Dare to Dream, page-4

Interesting case study.

A few points I think others should consider when reading your theory:

1. OTC listing are not considered price sensitive announcements.
2. CLQ barely moved after the OTC announcement, opened around 70 cents and closed around 75 cents prior to a string of positive announcements for a net uplift of 9.3%
3. On the 28th of Feb, a hugely significant off-take was signed, resulting in CLQ actually having contracts to start shipping product. This was proceeded by many many more positive announcements.

With this points in mind I consider this statement:

"if my theory is correct, CLQ moved from about the 50c level to a high of $1.18 for a 136% gain. This would mean a $325m increase in market cap caused predominantly by the OTC."

In all honesty I can't fathom how any reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion based on there being 17 Price sensitive announcements between the OTC listing date and your $1.18 price point in October. These announcements included offtake contracts, quarterly reports, millions of dollars of government rebates and grants, new partnership agreements etc.

Now, that isn't to say that liquidity/demand from an international market can't help drive the share price higher, it absolutely can. However, you still need other catalysts to help drive momentum and that was clearly evident in the case of CLQ.

I appreciate your excitement and optimism, but I don't think you have demonstrated a clear link between cause and effect which makes this statement redundant:

"If you run the numbers for PO3, a $230m increase in market cap (using an issued cap of 32m shares for PO3) equates to a $7 increase in share price. A $325m increase in market cap would equate to about a $10 price increase. Consequently, if PO3 follows CLQ, it could relate to a share price of $10-$13."

I write this post as a holder of PO3 who wants to see it do well, and believe it will. However, I've seen too many people on HC get excited with reputable posters clever but inconclusive thesis's on investments. I fear people are susceptible to very impulsive decisions when fictitious price targets are waved in front of them, committing dangerous levels of retirement savings into "ideas".

So don't take this as a personal attack, just an alternative view subject to the same possible fallibility. I do note that you comment on other factors and do not claim you are certain, just reiterating the point.