Thanks. I agree QPM, CCM are totally different companies to...

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
edgck

1,674 Posts.

113

21/04/24

17:51

Post #: 73445764
Share

Originally posted by Taurean7: ↑

The three charts below display share price movements for A4N, QPM and CCM over the last seven years. This time period is sufficient for those movements to reflect the fundamental dynamics of the underlying business of each company, as perceived by the market and its analysts.

After an initial sharp rise, the A4N share price established a well-defined trend channel with a gradient corresponding to average annual compounding growth of +52.3%. In contrast, both QPM and CCM have displayed like cyclical patterns, with both currently trending major price decay over the last 2-3 years.

As the charts imply, there are significant differences in the underlying business of each company. A4N holds a number of advantages that allow analysts to more easily project future revenues with some degree of confidence. These include the support of substantial players (Qld and Aus Governments and funding bodies, Orica, RioTinto, Aus Super), the Alpha Sapphire project with Ebner, and the distinguishing achievement of ultra-high purity (99.999% 5N) for its aluminium-based products. Its aluminium specialisation also would be an advantage in NPV calculations.

At this stage both QPM and CCM appear to be somewhere to the left of the A4N price chart.

Alpha HPA (A4N): Average share price compound growth rate +52.3% p.a.
View attachment 6119945

Queensland Pacific Metals Ltd: Average current share price decay rate -50.3% p.a.
View attachment 6119948

Cadoux Ltd (CCM): Average current share price decay rate -62.3% p.a.
View attachment 6119951

Expand

Originally posted by piwi33: ↑

I hold both, but QPM and A4N are well and trully different companies. QPM has a totally different process, yes they have stated HPA is in their flowsheet and they can make it, but they are a long way from product qualification. They are using a brand new process for their plant, yes, but it has been in advanced third party development for some time and with little news on the success rates.

It's also struggling with its main product experiencing low prices. It's probably on the borderline of being economical at the moment. The main driver is its apparent emmissions reductions and utility of coal mine waste gas. The regulations and development of end market standards which will drive value there are also being implemented slowly.

QPM is in a holding pattern above the airport waiting for better weather to land. A4N is ready to go, and most probably has an offtake around the corner. I know QPM has them already, but they have huge competition from very cheap producers elsewhere. QPM is a bet on battery market ESG regulations.

Expand

Thanks. I agree QPM, CCM are totally different companies to A4N.

But my trouble now is reconciling the NPV numbers on a cost of production based on March 2020 before we had interest rates, wages and inflation skyrocket.

This would make the actual cost of production higher than the march 2020 figure of $5990 USD?

I think Alpha HPA have not revised their cost ifrom the March 2020 and hence the project is probably overvalued. As they are assuming cash costs are fixed throughout the project life. And there is the added question of the life of the project. For instance, is it 5 years when we see some capex on getting the plant and facility up to spec again? Or we just leave the plant running without doing any capex maintenance.

Again I'm not downramping. I've just got a few questions before I make up my mind whether to invest or move on.

A4N Price at posting: $1.09 Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply