Member Info for Katinka

But asllankukeli, karma is also relevant if you stay invested in a share where time and time again you get over-promised something and then under-delivered and diluted into oblivion. Or why should karma reward you for making bad investment decisions? There's enough junior mining/exploration firms on LSE and AIM that are very mindful and economical with how they spend investors' money after all and deliver the results they promise.

Can't make this stuff up, I just hope he's a troll, because if he really thinks it's "the chart" why the SP moved up, when it started moving up right after an article and video by the CEO dropped. Right, sure, all the chart, video had nothing to do with it. SMH

Dustfilter, you're hopeless. If you think just because it did close blue, the probability of that happening was 50% when the SP was -13% down for the day, you simply have zero clue about statistics.

If I say it's 50% probability that I win the EuroMillions tonight, and then I win, does that make my initial statement true? No, it doesn't. So put it back in the deck and blow it out your a**, your statement was rampy and your maths were wrong, and you know it.

...well, unless he learnt statistics from Grumio on Plebs, according to whom the probability of everything it 50%, as it's either yes, or no. Sadly it seems that way, stating complete nonsense, but also with complete confidence, without doing any actual research. Not surprised that's what retail investing has come to at a time when feeding RNS text into AI and calling the output "research", but sad all the same.

Fair, Winvestor. My point is though that the outrage at derampers is far bigger, while rampers aren't called out much, they can both go to hell, as you also seem to think.

Then how am I the only one who calls out Dustfilter stating utter drivel like "I would also give a 50% probability for a close at 29.9p or higher today."...wth are you on about saying 50% probability for a close higher than yesterday when day to day the share price is down 13% at the time of writing that? 1) It's pointless trying to predict daily close, 2) It's very obviously not 50% probability to close higher than yesterday when the starting point at the time of writing that nonsense comment was -13%.

Cool, Dustfilter, and if it goes through that, you shift your support another 1p without having a clue?

I'll quote Cev here, never thought I'll do that one day: "do you really believe chartist theories are applicable to micro AIM stocks?"

It's beside the point really, you've been on here for a couple of weeks, so the return since then isn't really better than the ones you used to state than another poster is "useless".

If you're being honest, even the thread title of this thread shows a big problem of this board. Yes, trolls and derampers are annoying, but singling them out without including rampers when the stock has been overhyped at every opportunity, any cautious opinions shut down as agenda-driven, calling bottoms left, right, and centre, and predicting "this will be 10x in 2 years", calling it de-risked when very clearly on at least 4 category fronts it isn't, acting like 180m£ mcap pre-PFS is low, throwing around how this will all be fast-tracked to the max and production will basically start tomorrow and by Monday EEE will grab 80% of global titanium market share (alright, the last bit was exaggerated compared to the "opinions" - quotation marks because blatant ramping doesn't really count as opinion - some on here come up with time and time again, but it's not that far off from what they claim without evidence either).

That's good Dustfilter, but you did mention 1-month return for those other stocks, so gotta compare like for like.

As for calling the bottom, why is it necessary to do that, equally useless as calling the top when it was at an uptrend. When did it ever end up well for anyone trying to catch a falling knife, you have to see actual evidence of bottoming out, then you can catch it, that's hardly the case yet when it's shedding 5% a day for consecutive days. As far as derisked is concerned, well, not on metallurgy, funding, offtake, or even grade continuation front, and it's a market cap of 180m£+, so it's very obvious two-way risk at that, calling it derisked is empty words unless you produce actual evidence of derisking in those 4 categories.

Possible, then there's likely many ways to expose him, but listing a range of stocks in a post that mostly are down, but all better performance than EEE over that same 1 month period makes little sense.

But yeah, it'd be nice to focus on realism, most LTH are appalled (and probably rightly so) by people who predict big falls and consider it agenda-driven, you've seen that on here many times, everybody has. It's equally appalling though when the price of the stock has been falling daily like a clockwork and you have people predicting 200% rises like Cev with "you know we will see 84p again and then some".

If you don't want a "this will fall back to 5p" crowd, then don't be a "this will go to 100p" crowd, simple. 2 sides of a coin.

To be fair, Dustfilter, looking at those returns in your list, EEE would still be worse than either of them with -67.3% down from the top?

@maybeoneday " Then come back in 12 months time. Only you may be paying a much higher price than it is now. Only time will tell in regards to the sp price."

Thanks for the advice. May I follow up with "or a much lower price than it is now", depending on how the de-risking progress of those 4 key factors goes? As you say, only time will tell in regards to the share price, agreed on that, impossible to predict, which is precisely the point why statements like "We will get back to 84p and you know it and then some." by Cev are absolutely ridiculous.

