[unclear] Q4 FY 2026 investor webinar. I'm Jane Morgan, Investor and Media Relations Manager.

Today I am joined by our Chairman and CEO, Hank Holland, who is going to be running through the quarterly results as well as the presentation which was lodged with the ASX this morning. As always, we will be taking questions from attendees following the presentation.

To ask a question throughout today's webinar, please use the Q&A function which can be found at the bottom of your screen. Hank, over to you.

Thank you very much, Jane. Good morning and thank you for joining us.

I'm Hank Holland, Chairman and CEO of Amaero. We're pleased to report our FY 2026 full year results, a year that marked a clear inflection point for Amaero as we completed our original 3-year capital investment program, scaled production capacity, and delivered record revenue that landed squarely within our guidance range.

Unless I state otherwise, I'll reference financials in Australian dollars. Full year FY 2026 revenue was $18.1 million, in line with our $18 to $20 million guidance and up 376% versus FY 2025.

The fourth quarter was the largest in our company's history with $7.8 million, a 417% increase year-over-year, even with approximately $1.3 million of contracted titanium shipments shifted into Q1 FY 2027 following a 6-week titanium production pause. Absent that timing shift, Q4 revenue would have been approximately $9.1 million and FY 2026 revenue would have been $19.4 million.

I'll take you through our financial performance and the revenue trajectory, cover the $6.5 million contract we were just awarded by the US Department of War, walk through our contracted backlog, update you on the completion of our capital investment program, the operational review at our Tennessee facility, and cover the strategic milestones we advanced this quarter, including the completion of our re-domiciliation to the United States, completion of PCAOB audit, and confidential submission of draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Then we'll open the line for questions.

The headline is this: we set out 3 years ago to build the largest-scale US production of refractory and titanium alloy powders and to position Amaero as a leading PM-HIP manufacturer of complex near-net-shape parts. With approximately $80 million deployed as of June 2026, the program is now complete and we're entering FY 2027 with expanded capacity, contracted backlog of $23.1 million, including $8.5 million of additional contracts secured since 30 June, of which $12.9 million relates to work currently scheduled to be completed by 31 December 2026.

Let me start with the full year picture. FY 2026 revenue of $18.1 million was up 376% versus FY 2025 and in line with the $18 to $20 million guidance we disclosed in January.

That figure breaks down as $15.6 million of powder revenue and $2.6 million from our PM-HIP business. The fourth quarter was a standout: $7.8 million in revenue, a record quarterly result and a 417% increase year-over-year.

Q4 growth was supported by the shipment of 30 PM-HIP components alongside titanium and refractory powders, reinforcing execution against contracted demand. As I noted, approximately $1.3 million of contracted titanium orders shifted into Q1 FY 2027 as a result of our 6-week production pause.

Adjusting for that timing, Q4 would have been approximately $9.1 million and full year FY 2026 approximately $19.4 million. Our backlog stands at $23.1 million and it's continued to build, with $8.5 million of additional contracts secured since 30th of June, of which $12.9 million relates to work currently scheduled to be completed by 31 December 2026.

That gives us meaningful forward revenue visibility as we enter FY 2027, with a backlog equal to approximately 128% of FY 2026 revenue. Beyond the financials, the slide highlights the strategic initiatives we advanced during the year.

We appointed Tim, or TJ, Johnson to the board, completed our re-domiciliation to the United States, completed our PCAOB audit, and confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC, positioning the company for a potential US listing in late calendar year 2026 or early calendar year 2027, subject to equity market conditions and completion of SEC review process. We also capped the year with significant commercial progress.

During the quarter we secured a 12-month master purchasing agreement with a minimum order of $7.8 million, and we announced a 3-year purchasing agreement with UPM. After the quarter end, we announced a PM production contract awarded by BPMI.

Today we announced a $6.5 million contract with the US Department of War to develop alternative refractory alloys. I'll come back to these shortly.

