Member Info for ACKER

V2611

Also expecting EGM to raise the share ceiling and share consolidation.

Acker

V2611

Yes, expect placements for working capital, creditors, Canmax interest, and repayment of the Roach loan.

No problem.

Acker

IMO no RNS tomorrow or Monday.

Tuesday or evan Wednesday for the news.

Confidence and sentiment on the turn, this should be reflected in future SP.

Those who know,know.

Acker

Snowking

This Seagul 19 chappie is a very rude man; save your best wishes for someone who didn't lose money through being greedy.

Acker

All the puppets have gone quiet.

Acker

Under the circumstances, I expected a higher SP ,always tomorrow.

Acker

Have just ordered the oysters

Acker

It was fun letting my puppets out of their boxes yesterday.

Now firmly back in boxes, with lids sealed.

Acker

I hope it goes well for shareholders---I really do.

Acker

Ratboy1971

Certainly seems that way.

Looks like you're being taken to the cleaners.

Acker

And what was the lithium price when the 30+ bid was made?

Don't give it away.

Acker

Looks like a low offer for Atlantic will be approved.

M & A market in the lithium sector is very buoyant.

Acker

Snowking

Just ignore them, enjoy the transformation.

Acker

Snowking

At this rate, we should see $3000 per ton before the end of May.

Acker

Raa

I get the theory you’re putting forward, but you’re overlooking the part that actually decides whether a market is digesting buys or sells — the behaviour of the bid over time. Even when a broker slices a large sell into 5‑million packets and feeds them into demand, the underlying selling still shows up in the tape. You don’t avoid the footprint; you just distribute it. And when a broker is genuinely offloading size, the bid always tells the truth: it softens, the spread loosens, and the price drifts as the broker reduces exposure.

That simply hasn’t happened here.

We’ve had repeated large blocks reported, yet the bid hasn’t weakened once. The spread hasn’t widened. The price hasn’t sagged. In fact, the price has stepped up across the sequence. That is not how a broker behaves when they’re quietly unloading hundreds of millions of shares. If they were selling into demand, the pressure would show — even in an orderly market.

Publishing the final block at an average price or at mid doesn’t change the underlying mechanics either. Reporting conventions don’t override market behaviour. The tape is the tape, and the tape isn’t showing distribution in any form. No weakening bid. No drift. No sign of a broker reducing risk.

So while the textbook explanation of warehoused sells is fine on paper, the actual market behaviour here doesn’t match it. The theory you’re describing and the reality on the screen are two very different things.

Try reading a different book.

Acker

Raa

I understand the theory you’re putting forward, but you’re skipping the part that actually matters: even warehoused sells still leave a footprint on the tape. Breaking a 400m order into 5m slices doesn’t make the selling invisible — it just makes it gradual. The market still absorbs the volume, and over time you still see the classic distribution signals: a softening bid, widening spreads, and a downward drift as the broker feeds those slices into buyers.

None of that has happened here.

We’ve had repeated large blocks reported, yet the bid hasn’t weakened once, the spread hasn’t blown out, and the price has stepped up across the sequence. That is the opposite of what you get when a broker is quietly unloading hundreds of millions of shares.

If these were warehoused sells, the broker would be reducing risk by feeding the market. That always shows up in the price action. Instead, the price has strengthened, which tells you the liquidity is being absorbed, not dumped.

You’re describing the textbook theory of warehousing.

I’m looking at the actual behaviour on the tape.

And the tape isn’t showing distribution in any form.

Acker

The lithium market is entering a new phase. Demand is expanding, driven by EVs, grid storage, and data center infrastructure. At the same time, supply is becoming more complex and more sensitive to policy decisions.

The recent actions in China and Zimbabwe show how quickly the balance can shift. They also highlight the importance of diversification, transparency, and long-term planning in lithium supply chains.

For investors and industry participants, the takeaway is clear: The lithium deficit narrative is returning, not just because of demand growth, but because of real-world supply constraints.

In this environment, projects that offer scale, longevity, and jurisdictional stability are likely to play a larger role in meeting future demand.

Sleep tight

Acker

Snowking

I see your point, and I’m not dismissing it at all. I just read the tape a bit differently. The large off‑book blocks didn’t put any pressure on the bid, and the price stepped up rather than down, which is why they looked more like accumulation to me.

Acker

Snowking

Time will tell

Acker

When people bring up warehoused trades as if they somehow overturn the read‑through, it usually means they’re mixing up execution strategy with market mechanics. Warehousing simply means a broker temporarily holds a client’s order and executes it in smaller slices to avoid disrupting the live order book. That’s all it is. It doesn’t change whether the underlying flow is buying or selling — it only changes when the prints appear and how they’re bundled.

A warehoused sell is still a sell. Even if the broker spreads it over several sessions, the market still absorbs the volume, and you still see the classic signs of distribution: the bid weakens, the spread widens, liquidity thins, and the price drifts. None of that has happened here. The bid has stayed firm after every single block, and the price has stepped upward across the sequence. That alone tells you these prints are not the market quietly digesting hundreds of millions of shares being dumped.

Likewise, a warehoused buy is still a buy. When a broker accumulates for a client, the bid stays supported because the broker is absorbing liquidity, not unloading it. That’s exactly what we’re seeing: repeated large blocks, all off‑book, all marked “Unknown”, all appearing in the usual negotiated‑trade windows — 08:00 delayed reports, mid‑session crosses, and post‑auction prints — and none of them causing any downward pressure. If these were warehoused sells, the bid would be under constant strain. It isn’t.

Warehousing doesn’t override tape signals. It doesn’t change bid reaction, spread behaviour, price trend, size signatures, or timing windows. It doesn’t explain away the fact that these are O‑type negotiated trades, that they’re consistently large, that they’re consistently off‑book, and that the market has shown zero signs of distribution. In fact, warehousing fits accumulation perfectly, because brokers commonly use it to build institutional positions quietly without moving the price.

So yes, warehousing is part of the picture — but it doesn’t contradict the accumulation read. It actually reinforces it. The mechanics are what they are, and the behaviour we’re seeing aligns with accumulation, not distribution.

Acker