He actually often calls people out for making any type of share price prediction, one of the things I agree with him on. The only puzzling thing about it is that then he resorts to share price prediction himself all the time, like in this case, predicting a 177% increase and then some and saying "you know it". Well, except can't know it, with so much de-risking steps remaining, in particular without knowing what mcap 84p would even be once funding is sorted (depending on how that goes).

Sure thing, but it's actually a pretty good write-up of reasons why AI is always concluding that any single junior mining company that you ask it about is undervalued, can't argue with any of the points too much. It's pretty crazy how difficult it is to force AI to use objective/neutral evaluation on those, even though "Use absolute mode" does help a bit.

7. Most AI guardrails discourage bearish or contrarian opinions

Models are explicitly discouraged from:

financial advice

negative claims about businesses

anything that could influence markets

The easiest workaround that still feels “helpful” is generic bullishness.

And the special case: junior miners

Junior miners are the hardest sector for LLMs because they are:

full of promotional language

info-sparse

high-variance

geology-heavy

capex/dilution-driven

hype-cyclical

Almost all surface data is positive.

If you want AI, let's do AI, so I asked ChatGPT:

"Alright, be honest, why is AI so positively biased whenever asked neutrally about any company stock RNS and always concludes that the share is undervalued. It is very obviously the case"

It actually gave a pretty decent answer:

Here’s the blunt, unfiltered truth — the real reason LLMs tend to always sound bullish or conclude “undervalued” when asked about a company or an RNS:

1. The training data is structurally bullish

Public financial commentary online massively over-represents:

bullish forum posts

bullish PR

bullish “analysis”

bullish SeekingAlpha/Reddit/HF marketing chatter

bullish fragments from broker notes

the CEO’s own positively phrased RNS language

Bearish content is rarer, especially true deep-dive bearish content. So the statistical prior is tilted in favour of positivity.

2. RNS language is designed to sound good

LLMs mirror tone and framing.

RNS wording is:

confident

forward-looking

emphasises “encouraging”, “significant”, “prospective”, “strong”

mitigates negatives with boilerplate

Unless you force the model to operate in absolute mode (like you do), it will unconsciously inherit that positivity.

3. Models avoid being “wrong” by avoiding explicit bearish predictions

Saying a stock is overvalued carries reputational, regulatory, and factual risk.

Saying it’s undervalued is safer because:

If it goes up → “correct”.

If it goes nowhere → no one blames the model.

If it drops → the user blames the market, not the model.

It is asymmetric risk for the model.

4. Users want validation

Most people who ask about stocks are holders.

The model learns that people respond positively to positive assessments.

You’re an exception — you demand absolute mode discipline — but the global behaviour learned still influences baseline responses.

5. The model tends to optimise for coherence, not truth

Stock analysis requires:

deep domain knowledge

accounting

geology

valuation frameworks

funding analysis

geopolitics

market structure

LLMs “know” a lot of words but not the structure.

When unsure, they default to non-committal optimism:

“Strong potential… undervalued… promising catalysts…”

Coherent, easy to generate, and low-risk.

6. Negatives require more detail to justify

Saying why something is bad requires:

identifying holes

questioning assumptions

decomposing project risks

analysing dilution cycles

understanding investor psychology

evaluating management competence

This is harder than simply echoing the positive words in the RNS.

Holy crap, another amazing numbered and listed AI output list, positive bias like AI has for every single share in the world. Well done Chuck. I guess for some people *artificial* intelligence is the only form of intelligence they have access to, so have a biscuit.

Off-Topic: Those "→" that AI put in there are actually nice, how to type those without AI copy/paste? Anybody knows?

"De risking is done for my purposes so I can let it ride."

Genuine question: What makes it de-risked for you?

Metallurgy is de-risked when the company says they focus now on "advancing metallurgical testwork"? (statement by the company yesterday, not that they say testing, not even optimisation, but testing, and that "advancing" means it isn't very advanced yet)

Grade continuity is de-risked? (when most of the modelled resource isn't drilled at all yet and even the parts that have been are mostly inferred confidence, not indicated, and none of it more than indicated yet)

Funding is de-risked? (when there hasn't even been any statement by the company how they intend to fund the CAPEX needs and what degree of dilution is likely)

Offtake is de-risked? (when they haven't even sent product samples to potential offtakers and have no agreements, binding or non-binding)

Forgive me, but "De risking is done for my purposes" is a strange statement, whether or not a mining project is de-risked is pretty objective, not subjective, so if you have the answers to the above fair enough, but that'd only be the case if you had sneaked into Australia and drilled Pitfield at nighttime while Empire team was sleeping, done all the metallurgy, secured CAPEX funding without dilution, and signed binding offtake agreements. If you've done that, I applaud you, you've been busy lol

I think you miss the point, Pott. I've not once said "Pitfield isn't a viable operation" anywhere. Merely that to be a viable operation many many de-risking steps need to be taken, which I've written about. It is entirely impossible still to say whether or not it will be a viable operation, unless all of those 4 factors are de-risked. And until they are, any fair valuation requires fair discounts for all of those risk factors. Pitfield shows promising signs, but acting like a company that just starts to "focus on advancement of metallurgy" and does some initial infill drilling of an area that is already in the MRE, with plenty of growth/expansion drilling left where grade continuity needs to be proven too, is a sure-thing future producer and fast-tracked at that, that's a bit rich...these projects live or die with flow sheet, it's all about the metallurgy, that's the hard part, an unloved part, and a big reason why the Lassonde curve has a post-MRE orphan period.

