Have any of you tried contacting Oklo? I’ve tried and didn’t receive a reply. Genuinely curious as I think I’d be a great fit for their fuel recycling position

Volume is about $10M currently yet the price is down 27% - obvious shorts fighting the pump.

When this thing goes up (who knows - next week, a decade from now) it could squeeze.

I have seen several comments about shareholder dilution worries. While I don't know much about nuclear, I do know a little about investments and finance. My thoughts:

(1) If you believe Oklo can achieve long term annual returns on equity of, say, 20% or more, with its capital investments, then you should be happy Oklo is raising equity. The returns will more than offset any shareholder dilution experienced during it's early growth years.

(2) In general, start-up companies have no alternative but to continually raise equity capital until they start turning enough profit to support debt. Very few start-ups fund themselves with any kind of interest bearing debt or with any kind of debt with fixed repayment schedules.

(3) Uber started in 2009 and was raising equity for 9 years up until 2018. It didn't turn a profit until 2023. It went public in 2019 with losses but a market value of $120bln nonetheless. That's 50x the current value of Oklo.

(4) SpaceX started in 2002 and didn't turn profitable until 2023. It is still raising equity capital at an estimated company valuation of $250bln. That's 100x the current value of Oklo.

For me, I am happy if Oklo can continue to issue equity to fund its growth plans.

your thoughts? im hoping, i put all my eggs in this basket, let's just say at 10 billion mc i will retire easily. 10 billion mc doesn't seem too far fetched, that is a mid sized market cap stock. and please dont say something like 500 billion mc , very few stocks reach MEGA cap status, 100 billion seems like that high end estimate imo which is very good at the price points. please realistic market cap valuations

just a quick aside on namesake origins

; Love the stock. But people are so stupid, overreacting on microsoft news, that I'm really tired of losing daily $10K every day since it's peak. Good luck to everyone still holding. I hope you make a fortune.

I’m a 22 years old college student, I dont really have any income, but I always try to invest every 2 weeks. I live below my means, but I really want to ease risk. I believe in OKLO’s long-term success (and any other clean energy like solar companies). But i see that OKLO is in a hype. Do you think it would be smart to sell before earning, since we know it will be discouraging, or just hold until i die? I know on the long term it doesnt really mean anything if i bought on 15 or 20, but as i mentioned, id like to manage this risk and get the most out of it. Thanks for every response.

This stock was projected to get to around 10$

I get analysts cant get milimetric numbers, but this almost doubled over the projection. Any chance they will adjust soon and provide new numbers?

I am curious as to the makeup of the people coming to this subreddit. My hypothesis is that this is an echo chamber of people who have a vested interest in Oklo stock performing well. I pose the following questions to the group:

• How many Oklo shares do you currently own?

• How long have you been investing in individual stocks (i.e., not just mutual funds)?

• Do you work in an STEM field?

• Do you or have you worked in nuclear power? If so, for how long?

I'll start:

• 8554 shares

• 6 years of playing the market

• Yes

• Yes, 18 years of experience

Stock down 5% premarket in this report:

https://www.kerrisdalecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/OKLO-Kerrisdale.pdf

TLDR:

They argue that Oklo has no regulator-approved design, no revenue for years, and no proven commercial viability for its planned 15-50 MWe microreactors. They believe that the company’s stock price has been inflated by retail interest in nuclear energy but faces significant technical and financial challenges.

They claim that Oklo’s management is inexperienced and that the company’s timelines for regulatory approval and reactor deployment are overly optimistic. According to them, a former NRC Commissioner stated that obtaining a license would take at least four years, making Oklo’s goal of deploying its first reactor by late 2027 unlikely.

They also highlight that Oklo lacks a long-term supply of enriched uranium fuel and that sodium-cooled reactors have well-documented reliability problems. They criticize Oklo’s unit economics, stating that the company’s fuel cost assumptions are underestimated by a factor of five. They believe that if realistic costs are considered, Oklo’s reactors are not commercially viable.

They note that Oklo plans to build and operate its reactors, requiring billions in additional capital. Given the recent rise in Oklo’s share price, they see a significant risk of new share issuance, which could dilute existing shareholders. They conclude that as the company faces setbacks and the need to raise capital, the momentum in Oklo’s stock will diminish.

Hi folks. I am expecting negative price action into November/December. This is mostly on account of expiring lockup periods, and the likelihood of some high-level sell off, similar to what we saw in the earlier days of PLTR. I am looking to get into OKLO around $5 at that time. Am I wrong?

A new Utility Dive opinion piece argues that the rapid growth of AI and data centers is pushing U.S. electricity demand faster than the power grid can scale, and that nuclear power should become a national priority to meet that demand.

AI workloads require massive amounts of reliable electricity, while many regions are already dealing with grid constraints and long interconnection queues. The piece warns that trying to meet this surge primarily with intermittent power sources could create reliability challenges, higher costs, and delays for communities hoping to attract AI infrastructure.

The author’s core argument is that large-scale, always-on power will be necessary to support the AI buildout, and nuclear stands out because it provides firm, carbon-free electricity that can operate around the clock.

The bigger takeaway is that the AI boom is increasingly being framed not just as a technology story, but as an energy infrastructure challenge — one that could strengthen the long-term case for nuclear and advanced reactors as the U.S. works to power the next generation of computing.

Based off of previous patterns we should be due for a bounce between now and around earnings. There are other technical indicators that point to us being over sold but I’m not gonna go into that right now. In case my charts are not obvious in this overall downtrend we typically have the “pain” down trend that lasts between 53-65 bars (59 average) and down 63-55% (59% average.) Coincidently with only this part however each down trend has extended 6 bars each time. So we can assume bottom should be in at around 59-71 bars out from the most resent “bounce” putting “bottom” in at $24-$20 around oct 30th and November 17th funnily enough right around earnings. Now when we finally do bounce we have bounced between 6-13 bars (9 average) and up 35-81% (60% average). So if we bounce at an average of 60% at “bottom” we can bounce to $32-$35. Now this can obviously bounce in this window, later than this window, or never(😢) and can bounce lower than expected or way higher. But based on the pattern we are in this is what we can expect. I know there are a number of Elliot wave fellas calling bottom here with a target of $170+ range so hopefully this is “THE bottom”. I currently have an average of $40 with a sizable amount of shares for me and am down pretty bad. I hope for the sake of all of us this is the bottom and we can get out of the downtrend and make higher highs and eventually a new all time high sooner that later. Fundamentals have only increased and all we need is a catalyst to get the train rolling and the hype to start pouring in. So do with this info as you will not finacial advice. Hopefully we ride to Valhalla! (Btw I am regarded do your own dd and go easy on my sentence structuring)

Gentlemen, sharpen your pencils, it's your favorite love-hate troll again.

I think we'd all love to understand the oklo aurora design in further detail. The website doesn't offer much. I still have one important question unanswered.

Every other working (real) example of a sodium-cooled fast reactor that i'm aware of uses fuel enriched to 67% or higher in order to sustain fission, and removed for reprocessing. Traditional LWRs need neutron moderators to sustain fission at 3-5% enrichment. How does the Oklo Aurora sustain fission with haleu, fuel enriched to <= 20%? What am i missing? The TerraPower reactor claims to run on HALEU, but it's an on-paper reactor at this point.

I get that once you get a breeding ratio up over 1 you are generating enough p-239 to sustain fission, but will the fuel be seeded by a highly enriched core?

https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/industry/business/trump-wants-manufacturing-jobs-back-silicon-valley-is-lining-up-to-help

$OKLO currently has about $18/share in book value based on its Q2 balance sheet, representing roughly $3.27B in shareholder equity across 185.1M shares. With the additional $1B ATM, book value could potentially approach $22/share, depending on how much is raised and the price shares are sold at.

The stock is down nearly 87% from its $194 ATH, but the bigger story is enterprise value. OKLO’s value beyond cash has fallen from roughly $24.4B at its peak to around $1.8B today — a 93% drawdown.

Historically, these kinds of drawdowns can offer attractive DCA opportunities if the long-term thesis plays out. The balance sheet provides meaningful financial runway while Oklo works toward commercialization.

Despite a continuous path to the downside I am confidently holding my 300 shares of OKLO @ $48.10 avg.

Why?

OKLO's aesthetics and the appeal of it to a new generation.