Stepping back to the trajectory, trailing 12-month revenue reached $18.1 million, up 376% year-over-year with both business segments contributing. Powder revenue contributed approximately 86% of the full year results and PM-HIP approximately 14%.

The quarterly progression tells the inflection story clearly. We moved from $4.7 million of revenue in Q1 to $3.1 million in Q2, $2.6 million in Q3, and then a step change to $7.8 million in Q4, with trailing 12-month growth for respective periods of 333%, 336%, 423%, 301%, and 417% across the four quarters.

Adjusting Q4 for the $1.3 million of deferred titanium shipments, the quarter would have reached $9.1 million. Q4 growth was supported by the shipment of 30 PM-HIP components alongside titanium and refractory powders across 19 unique customers, demonstrating continued execution against contracted demand.

PM-HIP manufacturing carries longer sales cycles and requires customer qualification, but those programs are fully underway and we continue to expect PM-HIP to grow its share of revenue mix over time as submarine industrial base demand converts into production contracts. Turning to a milestone we're especially proud of, we were awarded a contract valued at approximately $6.5 million, or US $4.5 million, from the US Department of War for the development of alternative refractory alloy powders.

This is a 13-month development program expected to be completed in August 2027. The program's objective is to reduce refractory alloy powder costs while reducing reliance on foreign sources for critical raw materials.

Under the program we will down-select two alternative high-temperature refractory alloys and produce powders using our advanced gas atomization technology. It further establishes Amaero's role in the next-generation refractory alloy powders for hypersonic and space applications.

The contract includes progress payments based on project milestones, with approximately 40% of revenue to be expected to be recognized in Q3, Q4 of calendar year 2026 and approximately 50% to be recognized in Q1 and Q2 of calendar year 2027. Our contracted backlog is a direct reflection of the commercial momentum we've built.

As of today, backlog stands at $23.1 million, or US $15.9 million. That's up from $14.6 million, or US $10 million, as of 30 June, reflecting $8.5 million of additional contracts secured since quarter end.

Within the total, $12.9 million relates to work currently scheduled to be completed by 31 December 2026. That backlog is supported by purchase orders and customer contracts, and includes both powder and PM-HIP revenue, reflecting broadening commercial traction.

Within it we've contracted more than 28 metric tons of titanium powder for Q3 calendar year 2026, and the backlog now spans 26 unique customers. PM-HIP contracting momentum continues to build, supported by the submarine industrial base demand.

As the company has confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the proposed initial public offering of shares in the United States, and based on Rule 135 under the Securities Act of 1933, the company will not provide further financial guidance. This is a slide I've been looking forward to presenting for 3 years.

With approximately $80 million deployed as of June 2026, we have completed our original 3-year capital investment program on schedule and on budget. Amaero is at a clear inflection point, having commissioned production capacity and begun scaling revenue.

Over the 3-year period ending 30 June, we made deliberate and disciplined investments in tangible assets, growing from approximately $18 million to $80 million. That capital delivered three commissioned EIGA atomizers with a fourth on order, an argon recycling plant that will be commissioned in early calendar year 2027, the completed fit-out of our Tennessee facility, and the commencement of commercial powder sales.

We now sit in the calendar year 2026-2027 phase scaling production and revenue growth, with 680 metric tons per year powder capacity today, increasing to 920 metric tons per year in 2027, dedicated PM-HIP capacity, and exclusive supplier agreements. Beyond that, in calendar year 2028 and forward, our focus turns to margin expansion and accelerating operating leverage.

As I've said before, as other companies are just beginning a multi-year capital investment plan, we have concluded ours. We are positioned to take immediate advantage of the favorable tailwinds for the defense industrial base, sovereign manufacturing, and critical minerals supply chain.

Let me walk through Q4 cash bridge. We started the quarter with a cash position of $38.3 million, including restricted cash.

From there, Ex-Im disbursements totaled $6.9 million, net cash in operations equaled $6.5 million, inventory purchases of $4.4 million, capital expenditures of $8.5 million, and a foreign exchange impact of negative $0.4 million. That brought us to a June 30 closing balance of $25.2 million, including restricted cash.

Adjusting for the final Ex-Im disbursement of $4.7 million expected in July, our pro forma cash position is $29.9 million. Importantly, cash used in operations during the quarter included approximately $1.4 million of non-recurring expenses relating to the re-domiciliation, the PCAOB audit, and the potential IPO.

Separately, we also amended our Ex-Im Bank credit agreement in June, increasing the total commitment from US $22.8 million to US $26.1 million, an increase of US $3.3 million in non-dilutive capital. Let me turn to operations, and I want to address our Tennessee facility directly.

During the quarter we experienced two contained safety incidents at the facility. In response, we completed a comprehensive process, system, and facility safety review with Jensen Hughes, a leader in safety and risk-based engineering, and implemented the resulting remediation and improvements.

We adopted a safety-first approach throughout. While we were mindful of our customers' need for reliable supply, we elected to temporarily pause titanium powder production while these improvements were implemented.

Titanium powder production has since resumed following a 6-week pause. Approximately $1.3 million, or US $0.9 million, of titanium powder orders were deferred to Q1 FY 2027 as a result.

Critically, there were no purchase order cancellations and no employee attrition during the pause. PM-HIP manufacturing and refractory powder production were not impacted, including the completion of the $4.6 million Titomic refractory powder order.

On the expansion side, we completed commissioning of our third EIGA premium atomizer ahead of schedule, and we now operate three EIGA atomizers: one for refractory and two for titanium, representing annual production capacity of approximately 200 metric tons of refractory alloy powder and approximately 480 metric tons of titanium alloy powder. Argon recycling plant remains on track for commissioning in Q1 calendar year 2027, and our fourth EIGA is on track for commissioning in June 2027.

Turning to the corporate side, our re-domiciliation to the United States is now complete. This positions Amaero as a sovereign advanced materials and manufacturing leader.

Amaero Inc., a Delaware corporation, is now our ultimate parent company. Shareholders retain equivalent economic ownership via CDIs.

Our ASX listing is maintained under the existing 3DA ticker, and our operation strategy and management remain unchanged. The timeline played out as planned.

We announced our intention to re-domicile in February, Tim Johnson was nominated to the board in March, the scheme booklet was distributed in May, shareholder approval was received at the EGM on June 5th, and the re-domiciliation became effective on June 22nd. We also completed our PCAOB audit in July, aligning us to US reporting standards, and confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC.

Again, given Rule 135 under the Securities Act of 1933, the company will now be prohibited to comment further on the potential initial public offering of shares in the United States, and the company refers investors to prior ASX announcements. The re-domiciliation supports three important objectives.

First, the US market positioning. It aligns us with US defense and sovereign manufacturing growth, gives us greater visibility to US customers and stakeholders, improves comparability with US-listed peers, and positions us to satisfy foreign ownership, control, and influence, or FOCI, requirements supporting eligibility for classified defense contracts.

Second, capital access. A US domicile gives us access to a larger, deeper investor base, the potential for improved valuation and liquidity, and enhanced access to lower-cost debt and equity capital.

Third, strategic flexibility. It simplifies our structure for potential M&A and partnerships, aligns us better with US strategic counterparts, and positions the company for a potential US IPO and listing in late calendar year 2026 or early calendar year 2027, subject to equity market conditions and the completion of the SEC review process.

On the last point, subsequent to the quarter end on 15 July, we confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC relating to a proposed initial public offering of our common stock in the United States, subject to market and other conditions, as well as completion of the SEC review process. On the commercial front, the other award that deserves special attention, announced after quarter end on 1 July, is our first low-rate initial production award from Bechtel Plant Machinery, Inc., or BPMI, a prime defense contractor.

The contract was valued at US $344,000 to produce piping in support of critical submarine industrial base needs. This marks Amaero's transition from PM-HIP validation to production and solidifies the US Navy's December 2025 letter of support.

