Member Info for RachT2

Ashton —

Thanks ever so for the faux concern, but I’m perfectly calm.

As I’ve stated previously, it is always an absolute pleasure to highlight and correct the inaccurate ramping posts that you — and others in the RC — repeatedly churn out in the endless attempt to promote this company.

If nothing else, it serves as a useful reminder to readers that your posts should not be relied upon for accuracy, integrity or factual precision.

You’re welcome.

PS: Have we yet established who exactly “Dr Paul Christiansen” actually is? More importantly, what credentials does he possess regarding Jameson Land geology — or Greenland geology generally?

And as for this supposed “interview” with RP… interview? Really? “Carefully managed PR appearance” might be a slightly more accurate description.

Gatewatchmedia though — wow. Impressive stuff. I’m sure they’ll be giving Bloomberg sleepless nights any day now. LOL.

All IMHO, of course.

Continued..........

So let’s be crystal clear: the respected Greenland basin geologist raising legitimate concerns about uplift risk is Dr Flemming Christiansen. He is NOT the person interviewing RP.

Instead, the interview appears to involve “Dr Paul Christiansen” — a figure whose expertise on JL geology remains, at best, rather unclear.

Which makes your “confusion” between the two all the more revealing.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Nice attempt at quietly distancing yourself from your earlier post. How wonderfully duplicitous. You will be well aware of Dr Flemming Christiansen’s credentials - which is why you ‘massaged’ his name into your post. Still, the usual recs have appeared. Another totally inaccurate post receives recs - hilarious.

You wrote:

“The person interviewing Robert Price on 29 May 2026 is Dr. Flemming G. Christiansen (often referred to by investors as Dr. Paul Christiansen or Dr. Flemming Christiansen).”

That is quite some mix-up. And not a trivial one either.

Because Dr Flemming G. Christiansen — the actual Greenland basin specialist — is NOT the person conducting the interview at all. Instead, it appears to be somebody called “Dr Paul Christiansen,” who, as far as I can establish, has little or no publicly visible connection to major Jameson Land geological research.

Yet somehow, in your eagerness to ramp the interview, you managed to blur the distinction between a recognised Greenland basin geologist with decades of published research… and a seemingly unrelated individual. Remarkable.

And this line was particularly amusing:

“often referred to by investors as Dr. Paul Christiansen”

Really? By whom exactly? I’ve never once seen investors confusing the two. It looks suspiciously like something invented after the event to cover an embarrassing error. By all means, provide examples.

The irony here is that the REAL expert — Dr Flemming Christiansen — actually produced research highlighting many of the very geological concerns that the RC constantly tries to dismiss. I relied heavily on his research when I posted my concerns about the negativity of uplift and how ‘surprising’ it was that the Sproule report seems to have conveniently omitted such details.

His published work concluded that Jameson Land underwent approximately 1.5–3 km of uplift and erosion, with major implications for:

exhumation

altered burial history

faulting/reactivation

seal integrity

uncertainty around petroleum preservation

Those weren’t bulletin-board opinions from “derampers.” They were conclusions reached by one of the principal geologists who professionally studied the basin.

His work also fed into later assessments discussing why ARCO ultimately WALKED away after critically reviewing uplift and maturity risks. Funny how that part rarely gets highlighted in the endless promotional narratives.

And many of the risks now casually waved away online — leakage, breached traps, degraded seals, fragmented accumulations — are precisely the types of issues highlighted in Dr Flemming Christiansen’s published work decades ago.

So let’s be crystal clear: the respected Greenland basin geologist raising legitimate concerns about uplift risk is Dr Flemming Christiansen. He is NOT the person interviewing RP.

Instead, the interview appears to involve “Dr Paul Christiansen” — a figure whose expertise on JL geology remains, at best, rather uncle

Ashton —

You seem rather pleased with yourself for supposedly finding one example, but sorry, it doesn’t actually qualify for the task requested of you - it WASN’T new information.