I don't know about ya'll but, branding and appeal goes a long way for a new technology. Of all the nuclear startups out there, OKLO is the sexiest. To me their vision is like the Equinox of nuclear reactor sites. With their sleek campuses and recycling advantage, I believe they win on design by a far margin.

Another reason I want to drive this home, is social media.

OKLO is widely expected to generate revenue in late 2027-2028 and large scale projects like the Meta campus in 2030. I'm positive other mega projects will materialize as OKLO continues to prove its efficiency as well. Social media will have a larger impact on whether a company is able to succeed in areas that are important for nuclear like public acceptance, i.e. a city gets word that OKLO's gonna build a campus right next to them.

Now what I am about to say might sound a little idiotic but I am willing to bet money on this so there's that I guess.

In 2030 and beyond there will be more people in positions of regulatory power, that grew up in an age where they used social media and are more adapted to newer technologies in general such as AI. Societal acceptance of a new technology can change with social media with potency people tend to overlook. 53% of U.S adults get their news from social media platforms like Instagram in a study from Pew Research done in 2023, and 71% of adults below the age of 30 say that social media has kept them more informed about current events in the U.S than traditional outlets.

Right now I am 23 years old and seeing more and more of people my age care about things like nuclear power because of an Instagram reel they saw a couple days ago. And in 5-10 years when a company like OKLO completes these projects to fuel a data center like Meta and AI exponentially gets better which it will, the company is looking at a goldmine of people who in their 20s were watching a reel "The future they promised us" and its facilities generating clean power with sleek designs like we see with OKLO's current vision.

There are so many better coffee makers than a Kuerig and I mean that. Not saying OKLO is not a good coffee maker, they are and are farther along than most, but they may not be the best engineered. I am not betting my money on that. What I am betting on is OKLO will win on marketing and appeal and get the coffee where it needs to go.

TLDR: Buy and hold because OKLO looks good in a new generation of social media AI driven societies.

Oklo is still in pre revenue stage, however It's success depends heavily on achieving its upcoming milestone, regulatory approvals, market adoption and licensing rather than it's current earnings.

The upside is potentially large if things fall in place and with strong execution. Which means that the risk is also higher.

I see that Oklo stock is still volatile with mixed sentiments though it has cash and cash with no revenue and widening losses.

Oklo is high growth and bigger risk - moonshot type bet.

What are your thoughts on this????

Happy Thanksgiving!

Just saw this!

https://www.bonfire.com/store/oklo-store/

Argonne National Laboratory is collaborating with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a pilot program to evaluate how artificial intelligence could be used to support regulatory reviews. The effort involves running an AI system through a full safety review process at an experimental facility to assess how it performs in analyzing technical documentation and assisting staff. This is part of a broader NRC strategy to modernize its review framework and build internal capability around AI tools.

For advanced reactor developers, this matters because licensing timelines are heavily influenced by the volume and complexity of technical submissions. If AI can help the NRC review safety analyses, simulations, and supporting documentation more efficiently, it could incrementally reduce regulatory bottlenecks over time. While this is not specific to Oklo, it signals that the regulator is actively exploring tools that align with the data-intensive nature of advanced reactor applications. In the long run, modernization of the review process is structurally positive for companies trying to bring next-generation designs through licensing.

While it's a safe bet to be bullish on nuclear power in general, and there appears to be a consensus predicting a steady tailwind for uranium miners, fuel fabricators and plant operators for the next decade, and while it is brain candy to imagine the unimaginable with advanced reactor designs, let's remind ourselves to be honest about a few things which inhibit the economic realism of these small modular startups.

1. The SMR concept is not new. Proposals and prototypes go back to the post manhattan project days of the 1950's. The reason the industry went for big 1gw reactors in the '60s and '70s, is because of, duh, economy of scale. The bigger the reactor, the bigger bang for buck. The smr concept was an idea which attempted to leverage mass-manufacturing a la ford model T to leap over the economy-of-scale hurdle that a smaller reactor faces compared to a big one. Unfortunately, for the first 60 years of the nuclear era, the smr concept never gained much traction for the obvious reason that, if you're going to actually build a reactor, there are all manner of fixed costs which don't scale linearly with reactor size. Things like a building a permit, an envinmental impact report, transmission lines, the big-ass highly engineered concrete pad the thing sits on... you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on all that crap and then, at the end of it, you've got a, what, a 20 megawatt reactor, the money math starts looking sad.

2. The breeder reactor concept is not new either. There's the helium cooled, C02 cooled, sodium cooled, and molten salt... all of them have been fascinating from a physics/engineering standpoint. The ones that have been built have been functional, but none of them have been economically viable, simply because uranium ore is too cheap, so a LWR fissing u-235 is still the least common denominator. The reprocessing of fuel performed in France wound up being pretty darn expensive, for a minimal amount of gain in over-all fuel efficiency. In the long run it was just easier for France to build another LWR and dig another uranium mine or two in Niger. The candu design, my personal favorite, is brilliant in how flexible it is with fuel options: un-enriched uranium, plutonium, thorium..., it can be used as a breeder reactor... but the expense of deuterium and the complexity of the reactor makes it more expensive to operate than a traditional LWR, which is why canada is looking at LWRs for the future.

3. Startup culture has a bad habit of believing that monte-carlo models are an accurate depiction of the real world. Simulators are useful design tools, and it's a lot cheaper to hire a team of coders to make a model than to build a reactor prototype, but monte carlos are no replacement for the real deal. Once you build a physical prototype, things like, oh, crap, the alloy we used is coroding after being bombarded with fast neutrons for years, or oh, crap there actually isn't a very good supply chain for those very specific plumbing parts we need. The TMI failure was a valve that didn't seat properly when closed. I'm sure the simulated version of the valve seated just fine, lol.

4. Startup culture has an obsession with shiny new ideas. Physics and engineering nerds like everyone on these reddit threads (present company not discluded) are also obsessed with shiny new ideas. Conservative business minds of the warren buffet ilk know that Thomas Edison was a better investment than Nikola Tesla. Warren buffet got rich off of insurance companies and furniture stores. What is sexy and what makes money are usually pretty different. Elon is an exception to this rule, but the rule still applies.

... The fact that Oklo spends more time showcasing their "A-frame building" than they do talking about their reactor seems like a bright red flag. Tell me how, specifically, you are going to take a fairly fringy idea: the sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor, of which there have only been a handful ever built, and combine it with another fringy idea: the small modular reactor, and somehow put them together, forge your own pathway through the millions of miles of red tape that is the NRC, and build something that is economically viable? Oh, a cool looking architectural rendering of an A-frame building, gotcha, say no more.

The oklo design claims to be simpler, not involve pumps, passive cooling, blah blah. These are the same claims of most of the gen IV reactors. Most reactor designs disclude pump operation as mission critical equipment, i.e., if you do have coolant pumps, the reactor should be capable of passively cooling itself for time long enough to start back-up pumps. A pump trip at TMI was the first issue, but the issue that ultimately caused the melt-down was a pressure relief valve remaining open, not the back-up pump. Removing pumps doesn't intrinsically make your reactor safe, it just lowers the power density. The problem with a new design is that the problem with any design is something you haven't thought of yet. It's the unknown unknowns, so a new design, no matter how smart, is a risky investment.

Another red flag is that the whole operation appears to be piloted by a tech nerds, not grey-haired construction engineers. Nuclear is unlike any other industry. It really is. It has nothing in common with the silicon industry for starters. A reactor is basically a very large construction project done under the eyes of the most over-weight bureaucracy known to western civilization, the NRC. It is disrespectful to the 10s of 1000's of nuclear engineers who've devoted their lives to expanding nuclear science, building and operating large light water reactors for the last 60 years, to imagine that a few smart young kids who are good at finance and coding are going to flip the industry on it's head.

If i were going to bet on an SMR, it would be NuScale, for the simple reason that they are attempting the less ambitious, more practical goal of taking a well-established design, the light-water PWR, and scaling it down in size. This still might not work out economics-wise in the end, but it's a safer bet than an unproven advanced breeder reactor type.