We've collaborated closely with BPMI and the US Navy over the past 2 years across development, demonstration, first article, and now low-rate initial production. Though not announced, six contracts were previously awarded by BPMI with work ranging from development and demonstration through to production, and this successful progression positions Amaero to begin receiving production contract awards for critical submarine components.

The US Navy has recently announced support for PM-HIP as a mature manufacturing technology and a viable alternative for large castings and forgings supply chain challenges. BPMI has previously indicated estimated demand for up to 400 PM-HIP components per year.

We look forward to advancing qualification of more critical submarine components through continued collaboration with BPMI and with the US Navy. I'd also note during the quarter we secured a master purchasing agreement with a minimum commitment of $7.8 million for fiscal year 2027 for titanium alloy powder deliveries, and executed a 3-year exclusive master purchasing agreement with United Performance Metals, appointing UPM as a distributor partner and Amaero as its exclusive supplier of titanium alloy powders.

Supported by an initial 4,000 kg order, these agreements expand our strategic partnerships and give us strong early visibility into next year's revenue ramp. Closing remarks: to bring it together, FY 2026 delivered on plan with revenue of $18.1 million and a record fourth quarter of $7.8 million.

We completed our original 3-year approximately $80 million capital investment program on schedule and on budget, and we now operate three EIGA atomizers with 680 metric tons of annual powder capacity, scaling to 920 metric tons in 2027. We addressed the Tennessee safety incidents comprehensively and resumed titanium production with no order cancellations and no employee attrition.

We completed our re-domiciliation and PCAOB audit, confidentially submitted our Form S-1 to the SEC, and we're advancing towards a potential US listing in late calendar 2026 or early calendar 2027. Most importantly, we enter FY 2027 with contracted backlog of $23.1 million, including $8.1 million secured since 30 June, and a growing pipeline of long-term agreements and contracted programs across defense, space, aviation, and medical markets, capped by the $6.5 million Department of War contract and our first BPMI production contract.

We are executing, we are scaling, and Amaero is uniquely positioned as both a leading advanced materials business and a leading advanced manufacturing business, the largest-scale US producer of refractory and titanium alloy powders and a leader in PM-HIP manufacturing of complex near-net-shape parts for mission-critical components. Thank you for your time this morning, and I would welcome your questions.

Thank you, Hank. I might just get you to stop sharing, or we'll keep it up if you like.

Again, thank you everyone for joining us. If you do have questions, please feel free to use the Q&A function which can be found at the bottom of your screen.

We have received quite a few questions already, let me jump into them. Revenue increased 376% year-on-year.

What were the major drivers of this growth? Secondly, how much of this is repeatable into FY 2027?

The nice thing about the model that we've approached and the way that we have sought long-term strategic agreements is it gives us much better visibility. Approximately 80% of our revenue in FY 2026 came from long-term agreements and contracts that we had announced.

Going into FY 2027, again, over 80% of that backlog, okay, is from long-term agreements or contracts that we have prior announced. It gives us much better replication, if you will, and repeatability of that revenue going forward, and much better visibility of that revenue going forward.

As I mentioned, our backlog sitting here today is already over 125% of the full FY 2026 revenue of $18.1 million.

Thank you. Sorry, quite a few coming through, let me just deal with these.

What is the utilization rate of the current atomizers?

Here too, and we've purposely scaled somewhat slowly and we've invested ahead of demand. Let me start with titanium, then I'll go to the other parts of our business.

As of the end of FY 2026, we essentially got to 100% capacity utilization of our first atomizer. We then commissioned our second atomizer.

We will begin ramping up production of that in the start of FY 2027. Importantly, we've got underutilized capacity that enables us to go after some very large commercial opportunities that without having that unutilized capacity we cannot land.

I would expect as we go through FY 2027, we will fully utilize the second atomizer by the time that we land the third atomizer, and then again have that underutilized capacity for some of these larger commercial opportunities. Over time, I would expect that the three atomizers dedicated to titanium would essentially have near 100% capacity utilization.

On the refractory side, on the other hand, we don't expect over time to have more than 50% to 75% capacity utilization. Part of the reason for that is we've purposely positioned Amaero as someone that can be very agile and responsive to customer needs, while the alternative suppliers have a much, much longer lead time, okay?

These are much more expensive alloys, they'll contribute significantly to our revenue, but we would expect to have a lower capacity utilization. On PM-HIP, we are just today, in fact, looking out the window, there's a semi-truck with the crane bridge on it.

We're installing a 15 1/2 ton crane as well as additional capacity in anticipation of both larger number of production contracts as well as larger parts coming through the submarine industrial base. We've had significant expansion over recent months of PM-HIP, and so we've got significant underutilized capacity there as well.

Thank you, Hank. Just another one here.

With the new contract with the Department of War, is that likely to lead to contracts for the new refractory powder, and what volumes would you expect from that?

The $6.5 million Australian contract is a production contract for refractory alloy powders. Essentially what we're doing right now is the country, certain alloys or certain metals such as hafnium are up a lot, on the order of 700%, right, in recent years.

We're looking for other alloys, other refractory alloys that have similar performance, but have a lower and less volatile cost. We'll be working with the Department of War.

We've had this in planning for some period of time. We will down-select two alternative refractory alloys that are high-temperature alloys.

We will atomize those. We will PM-HIP parts, we will print parts, we will test those, we'll feedback that data to Department of War in hopes of qualifying other refractory alloys that again are lower cost and reduce our reliance on adversaries to source these materials.

We would expect this to lead to additional contracts from the Department of War going forward, but initially this is a $6.5 million contract for refractory alloy atomization over 13 months, beginning August of this current calendar year through August of 2027.

Thank you, Hank. Bear with me, there's quite a few coming through.

Changing pace: so do you have a view of the market demand and forecast for C103?

Yes, but I would also answer this question more broadly to refractory. We've given a demand signal that was done by a third party.

We first updated that maybe 3 years ago, updated that yet again maybe a year and a half ago. What I would say in general is C103 demand, albeit we have a number of contracts currently for C103 demand, both space companies and defense companies, in general, we don't see the demand for C103 scaling as much as we did in the out-years in that earlier demand study.

The reason for that is we see it being substituted by other refractory alloys. Now for us, the result will be comparable revenue and comparable margins to what we had, and so it's interchangeable, if you will, with the C103 demand.

Again, in total, we would see refractory revenue being about what we had assumed, refractory contribution to margin being about what we had assumed, but the mix shifting from C103 to these other high-value refractory alloys, such as tungsten-molybdenum, such as other niobium variants that don't have hafnium, as an example.

Wonderful. Next one here, just talking about the fact that there's no supply chain bottlenecks: so what's the number of fleet or atomizers you think the market could support in calendar year 2026, 2027?

It very much depends, again, refractory and atomization and titanium being very different markets. In titanium, the only two competitors that we have that we come across on a commercial demand basis is AP&C and Tekna, both based in Montreal, okay?

Plasma atomization versus our gas atomization. Fantastic competitors, albeit not US competitors, and that gives us an edge from a sovereign manufacturing standpoint.

Those are our competitors, though, on titanium. You're seeing significant growth in titanium demand.

You've seen a number of companies recently announce significant expansion of their 3D printing fleet. That includes Velo3D, VulcanForms, [sighs] there's been a half dozen companies in recent months, a Knust-Godwin, again, there's any number of these, that have announced a significant expansion of their 3D printing fleet.

Of that, the number one alloy, I would say, would be nickel 718, and the number two alloy would be titanium 64, right? This will lead to significant incremental demand for Amaero.

Again, other than our two Canadian competitors, we will get the lion's share of that demand. I think that we will grow faster than the organic growth because we will take share from those Canadian competitors as well given the demand and the preference for US sovereign manufacturing.

On the refractory side, we have very few competitors. As you might know, there's only one other company that is qualified C103 and other refractories for space applications, that is ATI.

ATI has a much, much longer lead time, is also a higher cost. We've got a lower unit cost than ATI has.