RM was saying things like this about Disko as far back as May 2018:

“We have several parties interested in partnering with us on this project and we will carefully evaluate these individually to determine the best way forward for shareholders.”

Bla Bla Bla. From that point onwards, both the company and yourself repeated variations of the same hopeful narrative for years — right up until KoBold eventually appeared on the scene. And then, after KoBold had completed its due diligence/research and chose to walk away, the exact same style of optimism was rolled out all over again.

For example, this from May 2025 — BEFORE the AGM:

The company was confident in “...its ability to now attract a partner that will focus on advancing the asset to drilling and hope to make further announcement on this in due course.”

So no, this isn’t an example of genuinely NEW AGM-sourced information later materialising within the suggested timeframe. It’s simply another example of the company — and yourself — repeatedly talking up the prospect of “partner interest” over many years until eventually some mud sticks.

Much like how during a multi-year ~98% collapse in shareholder value, you continuously promoted optimistic narratives and eventually it hit the bottom. That’s not forecasting skill — it’s almost the exact opposite. It’s throwing out perpetual optimism until time and probability eventually delivers something.

And let’s be honest: anyone with even a basic understanding of the company knew Disko was always likely to require a partner at some stage because 80M had virtually no realistic prospect of funding such a project alone. The real question was never WHETHER a partner might eventually emerge — it was always at what cost to existing shareholders.

So, back to the actual task in hand — perhaps try a little harder, and please allow Jacksdad to help too if he so wishes ….

Point me toward an example of genuinely NEW information supposedly sourced from AGM or post-AGM chatter that subsequently materialised WITHIN the stated timeframe.

Still genuinely looking forward to the examples.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Jacksdad —

Bitter? Not in the slightest. For several years now I’ve actually done rather well trading the regular ramp-driven peaks and troughs that this share seems to produce. But unlike some, I prefer to remain grounded in reality.

So here’s a simple challenge for you — or anyone else for that matter. Point me toward an example of “new information” supposedly sourced from an AGM or post-AGM chatter that subsequently materialised WITHIN the stated timeframe. Genuinely looking forward to the examples.

Further to my previous post, we also had this from Ashton back in June ‘25:

“You will also be aware that 80M regards the Thule copper project as a separate entity from the Dundas titanium project. In fact, in his podcast in May 2024, Eric Sondergaard even went as far as to say that a major was interested in the Thule copper project.”

Oh dear. Here we are around two years later and we’re apparently still waiting for these “interested” majors and strategic partners to emerge — not just for Thule, but effectively for Dundas too. Fancy that.

Once again, lots of encouraging soundbites, lots of excitement on the boards, lots of hopeful interpretation from the RC… and very little delivered within the optimistic timelines implied at the time. A recurring theme perhaps?

Still, I’m sure THIS next AGM hint, podcast comment or coffee-break whisper will definitely be the one that changes everything. LOL.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Oh great — it must be nearly AGM season again. Time for another round of story-telling, optimistic soundbites and bulletin-board “reports” about what was supposedly hinted at over coffee and biscuits. Excellent. LOL.

AGM utterances have historically proven to be every bit as reliable as the RNS timelines themselves — which is to say… not very.

After one AGM “chat,” Ashton proceeded to post no fewer than 14 times that Disko would DEFINITELY be drilled in 2025. Ooops. That aged well.

Then we had this gem regarding Thule:

“I asked RM whether 80M planned to carry out any fieldwork this summer. He gave an affirmative response without going into details.”

Interesting. Because unless I missed it, I don’t recall any subsequent RNS or company update confirming that meaningful Thule fieldwork was actually carried out in summer ‘25. If such confirmation exists, by all means point me to it.

And before that there was this statement regarding Thule:

“The Company is planning to conduct a 2024 field program consisting of helicopter-supported geological reconnaissance.”

As we know, no such 2024 field programme actually materialised either.

So once again we arrive at the same recurring pattern: optimistic assurances, excited regurgitation on the bulletin boards, plenty of recs from the RC… and then reality quietly wanders off in a different direction.

And we probably don’t even need to revisit the Dundas “debacle” — Ashton’s own word, not mine. Enough said there really.

AGMs increasingly seem to function as opportunities to beguile certain investors with more upbeat claims, indicative timelines and carefully optimistic hints which later prove to have been — shall we say — somewhat aspirational.

But never mind. It’ll be different this time Rodney. Yeah, right.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFox

Agree, but…..

You state:

“we are very focused on restart and expected revenue ….”

Yes, we are. But why are we? Because shareholders have repeatedly been given timelines and assurances that later proved to be wildly over-optimistic and undeliverable. But those updates have kept attention (unwarranted?) - be that good or bad. Unfortunately, that has become pretty much the norm with this company.

I’ve said many times that 80M needs to start under-promising and over-delivering. Instead, it seems hell-bent on doing the exact opposite — over-promising, missing timelines and then quietly moving on to the next “transformational” milestone. The market notices this stuff, even if the RC prefers not to.

You also state:

“80M needs to be better at keeping shareholders informed ….”

Sure — but arguably if there is genuinely no material progress, then perhaps there is little point issuing endless optimistic soundbites for the sake of it. Particularly when so many previous updates, targets and indicative timelines have already slipped — in some cases multiple times.

That repeated pattern absolutely damages credibility and investor trust. Just look at the current share price reaction despite multiple supposedly major developments and upcoming drills. The market isn’t exactly screaming confidence here — it’s more a case of investors approaching with a barge pole.

Having said that, we are surely due some genuinely significant news soon — perhaps GS, perhaps Dundas. Why do I say that? Well, funny timing isn’t it… another relatively low-hurdle UNDILUTED EBT has just appeared. A discounted fund raise tied to Dundas, alongside GS finally commencing production, could quite conceivably push the market cap temporarily over the qualifying threshold. And remember — it doesn’t necessarily have to sustain those levels for long, merely reach them. Kerching - another seemingly over generous and unnecessary EBT payout at shareholders expense.

OINK. OINK. OINK.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton

Is that it? No comment whatsoever about the fairness — or otherwise — of the “UNDILUTED” EBT structure. Fancy that. LOL.

But of course, because it’s not positive, you’ll simply ignore it, attempt to deflect attention away from it and carry on ramping as usual. Entirely predictable.

So what is your actual opinion on the use of an UNDILUTED metric for yet another extremely generous EBT scheme? Do you genuinely believe it is fair to existing shareholders that management can potentially lower the effective share-price hurdle for these awards through future dilution? Or do you accept that a FULLY DILUTED target would have been far more aligned with protecting shareholder value per share?

Oh wait — silly me — that would involve acknowledging a negative aspect of the company structure, and we already know from your own admissions that negatives are something you prefer to quietly ignore whilst endlessly promoting the positives.

And now, apparently unable to rebut the actual substance of the argument, you’ve descended into calling me a “pig.” How wonderfully mature. Puerile, desperate and rather revealing. True colours shining through yet again.

Then, in your reply to Groundshift, you once again regurgitated the usual:

“80 Mile is exploring strategic alternatives, including JV’s or asset sales. Aiming to bring the project to production with the right partners.”

Bla, bla, bla. As I pointed out at the time, variations of that exact line have been rolled out for what — since around 2018? Yet here we still are. But naturally, because you focus exclusively on “positives,” each new recycled statement is treated as though it’s a groundbreaking development while all the previous overly optimistic assurances that failed to materialise are quietly forgotten. Convenient.

Still, perhaps not surprising. You openly admit that 80M is effectively your sole holding and that you hold a substantial position at that. By your own posts, you’ve even persuaded family members to invest. So yes, I think it’s fair to say you might be ever so slightly biased. LOL.

Just as well there are one or two posters on here prepared to question, scrutinise and occasionally correct the endless stream of ramptastic nonsense with a bit of reality, financial understanding and familiarity with the company’s history.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd

OINK, OINK, OINK……..

