General comments/chat, page-25289

Refer post 54305774 on why I think shorting won't work for LTR. The following is my view and is IMO IMO IMO to your questions.

LTR
1. Management has large skin in the game, and they often buy on market. This is a shorter's worst nightmare IMO and hence why to date LTR has been shorted very limited (albeit I haven't seen data btw for it so just a gut feel IMO). Management own more then 20% of the stock btw. Refer post above.
2. Management is seen as competent, and by that I mean not just Goyder but a lot of the board, including Richards. Most wish, like me they bought into LTR, but you win some and lose some and I wish them all the best over there too, like I wish us here all the best.
3. Goyder is developing a reputation - look at CHN for example, so at the moment a bit of a 'market positive'. He is not a one-trick 'pony' if that makes sense according to the market IMO IMO
4. In terms of LTR, investors there and the market have a good idea as to what its deposit is and what the market demand for it is and what lithium is used for, especially been seen as the way forward to reducing CO2 goobally (through EVs), albeit most really don't know the CO2 output of producing EVs btw.
5. CR raised on an upswing, a key point, raised on an upswing in SP. Also LTR has had limited capital raises in the past, moreso because in terms of 1 above management in the past also were converting their options well in advance of their expiry and that gave cashflow as well, as well as if I recall not been paid much as well at one point.
6. If you look at share turnover each day, not a lot of shares get traded in LTR - anyway proor to the CR. The shares are tightly held and as a result the movement north in SP over the last 6 months there has been on low daily volumes. In other words, the latest CR provided some an opportunity to get a stack of LTR without buying on market - if they bought those shares on market prior to the CR, the SP would have been well well north of where it was at the CR price given the fact very limted volume is traded each day before the CR.
7. Going forward, for LTR it is now about delivering the project and meeting DFS variables in production, noting LTR has not released a DFS. SP growth for them will be FA based. It is now about projected profit there.

ADN
1. Eseentially a bit of an inverse to LTR. Firstly management don't buy on market and don't seem to hold a large swathe of the company.
2. Most of the management do not have 'profiles', with JM the likely exception albeit Goyder would have a much much bigger profile and public recognition than JM btw. This comment is IMO IMO IMO
3. The market IMO still doesn't know much about koalin/halloysite and what it can do. It is not as easily recognisable as lithium. This is probably a significant key point to note.
4. The first offtake was too small here, and allowed shorters to play their games. Because ADN shares are not tightly held IMO IMO, compared to LTR shares, there is decent trading volume each day combined with limited if any on market buys by management - the outcome was there and unfortunately management didn't arrest the downturn. At the end of the day, both LTR's and ADN's SP had overshot PFS NPV, but for LTR it did model other devlopment scenarios that suggest the current SP there still hasn't overshot NPV particularly the market perception through LTR's Scoping Study for hydroxide/sulphate where NPV was significantly above the development scenario in its PFS. That is ADN only has one NPV in the public sphere from recollection. But I still think ADN point 3 is still a key factor here.
5. ADN needs to tick the boxes to mining and probably in part what has not helped is some timelines have been missed to date. At this stage I don't think LTR has missed timelines.
6. ADN raised on a downturn in SP, whilst LTR raised on an upturn.

Just my thoughts, but they are IMO. As I said my opinion, so it can be wrong etc etc

All IMO