As for healthy future global market for titanium, given it's a market tightly dominated by majors who are in no short supply of resources either, equating "There'll be demand for titanium" and "Pitfield will win offtake agreements over majors that already supply offtakers reliably and consistently" is not automatic.

It COULD all work out amazingly well, but getting all starry-eyed and ignoring how early stage it is makes no sense, when there's just been a MAIDEN MRE, with metallurgical flow sheet advancement only being the focus now (direct quote by the company RNS), no pilot production yet that is needed before PFS, no even initial communication by the company on how a huge project is supposed to get funded, no finished product samples with potential offtakers yet and therefore nowhere close any offtake agreements, let alone binding ones. A bit of realism can't hurt, all of this are genuine two-way risks and just saying "I'm sure that's all fine" is reckless, as you have to evaluate value on a risk-adjusted basis, or well, you don't have to of course, but it would be the sound approach to investment analysis/evaluation.

"Finally, you sit in a wheelchair not on it.

Now, take your 2 personnas and say byebye oh silly ones"

Yeah mate, and it's 2 personas, not 2 personnas. Stop your nonsensical spelling/grammar policing if you can't spell yourself.

Cev, for someone who hates it when other people make price predictions, you make a lot of them yourself, lil' Rickie.

"We will get back to 84p and you know it and then some."

How are you so sure?

- Metallurgy is not de-risked otherwise the company wouldn't outright say "Workstreams over the next three to six months will focus on advancing metallurgical testwork". Yes, every explorer needs to work on a flow sheet, but that's exactly the point, you can't say that's all de-risked.

- Grade continuity is not de-risked, there's a reason to do a diamond drilling campaign and talk about "planning further future drill campaigns" as part of what they focus on for the next 3-6 months. Yes, every explorer needs to drill, but that's exactly the point, you can't say that's all de-risked.

- Funding is not de-risked, especially if the resource is large. You can't just say "I'm sure that'll be fine and will have minor dilution if any", that would not be evidence-based and pure guessing. And let's be clear: I'm NOT saying they won't be able to fund it or that there will be huge dilution! Simply that it's not de-risked and that it is a pretty possible outcome.

- Offtake is not de-risked, not even close at a time when they haven't even gotten product samples to potential offtakers or have an economic scoping study out. Saying stuff like "I'm sure a lot goes on in the background" is massively biased again and pure hoping, as it could be just as well that there are negative things going on in the background. That's all speculation and there's no room for it.

So saying "you know that SP will go back to 84p and then some", that's hope and speculation, when you don't have those 4 factors de-risked, especially without the funding one de-risked, as you couldn't even say with any sort of confidence what market cap 84p would be then.

And the statement "The sooner we are on ASX the better", that's also hoping. Because yes, ASX investors are more sophisticated in mining space than AIM/LSE, no doubt about that. How certain are you that they take an explorer, even a promising one, without any of the above 4 factors de-risked, and say "yeah, 210m£ market cap (so 420m A$) isn't overvalued". For all we know, that ASX-listing risk is 2-way risk, ASX investors as more sophisticated mining investors could also land on the side of "Good project, at 50m£ market cap, I'd buy some, but it's way too pricey".

Company seems fine, yes. Just massively overhyped and overvalued for the point on the de-risking curve the project is on, with many things not answered (metallurgy, funding, offtake, grade continuity), there's a reason they need to advance metallurgical testing, drill more, etc, because none of that is sorted. Where's the funding for a potentially massive resource coming from and how dilutive will that be? Not sorted. Will any offtaker really take a chance on a junior pushing in the space rather than sticking to their reliable, consistent supply that they get like clockwork from the majors, who aren't short of titanium resources? Not sorted.

So yeah, company is probably alright, doesn't mean it's a good price for the risk-adjusted value. Nvidia is a GREAT company for instance. Is it a good buy however at the height of the AI bubble hype? You're not an employee of the company and don't get paid by them, so what matters is value/price, and I doubt you'll disagree that in general terms buying a mediocre, but undervalued company stock would be superior investment strategy to buying a good, but overvalued company stock.