A$302M in disclosed proceeds. Three of them carried it: without the top three, the other sixteen disclosed A$37.2M between them.

The week's biggest raises

The rest of the week: GG1 a A$3.2M renounceable entitlement offer, KLV a A$3.1M non-renounceable entitlement offer, FOS A$2.6M, AAU a A$2.55M non-renounceable entitlement offer, TMX A$2.5M in a placement and rights issue, W2V A$2.1M, RLC A$1.8M, TSR A$1.1M, A8G A$1.0M, PIL A$750K and KEY A$247K. SRJ and IXR announced placements without confirmed amounts yet.

How much placement capacity is left

Listing Rule 7.1 lets a company place 15% of its shares in 12 months without asking holders. Off the last 12 months of Appendix 3Bs, before any later ratification:

The halt conveyor slowed

Ten companies halted citing a capital raise in the week's five sessions: A8G, AM5, BMN, EGH, FOS, GML, KAO, TMX, VR8 and W2V. That is down from 21 the week before and 11 the week before that. VR8 was still halted when the week closed; AM5 and KAO halted citing a raise and had not announced terms yet.

29 retail offers open right now

Holders in 29 companies are inside a take-up window: 16 share purchase plans, 11 entitlement offers, 2 rights issues. Five opened this week: TMX (rights issue, 4 Sep), KLV and GG1 (entitlement offers, 7 Sep), AKA (SPP, 7 Sep), AAU (entitlement offer, 8 Sep). The oldest still running, X2M and PR2, opened on 24 July.

Overhangs behind this week's raisers

Cash going into the raise

Three of the week's raisers (MIO, PIL, IXR) went in with under one quarter of cash by the estimate in their own quarterly. W2V, KEY, SRJ and AAU sit under two quarters on ours.

Across all 1,825 companies tracked, the cash-cover bands: 517 at 4+ quarters, 214 at 2 to 4, 354 under 2, and 740 with no current quarterly (larger companies generally are not required to file one).

Dilution risk across the market: 569 Minimal, 347 Low, 395 Moderate, 248 High, 180 Very high, 108 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday, covering this week.

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

NOTE: Insights and analysis from www.etftracker.com.au - other research available in the platform.

A three-fund ETF portfolio can hold more than 1,500 companies and still keep nearly a third of your money in ten of them. On the ASX the same twenty-odd names sit inside fund after fund, and the most popular pairing double-counts almost the entire S&P 500.

Summary

Breadth is not diversification. A common VAS + VGS + IVV blend holds 1,553 distinct stocks, but its effective number of holdings (how many equally weighted names would give the same concentration) is about 90. The ten largest are 29% of the money.

Everyone owns the same mega-caps. Across the 198 equity ETFs, ten companies account for a fifth of all A$247bn invested and fifty account for two-fifths. BHP alone is A$9.2bn of exposure spread across 40 different funds; Nvidia sits inside 50.

The most popular pairing is nearly redundant. 96.9% of the iShares S&P 500 fund (IVV), by weight, is already held inside Vanguard's international fund (VGS). Owning both does not widen your exposure; it roughly doubles your bet on the same US names.

In plain terms

Isn't owning several broad ETFs the definition of diversified?

It looks that way, and on a count of companies it is: a few funds can hold well over a thousand names. But diversification is about how your money is spread, not how many lines are on the page. Index funds weight by company size, so the biggest companies dominate every index at once, and holding more of those funds stacks the same giants on top of each other.

What is the "effective number of holdings"?

A single figure for how concentrated a portfolio really is: the number of equally sized holdings that would give the same lopsidedness. Our example blend lists 1,553 stocks but is as concentrated as if you held about 90 of them in equal amounts. The other ~1,460 are rounding.

Why do the same names keep turning up?

Because most ETFs track market-cap indices, and a handful of companies are simply enormous. An Australian fund is led by CBA and BHP; a global fund is led by Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft. Buy an Australian fund, a global fund and a US fund and you have bought those same leaders three times, in three wrappers.

Is overlap a mistake?

Not in itself. Concentration in the largest companies is a bet, sometimes a good one. The problem is making it by accident, and thinking you are spread across a thousand companies when a fifth of your money rides on ten. The fix is to look through your funds to the companies underneath and decide whether the real top-ten is the one you want.

01 · The same twenty stocks

A fifth of every dollar rides on ten companies

Add up what every ASX equity ETF holds, looked through to the individual companies and weighted by how much money sits in each fund, and the market's real bets appear. They are not exotic. The single largest is BHP, with A$9.2bn of exposure, and it is not one big holding but the same company bought through 40 different funds. Behind it sit the US mega-caps and the Australian banks, each threaded through dozens of products.

Nine of the top sixteen are Australian and seven are global, which is itself the point: a portfolio that feels spread across the world keeps returning to the same short list. CBA and BHP anchor every Australian fund; Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet anchor every global one. Nvidia alone reaches into 50 of the 198 funds.

02 · Breadth is not depth

1,553 companies, and nearly a third of the money in ten

Take the portfolio most people would call sensibly diversified: equal parts VAS (Australian shares), VGS (global developed) and IVV (the S&P 500). Looked through, it owns 1,553 separate companies. It also keeps its ten largest positions at 29% of the total and its top twenty at 38%. The long tail is very long and very thin.

Notice what leads it: not an Australian name but Nvidia, at 4.5%, because it arrives twice, once inside VGS and again inside IVV. Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet do the same. The Australian banks and BHP hold their place only because a third of the portfolio is pointed at home.

03 · How few names carry the market

Fifty companies, two-fifths of the money

The concentration is not peculiar to one blend; it is the shape of the whole market. Of the A$247bn sitting in equity ETFs, the ten biggest companies account for a fifth and the fifty biggest for over two-fifths. The remaining 18,000-plus names share what is left.

04 · The redundant pair

Holding VGS and IVV together buys the S&P 500 twice

The clearest case of accidental doubling is also one of the most common combinations on the ASX. The S&P 500 is a subset of the developed-world index: nearly every company in IVV already lives inside VGS. Measured directly, 96.9% of IVV by weight sits inside VGS, and the great majority of its holdings are companies VGS already owns.

Held together, the two funds are not a diversified pair; they are one large US-plus-world position with the United States counted close to twice. That may be the tilt you want. The argument of this note is only that it should be a decision, taken with the look-through in front of you, rather than a surprise.

Method and cautions

• Look-through is issuer-reported. Each fund's holdings come from the issuer in its own format, resolving funds-of-funds to underlying companies. Identifiers are inconsistent across issuers, so companies are consolidated by name. Dollar rankings are robust; treat an individual company's total as accurate to roughly ten percent.
• Coverage is partial and skews large. 198 of about 460 ASX ETFs publish the holdings used here, covering A$247bn. The funds without published look-through are mostly smaller and newer, so the covered market is real but not the whole of it.
• Two dates. Holdings are as at 1 September 2026; fund assets are the July 2026 month-end from the ASX report. Weights move slowly enough that the mismatch does not change the picture.
• Effective holdings is one portfolio's number. The figure of 91 is the inverse-Herfindahl of the specific VAS + VGS + IVV blend. It illustrates a common portfolio; it is not a property of the market as a whole.
• Equities only. Cash, currency and bond lines are excluded, and the analysis is limited to equity funds, so a real portfolio holding bond or diversified funds will differ.
• This measures concentration, it does not judge it. Overlap and mega-cap concentration are not errors. Whether the resulting bet suits you is exactly the kind of question the caution below is about.

I currently hold IVV and some other Aus stocks but looking to clean it up and allocate a chunk of incoming cash accordingly. I'll be contributing monthly and looking at a 10-15 year timeframe .

Leaning towards this but open to suggestions - thanks in advance!

Last week the company that I follow the most had a very different type of ASX announcement.

It was an invitation...not to invest....it was an invitation for...a lunch!

Huh?

Yep, all shareholders of PAR are invited to RSVP by the 11th of Sep. There aren't a lot of places available for the lunch update in Melbourne on the 23rd...but you are welcome to apply if you are a holder.

There are a few (very few) examples of this in the past for any ASX listed companies...it is rare.

This tells me two things:

1) They are confident that the upcoming Interim Analysis (IA) for the Registrational Globally Harmonised Phase 3 isn't going to be in October or beyond, it will be sometime in September.

2) They are confident.

Well, you imagine a lunch and they don't pass their Interim Analysis. The same lunch could get quite messy if that were the case.

So what is all this about an Interim? It's a stage in the middle of a trial where the sponsor has a read out. In Par's case there are three distinct outcomes that are possible at IA:

1) Futile

The data ain't great, in fact the Placebo arm is just as good. The Drug is futile and it is not worth continuing! I give this less than 1% chance of occurring.

2) Pass

The drug is working, there is some separation between the Active (The drug, Pentosan) and the Placebo. It is worth continuing, at this rate PAR should get a pass at the 100% milestone due early 2027. I rate this at about 65% chance of happening...

3) Early Success

Mate, the drug is so good, there is such material and clinically viable separation between the two said cohorts that PAR have realistically already achieved their 100% result despite the fact that IA is only a readout when 50% of the patients are reporting. In other words, there is little to no real way PAR can fail. I rate this at about 30 to 40% chance.

Get this and it's a real celebration.

There are NO Osteoarthritis (OA) drugs that can alleviate pain as safely as Pentosan can, there are certainly no drugs that can or have been shown to modify the trajectory of the disease of OsteoArthritis and to do so safely and with such duration. No drugs show both symptomatic relief along with structural positive manifestations, simultaneously and systemically.

Get this and the PAR shares are going to re-rate like crazy (my views).

We have less than 3 weeks for this read out.

Good luck holders of PAR!

.

Disclaimer: I own shares in Paradigm, none of the above is advice. There is risk in such speculative stocks like Par.

Hi guys! I'm trying to figure out the best way to set up a share portfolio for my new baby 🫶

Does anyone have experience with the CommSec Minor Trust Account? Not sure if it's better to invest there or just invest for baby in my own account and transfer the shares as a "gift" later on?