In the past all I did when developing an opinion on WAK was...

In the past all I did when developing an opinion on WAK was based on what WAK stated, although I was intellectually aware that readerships and audiences can be misled by the omissions of inconvenient truths.

I have an intellectual interest in rhetoric– one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Whether what is said, or written, is true or untrue can be benign or malignant, and the omissions of inconvenient truths, likewise.

That WAK has LOIs and offtake agreements that substantially cover nameplate tonnage is probably factual, but it could mislead many investors if escape provisions are omitted from communications. The simple words, “subject to meeting deal-by-deal specifications” can nullify an offtake agreement and trivialise an LOI.

What I do not understand is why Stanco Internatunal Corp invested in WAK, and why WAK decided to compete in market subsectors (continuous-filament fibreglass) that requires particle-size distributions that do not suit coarse primary ore, compared to fine-grained secondary ores from the USA and Brazil.

I have always considered my WAK play to be an upside-versus-downside punt, rather than an investment based on financial performance metrics, and I am inclined to hold the shares I have. My avearge buy price is $0.142.