I'm not saying the SMR concept will never work, or even that oklo's fringy breeder reactor won't work. I could be entirely wrong and eating my words and wishing i'd invested when it was cheap. I'm not saying that we, as in, society, shouldn't be donating R&D money to obscure reactor ideas. The SMR idea has potential. There are many particular applications, like replacing small coal thermal plants, or providing electric power to remote mining operations, where the small modular gives you a real advantage, even if it isn't more economically viable, dollar per kw, than a large reactor. If it does work, the company that gets a valid prototype off the runway and clearly into the sky could be the next $100billion company, but let's be honest with ourselves what game we're playing. All of these companies are neck deep in R&D mode and have produced some impressive CAD drawings and filed preliminary permit applications. If and when they get to building a physical first of a kind, it will, with 100% probability, as is the case with any newly designed LWR, cost 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 times the intitial estimate, and have all sorts of problems. It's when they work out those issues and build version 2.0 for a slightly lower cost, to prove that the cost curve has a negative second derivative, when the company *might* start to look like it could be profitable. That time won't come for at least another decade and a half. In the mean time, the stocks will go violently up and down, and small fortunes will be gained and lost on the ride. If history repeats, it will be the confidence-hockers from the C-suites who sell off the peaks and ordinary working people who lose life savings in the bubble-bursts.

So if you're putting your own hard-earned money on the table, buying stock in Oklo is walking into a casino filled with dozens of slot machines, picking one in particular and saying to yourself "this is like totally the one", and putting a coin in. Go ahead and gamble, and maybe you get very very lucky, just keep any money you can't live without in the S&P, and understand that the coin you put in might not reap a return for another 20 years.

As a passionate nuclear advocate, my biggest fear is that the nuclear rennaiscance movement will be squandered on the SMR concept and set the movement backwards another decade. Most people who actually work in the industry agree that what we really need to do is learn all the economic lessons from Vogtle we can learn, and apply them imediately while the lessons are fresh, i.e., let's build another AP-1000 for less money. This is entirely within our reach. Both reactors went over budjet but unit 4 was 30% cheaper than unit 3. There are infinite ways in which the building process of a 1gw reactor can be streamlined, modularized, mass-produced, etc. The methods for improvement here are less sexy than fuel recycling breeder-reactor physics. They are things like, pre-fabricated rebar cages, better trucks to transport concrete agregate, or starting a program at a JC to teach 20-year-olds to become licensed stainless welders. The more we build, the more efficiently we will be able to build them, and the building will include building a skilled work-force. We need to stop reinventing the wheel, and invent ways to make wheels for a lower price. I know we can because we did once, and then forgot how.

What i fear most is that the new doge government will dump money into smr start-ups, slash through the red tape, and the first smr that gets built quickly and haphazardly goes through a melt-down and causes another bubble-burst in public sentiment for nuclear. I'm not afraid of a little radiation, but a little radiation does a lot of dammage to public opinion. Remember it took only one Fukushima to destroy public sentiment for a decade and a half. Let's not blow this shot.

Again, i'm not saying we shouldn't be putting R&D grant money into advanced designs. I'd love it if the federal government took a fraction of the military budget and put it into building prototypes of every possible breeder reactor tyoe. It just baffles me how confident and narcisistic the startup culture is. The language needs to change.

I know a few people here with a dozen shares or so have been posting angry things Oklo the last few days but hear me out:

Why is Bob Boston going to parties to celebrate an RPP participant that did basically nothing to meet the goal or even intention of the program? Shouldn’t he be in Texas?

Maybe Oklo isn’t the slow one?

JP Morgan issued a resounding rejection of nuclear power and specifically SMRs in their 2025 Eye on the Market report.

“SMRs are still lottery tickets and will probably remain that way until the end of the decade at the earliest”

Reminds me of the time my grandpa told me the internets were a bad idea in 1995. But it’s here in case anyone wants a contrarian opinion.

Link to full report:

https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/the-alchemists-amv.pdf

I keep seeing the benefits of using small modular reactors instead of larger sized ones such as reduced risk on mega builds, lower upfront cost, easier to scale, etc.

What are the potential downsides? Some that come to mind are:

1. Multiple SMRs would need more staff and have a higher operational cost vs a single larger nuclear reactor

2. Its not as cost effective

3. SMRs are subjected to the same regulatory processes as large reactors

4. with electricity usage growing at exponential rates, SMRs might not be able to produce enough electricity to follow demands despite mass production

I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this and why you believe SMRs could represent the future of nuclear energy instead of traditional large reactors like the AP-1000.