My take on the whole “undiluted” situation is this: of course Ashton and parts of the RC will attempt to polish the bad news and roll out the usual nonsense about how the EBT is supposedly wonderful for “alignment,” and how “undiluted” is somehow perfectly acceptable. Bla, bla, bla. Yeah right. LOL. Perhaps some genuinely don’t appreciate the implications this structure could have for the possible value destruction of their own holdings.

The devil here is entirely in the word “UNDILUTED.”

By tying this latest 150m share EBT award for Rod McIllree, Troy Whittaker and Olga Solovieva to an undiluted market-cap target, management appears to have created itself a rather convenient framework.

Let’s use the rough current structure of around 5 billion shares in issue:

Scenario A — No further dilution:

With 5bn shares outstanding, the company would need a share price of around 2.0p to achieve a £100m market-cap milestone.

Scenario B — Additional dilution:

If another 2bn shares were issued for Greenland funding, acquisitions, placings or whatever the next “strategic opportunity” happens to be, the issued share count rises to 7bn. In that scenario, the share price required to reach the same £100m market cap falls to around 1.42p.

In other words, increasing the issued share count lowers the share price required to achieve the same undiluted market-cap threshold. Existing shareholders may therefore experience dilution while management can still move closer to triggering the awards, even if the per-share value growth is less impressive than the headline market-cap figure suggests.

And it gets better (for Rod, Troy and Olga that is).

By specifically using an “undiluted” metric, the structure also ignores the large volume of existing warrants and options already hanging over shareholders — INCLUDING, potentially, instruments benefiting management and associates themselves. A more shareholder-aligned structure might arguably have used a fully diluted basis instead. Funny that.

The issue here is not whether market-cap milestones should exist — many companies use them. The issue is whether this particular structure properly aligns management incentives with genuine shareholder value creation on a per-share basis. Personally, I don't see that it does.

Instead, this looks suspiciously like another example of AIM-style financial engineering where shareholders absorb dilution while management lowers the effective hurdle required to unlock yet more shares.

Classic AIM plumbing. Classic 80M.

As I’ve said before - OINK, OINK, OINK.

I used AI to confirm my own thoughts on this matter - readers might like to do likewise.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Damers —

Flustered? Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite — it’s always an absolute pleasure exposing posts that turn out to be complete BS.

You have either knowingly posted blatant nonsense or fallen hook, line and sinker for somebody else’s nonsense in your attempts to ramp this company. Either way, the end result is the same.

No apology forthcoming I see — although, to be fair, I never expected one from the likes of yourself.

Hopefully anyone now reading your posts will appreciate that they should be treated with an extremely large pinch of salt. Or perhaps better still, ignored altogether.

As for “debate” — I don’t think so. I’ve now filtered you. If you’re not posting inaccurate dross or ramp-flavoured fairy tales, then you’re posting nothing that adds ANYTHING whatsoever to my understanding of the company. Why would I voluntarily read and engage with that? LOL.

All IMHO, of course.

SilverFox —

Yes, saw that thanks and was preparing a post in response - added below. I mainly posted to highlight the rather poor fact that Greenswitch apparently doesn’t even acknowledge direct enquiries sent via the contact details on its own website. Poor form indeed.

As for Damers’ long list of unsubstantiated and frankly preposterous claims — all of which I questioned at the time — today’s company wording appears to have comprehensively dealt with those. Despite, of course, the usual stream of recs they mysteriously received. Hilarious.

Today’s company statement explicitly says the plant is still:

“undergoing final maintenance to commence production of biofuels and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).”

Which rather conclusively supports my view and demonstrates that Damers’ repeated assertions were, yet again, more bulletin-board ramping dross dressed up as insider knowledge.

Let’s remind ourselves of the progression shall we:

21/3 —

“Does anybody know what 80m expect the annual net revenue from the Greenswitch facility to be?”

Apparently unfamiliar with even the basics at that stage.

Yet just FOUR days later…

25/3 —

“I hear in the grapevine that Greenswitch is progressing well.”

Astounding progression. LOL.

Then by 15/4, posted TWICE for good measure:

“The Greenswitch facility is up & running. Expectations have been exceeded regarding revenue & profit.”

Followed by:

5/5 —

“Greenswitch is going great guns…”

And then the masterpiece on 10/5:

“The above company’s facility is not only in production, but making substantial profits.”

All while the company itself now confirms production hasn’t even commenced yet. Remarkable accuracy.

And yes, I also remember the demands for me to issue an apology once my scepticism had supposedly been “proven wrong.” As I stated at the time — no apology will be forthcoming. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

AROK —

Do please try to keep up.

The issue of the 6m shares and the acquisition of the additional 2.18% of WFE was already announced on 9th April. That information is not new.

So there was absolutely no necessity whatsoever to bundle it into today’s announcement — unless, of course, the intention was to help pad out the negative optics of yet another EBT and attempt to give the impression of something more strategic or positive being attached to it.

In other words, exactly as I stated: today’s news has NOTHING to do with the WFE acquisition itself. That element was already dealt with weeks ago.

Nice attempt at trying to polish it though. LOL.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Arok - you state -

“This is effectively a very small clean-up dilution to take 80M closer to full ownership of White Flame Energy.”

What utter rubbish. The EBT has absolutely NOTHING to do with the acquisition of WFE. That’s simply more spin attempting to dress up what is, in reality, yet another example of BoD greed and apparent contempt for shareholder value.

The directors already own millions upon millions of shares. If the company eventually delivers meaningful success, they stand to benefit handsomely already. They do not exactly appear short of incentive.

So let’s stop pretending this is some noble act tied to strategic necessity. It isn’t. It’s dilution, pure and simple — and shareholders are once again expected to quietly absorb it whilst the usual excuses and ramp-flavoured justifications are rolled out.

At some point, greed is simply greed.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

After several recent unverifiable and rather ramptastic posts regarding Greenswitch, I decided to contact the company directly to seek clarification as to the current stage of operations and whether production has, in fact, actually commenced.

The email was sent 10 days ago to the address listed on the Greenswitch website. To avoid any possible language excuse, the enquiry was written in Italian. Result? No reply. Not even an acknowledgement. Fancy that.

So I’m curious — has anybody else contacted the company directly? And if so, has anybody actually received a response? I suspect I’m not alone in being interested to know.

Because if Greenswitch had genuinely restarted production and was already achieving meaningful profitability, that would surely constitute price-sensitive information requiring some form of official company statement or update. Yet none has appeared that I’m aware of.

Meanwhile, one of the RC has repeatedly stated not only that the plant has restarted, but that it is supposedly generating “substantial profits.” Until something verifiable or official emerges, that currently looks like little more than yet another helping of bulletin-board claptrap.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Jacksdad

Maybe - but surely not after over seeing a drop in the share price of over 95% - and straight after the realisation of another 'soft' EBT and options. Looks like the market is impressed - not.

OINK, OINK, OINK

All IMHO, of course

OINK, OINK, OINK...........

Here we go again.

Can anyone point me towards a comparable example of a BoD displaying this level of blatant greed whilst shareholders continue to endure dilution, delays, missed timelines and endless “jam tomorrow” promises?

Because from where I’m sitting, the contrast between shareholder experience and apparent boardroom reward culture is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

A pretty fair and reasoned summary of where things currently stand. Crikey, I’ve even rec’ed your post.

That said, I think you may be a little optimistic regarding the likely timeframe for Disko drill results. You suggest 4–6 weeks, some historical examples don’t really support that expectation.

Take Hammaslahti for example. Drill commencement was announced on 30 May 2023, yet results didn’t arrive until 2 October 2023 — roughly four months later. And, as far as I’m aware, that drill was somewhere around the 1,500–2,000m range.

Disko, on the other hand, is expected to involve drilling of around 5,000m, which potentially means substantially more core, more sampling and more analysis work before meaningful results can be assessed and released.

So whilst I hope you’re correct, I think expecting results within 4–6 weeks of completion may prove to be somewhat on the optimistic side.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

More deflection I see. How very typical. Rather than addressing the substance of the points raised, we now move on to vague references about what could result in litigation. Predictable stuff.

What you still haven’t attempted to explain away is the claim that Dundas is supposedly “supplying titanium dioxide for critical industries.” The only “supply” I'm aware of were some SAMPLES shipped SIX & A HALF YEARS AGO so I’m genuinely looking forward to the explanation for that one. Hopefully it will be as entertaining as your effort to justify the rather misleading 17bn tonne wording.

And thank you for the concern, but are you correct to state that I was claiming that 80M had been ENDLESSLY throwing around the “17 billion tonnes” figure? That appears to be an assumption on your part. I don’t believe I specifically stated that my comments were directed at 80M itself.

Although, to be fair, the act of publishing such wording on an X account rather suggests the information was intended for wide and repeated public dissemination rather than a select audience of a few individuals. Readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from the wording used and the publicly available information.

As ever, if any factual point I’ve raised is incorrect, feel free to correct it with evidence rather than deflection. You might like to start by informing us exactly where, when and to whom, 80M have apparently been “supplying titanium dioxide for critical industries.” Oh, that's right - you can’t.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

How utterly duplicitous of you. That glib little backtrack attempt doesn’t remotely begin to cover either 80M’s wording or your own inaccurate regurgitation of it.

You stated:

“Our Dundas Ilmenite project in Greenland is recognised as the highest-grade ilmenite deposit globally, supplying titanium dioxide for critical industries. A recent study undertaken by GEUS estimates that it contains 17bn tonnes of pure ilmenite.”

That wording is unequivocal. The “IT” in that sentence clearly refers to Dundas. And it is plainly inaccurate. It exaggerates the actual Dundas project resource by close to ONE HUNDRED TIMES.

And no, it is not good enough to now expect existing shareholders or potential investors to go digging through historic announcements, technical reports or external sources in order to “clarify” the trustworthiness of the company’s own statements. Company statements should be ACCURATE and presented clearly in the first place — particularly when discussing headline resource figures that can materially influence investor perception.

Only after the obvious ramptastic sleight of hand was pointed out do we now get your cobbled-together explanation. Pathetic.

And now perhaps you’d also like to explain away the other wildly misleading statement contained in your same post — namely that Dundas is “supplying titanium dioxide for critical industries.” NO IT ISN'T.

As you well know, what actually happened is that bulk SAMPLES were shipped several years ago for ASSESSMENT purposes. That is not remotely the same thing as being an active supplier into critical industries. The last shipment of those samples was back in September 2019 — around SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO. And, crucially, nothing commercially meaningful appears to have resulted from those assessments.

So NO, 80M is NOT currently “supplying titanium dioxide for critical industries.” It supplied some TEST SAMPLES years ago. Big difference.

I await, with interest, the next obsequious attempt to explain away yet more wildly over-egged wording and promotional nonsense. Your first effort was inexcusably weak - but it did at least make me laugh; so thanks for that at least.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ajgales —

I neither sought nor required an explanation, but thanks anyway for the fascinating insight into why you might recommend a post. Educational stuff indeed. LOL.

So apparently a post can receive a rec because:

you might agree with it 100%, or you might not, Righto

it might contain new ideas, new facts, “or whatever.” Righto.

The slight issue here is that Ashton’s recent post contained no genuinely new ideas and no genuinely new facts. Worse still, some of the “facts” presented were framed in a way that appeared highly misleading once examined properly. Maybe that comes under the "or whatever" heading.

Still, perhaps I’m expecting too much. Reliability, credibility and accuracy don’t exactly appear to rank highly on the board’s list of requirements for receiving recommendations. A sufficiently upbeat piece of ramp-flavoured claptrap seemingly does the trick nicely.

As ever, happy to be corrected with evidence rather than rec counts.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.