Again, we're uniquely positioned to the extent you need qualified refractory alloys, okay, with traceable feedstock, okay, which by definition, qualified is going to have to have traceable feedstock. We are uniquely positioned in that domain.

Thank you, Hank. Again, jumping around quite a fair bit here.

Obviously on the incidents that did happen, and you did make a fair comment about that, but any other further comments on the status of the TOSHA investigation, which is the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration? What's the sort of time frame for their anticipated review to be concluded?

To level set, the first incident we had in May relating to a processing piece of equipment, it was a blender, and we had, unfortunately, two of our workers suffer burn injuries. I'm glad to say that one of those workers came home about 4 weeks ago, maybe 5 weeks ago from the hospital.

Another worker came home about 3 weeks ago from the hospital. Both of them thankfully are recovering and doing well.

Anytime there is an injury in a manufacturing plant in the United States, you immediately contact either OSHA, which is a federal OSHA, or some states such as Tennessee are administered by the state, in our case we have TOSHA, or Tennessee OSHA. You immediately contact them, and then they begin an investigation.

This is compulsory anytime there is an injury. That investigation can take anywhere from 3 to 6 months prior to the results coming out.

We are cooperating fully with TOSHA, and that investigation is underway. We do not have any further update at this point in time.

Thank you, Hank. We have another question that's come through congratulating you on the results as well, but just commenting if you would provide some comment on how long it would take Amaero to produce the powder to fill the orders in the backlog?

The backlog is basically a 12-month backlog. I believe that there are a small number of orders that go into the July and August calendar year 2027.

I believe it's on the average of, well, I'm not going to give the number since we didn't report it, but it's a small amount relative to the total. Most of this backlog is in fiscal year FY 2027.

It is a combination of refractory alloys, titanium alloys, and PM-HIP. As I said, from a capacity utilization standpoint, refractory alloys, and it's a significant amount of refractory and titanium.

You can almost think of it as roughly 50/50 mix between refractory and titanium. We have identified or disclosed that we have 23, or 28, tons of demand of titanium in the current quarter, okay?

We are not taking any additional orders this quarter as we resume production, and again want to be very, very focused on a very smooth restart. We will expect to expand that production in the December quarter.

We've got plenty of capacity to meet the orders we expect to have from a demand standpoint, and we've got additional capacity both from the titanium side and the refractory side.

Thank you. This one's now to the Department of War contract, obviously which was announced today.

Very strategic obviously, but beyond the contract value itself, what does this mean for Amaero's position in the US defense supply chain?

We have said very explicitly, and I've said this more recently in announcements that we've made, and something the effect of that we will continue to collaborate closely with stakeholders at the US government, the Department of War, and the US Navy to expand, to integrate, and to collocate manufacturing capabilities, okay? Those words are chosen very specifically.

I am frequently in Washington, DC. Colleague of mine, Mick Maher, is based in Washington, DC.

I have long-standing relationships in Washington, DC, as does Mick Maher. We've been advancing a number of these projects for years.

I would expect that there are more conversations that we're having that have yet to be announced. I would expect it would lead to further opportunities going forward.

This is a very significant announcement and that it really positions us as the key refractory alloy powder supplier for critical space and defense applications, right? That's one takeaway that I would have from this Department of War announcement.

Again, as I said earlier, I would expect other Department of War contracts will follow from this, and I would expect us to continue to expand in our collaboration in work with Department of War as well as the US Navy more specifically.

Thank you. Again, I'm jumping around a bit here.

This is about BPMI and the PM-HIP opportunity. The relationship has progressed from development work into low-rate initial production.

What milestones still need to be achieved before this becomes a larger recurring production program? Secondly, how significant could the submarine industrial base opportunity become in the medium term?

It's a great question, and importantly, and maybe to the bit of frustration of some investors, Amaero does not announce MOUs, does not announce contracts. We made a decision over the last couple years that we would not announce the contracts of BPMI.

To give you some context, BPMI is the only, I underscore only, defense prime contractor for nuclear submarine. Again, I'll repeat that: BPMI is the only prime defense contractor for nuclear submarine, okay?

