George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Why is it the densest people always chime in with their patronising simplistic comments, trying to explain things as if they've got the slightest clue. FYI - when I want your view on economics (or anything) I'll ask for it. You'll be waiting a very long time though. I don't need to check Google (thanks for the laugh though).
Bit unfortunate the markets sh*t a brick about rate rises (again) today (as if it's any surprise yank bank is talking of a slightly larger one). Rather killed today's bounce. Although, still, the performance today shows there's appetite for this lurking around, and better days on the market should see this do well at some point.
Personally I suspect we'll need to see the central banks get their big rate rise out of the way, realise it's harming growth and not curing inflation (as it does nothing to solve the causes), and then start to moderate their thinking/policy, so as not to turn inflation induced recession into full blown depression.
DanInvestor: wasa's pretty much summed it up but to answer a few of your questions:
- No markets aren't rational, as Allessio Rastani likes to say, the share price is a reflection of short term SENTIMENT, not fundamentals. You can compound this further with modern day algorithmic/technical trading and so on and so forth.
- Related to the above, the smaller the MCAP of the stock, and the lower the liquidity, the more prone something is to wild over/under valuations (this can be a good thing - it presents opportunities - it can also lead to frustrating periods when on the wildly undervalued side - it is what it is)
- Entry level is "important" but then everyone always wants to buy the bottom on every stock (obviously) however no serious investor would expect to buy the bottom every time (or even often really). There are endless strategies for trying to do so...but there is no right/foolproof way. Some might "scale-in" in chunks, some might wait for "technical" turns, some might judge it by weighing the fundamentals - the market - and a dash of price history, but none will ever be close to 100% reliable (despite some who love to claim they're Yoda of the markets). A couple of stocks I've held in the past year have been taken over (part of the reason I was in them) yet I managed to miss them by short-term trading out to buy back (woops). A cautionary tale perhaps, as haggling over a few pence is often the wrong thing to do, as you don't know when it'll turn (or even get take over).
- I think the worrying about PI importance thing is largely an irrelevance and essentially an inferiority complex from many. Smaller companies will inevitably court those with deep pockets who can provide the money to drive the business but this doesn't mean they don't want the share price (and therefore their PIs) to do well. People seem to feel it's mutually exclusive but most of the time it's not. There are countless rubbish AIM companies that will continually dilute frivolously and never do anything. This is quite clearly isn't one of them imo (and the rubbish ones don't tend to have the likes of Glencore on board - but instead bucketshops or spurious overseas backers you've never heard of). They secured an excellent comprehensive financing package and thusfar have been delivering well on the planned build (with some quite surprisingly good cost-saving capex purchases).
You should probably go invest elsewhere then rather than trolling this board daily!
I think what they've achieved has been very good and continues to be so.
However you probably don't even really believe what you say, and will miraculously become more positive once you decide to buy in, like many an LSE poster ;)
Pay peanuts get monkeys. I'd rather have a reasonably well compensated CEO that's doing a very good job than a poorly compensated one doing a poor job. The salaries are reasonable and bonuses contingent on securing important milestones - which they have done well. Really don't see any problem with that at all. There's nothing wrong with scrutiny...but upon such scrutiny I see very little to criticize them for.
As usual you clowns just ignore all facts to keep pushing a silly agenda. I picked a random sub billion pound market cap company, rather than a mining giant, to keep it sensible, and you of course throw your teddies out of the pram because it doesn't fit with your daily attempts to slate everything about this company and anyone associated with it.
To further prove this I just filtered on tradingview for mining companies within a 100-300m market cap range (to put it in HZM's bracket) and there's only one. Caledonia Mining. Their CEO's salary in their most recent annual report...$517,525.
Now please do shut up.
It's hardly excessive by mining standards.
Let's pick another miner, FXPO, and see what their CEO gets...
SALARY
US$959,050
BENEFITS
US$196,948
STIP
US$965,544
LTIP
US$351,922
TOTAL
US$2,473,464
JM's salary is pretty tiny in comparison at £291,461.
If the directors make lots of money from these options. I'll also be making lots of money. Perfectly happy for those doing the work to get the rewards too.
Contrast with the options BOO granted a week ago...where they're priced at less than a 50th of the current share price (1p options)!
PS - Shanta. Horrible on a graph. Amazingly strong considering the gold price. Borderline miraculous. Does make you wonder. Now was always going to be a good time to go back but it’s back to a binary bet on the gold price in many (but not all) ways.
Tony, hello, only replying as you’re not the usual detritus but you do have a flair for the dramatic.
If any of that was true this would have, like many an AIM dog**** junior, sunk like a stone.
