Member Info for Daisan

In my experience the thing most likely to cause a share price to go down is when it is proceeded by a strong rise. This is irrespective of valuation. It doesn't matter in the short term whether it is under valued. People will always seek to 'derisk' in such circumstances as they wish to protect their profits regardless of whether it actually makes sense from a fundamentals point if view. Sellers are required to allow in new holders that will be seeking their own rise. Fundamentals drive long term appreciation rather than short term movements.

Surely the reason for the drop is our overvaluation compared with Glencore! :-)

Of course it bothers you. Who would not prefer their shares to be worth more, irrespective of whether they are 'free'. I am slightly concerned that you consider value is based on how high respective share prices are. On that basis if we did a 10:1 consolidation to have an equivalent share price with Glencore (ish) you would consider us to be massively overvalued!

I have no problem with people buying and selling. But the original comment made no sense.

You do understand the difference between share price and market capitalisation/enterprise value don't you?

Clearly a lot of those valuation increases were on the back of Vanadium price changes whether short or long term. Obviously both affect the valuation of the company so it is only right that they should impact the target. I have no particular interest in broker targets as a proxy for personal targets although they do provide a background for people's research I believe. The issue I have is when a position appears unjustifiable. I would suggest that the long term Vanadium forecast across most brokers is becoming difficult to justify as it requires a sudden and massive shift in the supply/demand situation. Previously when Vanadium has spiked there has been a supply that came in to shift this relationship. It is currently difficult to see what this factor is this time around. I have some sympathy for their view. Vanadium has a history of spiking and falling rapidly so it is clear that rises are looked upon somewhat scepitically. However, there are certainly reasons that support higher prices extending for a more prolonged period currently and some argument around this in their broker notes would probably go some way to suggest the potential for a very different outcome.

No. One mine produces 90% of the world's Niobium. It would be like jumping out of the frying pan into a raging inferno.

Whilst I agree with the premise indicated here (i.e. of demand outstripping supply for some time to come), this report looks to contain some errors and unlikely outcomes. It even contradicts itself in terms of Vanadium supply/demand for 2017 where they use a chart for actual supply v demand that indicates a 9300 tonnes shortfall compared with another chart (produced in 2014/2015) that suggests a surplus of supply over demand of 2000 tonnes V2O5 equivalent. This latter chart originated from Roskill. So the actual compared to the forecast was different to the tune of about 10500 tonnes mtv! Considering the world market, that is a huge differential.

Further on they predict the usage of Vanadium in VRFBs and suggest that China will use very little between now and 2020. Remind me how much Vanadium Dalian is due to consume?

This is the problem I am having with forecasts at the moment. My view of the Vanadium market is WAY out of kilter with the expert views. As an example, Roskill's forecast for 2018 indicates that demand is currently outstripping supply by a small amount after years of the opposite (suggesting stockpiles would have been accumulated). I am struggling to think how that marries up with the market we are seeing currently. Clearly Roskill will have updated their forecasts since this was published but SP Angel has indicated through its forecast that it is not far off Roskill's for 2019. So we have to assume their forecast is in the $40/kg level. My forecast is over $100/kg based on the market dynamics I can see.

Who is right and who is wrong? Only time will tell.

AAZ went up 50% ish on announcement of going debt free and maiden dividend. How much of that was for each, I have no idea but their debt situation was well flagged so I suspect it was more related to the dividend.

Just goes to show what happens to the price of a critical material when there is a real supply deficit. Record prices look almost certain in October (if not today!). I now expect $150/kg to be achieved this year with a possibility that this may be in October. If it is then you may even see $200/kg this year if these price rises continue unabated.

Unfortunately he comes across as just someone who has started believing his own press. His tweets about taking Tesla private were ludicrous even if true. As it is, it turns out they weren't and, as such, it is difficult to see that they weren't fraudulent given they were specifically designed to hurt shorters (which they did) who he was raging against at the time. Unfortunately for him, some of those shorters are pretty powerful people as well.

I have little faith in the US legal system, the outcome of which appears to be related to money. On this basis, given his money I do not expect him to serve any prison time.

I don't understand the obsession with people's trades. If he wants to sell that is his prerogative. If it goes down as he anticipates, good for him. If not, unlucky.

The thing is, the source from the company indicated that they were cutting purchases by 80%. Actually, when you read the whole thing, they were buying 20% and delaying 80%. They still need it and will buy it just not until a bit later. I suspect that when they come to buy the other 40 tonnes that the price will be higher again (although it sounded like they were being a bit shafted for the bigger amount).

This is the nature of the market currently. This is a REAL deficit rather than a futures led speculation. They don't have an option on buying - they have to buy but the product is not there. The market is dysfunctional currently and could go absolutely anywhere. What price 100 tonnes when customers who have to have the product require 200 tonnes?

Not from my understanding. It says for the duration of the right.

I actually read more into FM's statement than that. I think that he is implying that the engagements they are having require BEE compliance to succeed. Without this, there is no chance.

I will be genuinely amazed if the mining industry just shrugs its shoulders over a free carry. Unless there is something in there that is so valuable to them to offset what is a horrible drag of course but I am wondering what that could be. Clarity would be great for the mining industry but it is difficult to see how this promotes expansion of an industry that has been retrenching for years.

I am bemused by this. So the directors are lending their shares so that the bondholder can short the company to drive the share price down at which they can convert for more shares at a lower price so that they can do it all again?

BBN,

I hope that you are right. Brownfield should come into operation more quickly and, initially at least, more cheaply. An announcement of Mokopane licence with a cost effective brownfield deal that brings about fast revenue generation would be explosive for the share price.

I just can't see a free carry being accepted by the mining companies without a challenge. For me, this is going to the courts.

Where indeed. The power is all with the sellers of the material at the moment. Buyers have little option but to buy. At some point future demand will be hit but at what price that is, I have no idea.