We've been working with them very closely for 2 years. Nuclear submarine qualification is essentially the highest, highest, highest bar of qualification.

The US has had a nuclear submarine program for about seven decades, we have never had an incident involving a nuclear submarine. Very, very high qualification standards, something called SUBSAFE are the standards that you're qualifying for.

This has been a progression over 2 years. We have now progressed that such that the US Navy and BPMI have come out to say that PM-HIP is a mature technology, ready for insertion in place of castings and forgings.

We've got a real challenge for forgings in the US as far as capability as well as production capacity. The Navy has come out and said that PM-HIP is a mature technology ready for insertion.

Bear in mind a number of these other technologies, be it additive manufacturing, WAAM, which is wire arc additive manufacturing, DED, direct energy deposition, they do not yet have necessarily qualified parts on a submarine. PM-HIP has qualified parts on nuclear submarine today, right?

We are 2 years down the road even though we didn't make any announcements prior to this. The way you qualify today is you're qualifying parts one part at a time, and so that's the path that we're on today.

What we would hope to do is to progress, instead of qualifying one part at a time, to qualify a family of parts at a time. A series of hog valves, as an example, okay, as opposed to a single valve.

We will see, but that would be the hope of how we would progress over time. Here too, I would say we're really limited in what we can say as it relates to these programs.

We're really not able to say anything that has not already been announced, and the announcements that we've made were cleared by BPMI and the US Navy. It's very explicit what could be announced and what was approved to be said.

Thank you, Hank. Again, lots coming through, I'm trying to just combine them all together.

The original 3-year $72 million Australian dollars, rather, investment program has been completed on time and on budget. What does this mean capital requirements going forward?

Then also there's quite a few people that are asking just when we're going to get to EBITDA breakeven? Yep.

On the first question, the $72 million Australian CapEx plan that we announced 2-odd years ago, 2 1/2 years ago, that was completed on plan, on budget. If you look at all the analyst estimates out there for kind of our terminal revenue, what we need to achieve that terminal revenue is now fully funded, okay?

We have that capital equipment and the improvements to our facility, those investments have been made. Anything that you see out there in the marketplace for terminal revenue, growth of revenue, we would not need any additional capital investments other than, for example, unpaid contracts from last quarter, just roll over, if you will, but in general, we would not need any other capital investments to satisfy and to grow to that revenue.

Now that being said, as I've said before, we have been in discussions with other counterparts about expansion, integrating, and collocating other capabilities. These would be incremental capabilities to our current business plan.

They would require incremental capital investment, and they would produce incremental revenues and profits, okay? That's not currently in our plan.

We've not given any more details on that, and I'm not in a position to give any more details on that today. On the latter question with EBITDA, and this is now very particular since we have filed our confidential registration statement, the Security Act of 1933 has got something called Rule 135, and it is very specific once we file our confidential registration statement, in no way can we provide any guidance.

I cannot comment on a question such as when do we expect EBITDA positive or revenues, anything other than what we stated explicitly in this presentation.

Thank you, Hank. Sorry, we are running through time, but there's quite a few coming through, I'm collating them.

You did speak in your presentation just about the no order cancellations or employee attrition during that production pause. This sort of question asks, obviously they're quite confident, but from your discussions with them, how confident are the customers off the back of all of this?

I would say two things. I reached out to a number of CEOs I particularly respect in the aftermath of this.

I had never been through a situation personally where an employee had been injured, and I reached out to some CEOs that I really respect that had been through some crises, if you will, and sadly, in their situations, involving fatalities. I really listened to what they had experienced, what they had learned, and how they had responded.

The word that I adopted that I heard from two of these CEOs I really respect was they made a conscious decision to quote-unquote "lean in," as did we, right? We hired the leading experts in the country for metal dust hazards.

We made an explicit decision that we're going to take a safety-first approach. Then next, I would say we very intentionally and proactively reached out to all of our stakeholders: first and foremost, to the local authorities, fire, police, city, county emergency services, that was all done within a matter of hours; secondarily, to all of our customers.