The reality is the opposite and it’s tracked the price of the biggest miner in this space.
It’s your prerogative to disagree as you already have but I think the price itself argues against you for the reason previously described.
If the world ends yes this won’t do well like any miner.
If it doesn’t…much of that has been priced in like markets do….and there’s opportunity.
Fact is, all the waffle in the world on here won’t change the fact that the lower this gets someone will buy it, why wouldn’t they!?
Short term price on anything is determined by short term supply and demand.
The value to those who matter doesn’t change and there is a floor, dependent on various things, but it exists.
I would suggest the floor vs the upside is already nearing the disproportionate. Doesn’t mean it can’t go lower but the lower it goes the higher the chance of game over in terms of being listed.
Bonsoir (time for the final pint).
I've not been "banding around" anything as a sale price. Most people understand what a plus sign means. You obviously don't. As for "currying favour"...that's just bizarre....with who!? (No need to answer - as I don't care what silly answer you'll give). I think I'd get more sense out of a potato! I'll ignore your next inevitable nonsensical barely literate reply to try to keep this going round in circles, so knock yourself out.
Yeah, if they got no financing from anyone ever, they'd eventually "go to the wall", however that wasn't the argument, this was talking about Glencore buying it as the example (or any other large miner). It could well be the reason Glencore have a stake putting them in a better position to defend against a takeover from others and launch their own in future.
This is back like arguing with the bloody pigeon again..... https://www.all-about-psychology.com/images/our-experiments-taught-us-why-people-troll.jpg
Because it wasn't "going to the wall" would be a pretty obvious reason...christ.
Funky - engage your brain for a moment.
Who're the largest holder and what did they pay? (You're hard of thinking so I'll help you. It's La Mancha with nearly 20% and they paid 7p (140p post consolidation) and potentially an even higher percentage via their convertible.
Similarly Orion bought a big wedge at that price and are at the second biggest holder.
Glencore being next up with just under 10%.
Both Orion and La Mancha could lock in an easy guaranteed big win, by agreeing to a deal with Glencore to let them take over, for example.
If Glencore was considering buying it...then waiting till both mines are up and running would be stupid and simply mean they'd pay a lot more.
The maximum value for shareholders MIGHT be extracted by holding all the way into production but it also doesn't mean that any of those shareholders might be perfectly happy to take a tidy win in a takeover. Back to the bird in the hand vs two in the bush argument.
You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and continually speak for the markets, these investors, and the likes of Glencore, saying there's no possibility other than your non-sensical and myopic view about being taken over only at the most expensive time to do so.
Why would it "definitely" (lol) only be bought out when both mins are in full production? That would be a sure fire way to make sure you're paying multiples of the price to do so when the company is in a strong position to rebuff any bid. You're back clear into the lead in the competition for posting the most nonsense!
I'm not sure who's winning in the competition to see who can post the most nonsense. Let's just call it a draw and you can both go outside and enjoy the sunshine...
Yeah, I'd say any takeover approach would have to be at the 200p+ level, to have any chance of success, and would put the chances at maybe only 30% or so (any if it bounces meaningfully any time soon you'd probably have to raise that). Similarly just an easy hold and wait (if it comes...great...bird in the hand...but if not there's a good chance of the two in the bush :p).
The only people it would make any sense to short this for, would be those who hold a sizeable position in shares, and want to either hedge their bets, or pressure the price temporarily and then start buying up all the shares to increase their position, knowing their existing shares would cover them in the event of a takeover/rise.
This is hardly likely to be being shorted.
It would be literally insane to do so.
Pretty much every Nickel mine with the size and scale of HZM's assets are owned by majors / have a market cap/value many multiples of HZM's current market cap. It would be total suicide as you could wake up one day and find this has been taken over for easily double the current price and cost you a fortune if you were shorting for any meaningful amount.
The reality is miners have fallen back on recession/global growth concerns. That's it.
Look at any other big miner and you'll see much the same and it's not all shorting.
Look at Vale the biggest Nickel miner and you'll see their price graph pretty much mirrors the HZM price to the letter.
Difference is here that it's well into the realms of a price that many people will be looking very closely at to snap up as it's stupidly cheap.
That’s what happens in a bear market. Price targets just get shuffled down. If public broker targets were any use, people would pay attention, and make money using them. However they’re pretty much entirely useless and that’s why we’re all not just following their recommendations.
It’s like what Alessio Rastani once said “Goldman Sachs rules the world”. Generally speaking, it’s probably better to do the opposite of what they say publicly, as these public notes aren’t out of the goodness of their heart to make you small fry money…quite the opposite imo ;)