I will tell you, without a single exception, and I underscore without a single exception, our customers were incredibly supportive, and they were particularly supportive of our approach with safety-first, leaning in, taking very serious the review that we did and making the remediation, recognizing that it would create a certain inconvenience for them. Now as I mentioned in an earlier announcement, we had a certain amount of inventory on hand, some of those most pressing orders we did fill.

Then those orders from customers that did not have a pressing need and that could wait, we delayed, as I mentioned, until this current quarter. We expect to begin re-shipping powder end of this month, early next month.

Again, the customers have been very supportive, and we do not see any damage whatsoever. In fact, in one potential very, very large commercial account, I would say it advanced our relationship.

In this case, the other company had unfortunately also had an incident, a more serious incident. I think, again, they were particularly impressed with the way that we were approaching this, and they will be at our site doing an audit next month.

Again, I think if anything, it advanced our relationship with that particular customer.

Thank you, Hank. Again, sorry, there's lots coming through, I'm going to loot them in together.

What strategic benefits do you expect from the US listing beyond simply that sort of access to capital? Then also should shareholders expect the US listing to improve liquidity and valuation comparables over time?

I can't comment on Amaero specifically and the listing specifically, but let me provide a comment more broadly speaking as it relates to the market. US defense ETF is near an all-time high.

Our peer companies in Amaero are 40% to 50% off their 52-week high, okay? You look at a half dozen peer companies to Amaero, all of those are 40% to 50% off.

There's a significant disconnect between the valuation structure of the ASX and the valuation structure of the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Russell 2000 small cap index, whatever you want to look at. S&P is coming off its best quarter in 6 years, its best first half of the year in 6 years.

ASX has traded really lousy, as we all know, okay? We've got a real disconnect.

There is incredibly strong investor interest in small cap companies in the US relating to the defense industrial base, relating to sovereign manufacturing, and relating to critical minerals. I think the US listing for a company such as Amaero is a significant advantage.

Candidly, companies that are less mature in where they are from a development standpoint could not pursue this. The fact that we can pursue this, the fact that we have attracted very strong underwriter interest, I think positions us well.

Again, we are unable to comment any further specific to Amaero or the listing beyond what we've said up to this point in announcements.

Perfect. I think just finally, 2027, financial year 2027, what are the key priorities for management and what metrics should investors be looking forward to over the next 6 to 12 months?

Look, I've said all along that I think there's been a lot of questions from investors: where are the contracts? We have now announced a number of contracts, but I would say more important to me is where is the revenue, okay?

As I mentioned to you, the revenue that we have produced relates to long-term agreements and contracts that we have announced. We have a pipeline of other commercial agreements that we will continue to work on, that we will continue to advance.

Going into FY 2027, sitting here today with $23.1 million of backlog, okay, roughly 130% of FY 2026 revenue, I think is a very big deal and positions us very uniquely. Again, compare us to peer companies on the ASX: what is their revenue?

What was their revenue in the most recent quarter? What was their revenue in FY 2026?

What is their backlog visibility for FY 2027? I think we're positioned very uniquely versus those companies.

Candidly, I would not have wanted to pursue a US listing earlier than this. I would want to achieve this maturity in both the revenue that we have printed and our visibility to revenue as well as the capacity that we've stood up.

On the commercial side, I think we're now at a very significant inflection point, and we foresaw this a year ago, right? A year ago we said, "Watch FY 2026.

This will be a clear inflection point." Now what we have is we've got a chance to grow off of that base with significant year-over-year growth, and I would expect significant year-over-year growth for years to come.

Wonderful. Hank, that's all we've got time for, and thank you everybody for joining us today.

If we've missed any of your questions, please feel free to reach out via the contact details which are at the bottom of our ASX releases. I've just seen a question pop up: we will be recording this and it will be shared shortly.

Thank you all for joining us and we look forward to hosting you next time.

Thank you very much, Jane. Thank you very much, everyone.

Take care.