Thanks I will reply to this as you have taken the time. Its long (and partly in reply to 8horse also), I wrote it super quick, but I am also not taking the time to double check it now (I know GLN well and anyone with similar or related concerns may find this useful - as opposed to $2 in two months nonsense).
For a basically one man operation GLN has done well. You raise some of the potential negatives (in a perhaps positive light, but that is fine). A one man owner-operator $300M MC company at some point is a red flag. To me it was yesterday/today as a cut off on that front. Doesn't mean I think every factor of GLN is a negative or that it won't rise further (short, medium, long, whatever term). Anything is possible I know that. Daniel is good for show - probably worth ~10c a share HAHA (which is probably generous). There are two serious industry related outside holders, one of which is below the substantial threshold now. A few in the top 20 that are nice but well below substantial thresholds and could drop the share price on rebalance (due to low SOI). JP noted the "40ktpa for 40 years" in a talk, which a poster here has coined - it was cringe as a serious investor to hear JP actually say that in a public talk to be honest. And he has since dropped the line because Candelas does not have 40 years in it. Note Candelas will NEVER get up actually, but that is another theme. No one will ever buy Candelas either as others have positive in the past. Also mine lives of 40 years are pretty meaningless from a MC valuation point of view anyway. I digress. The ASX announcement of even having a rig on site was posted AFTER a hot copper poster pulled satellite images. It comes across as you say, as a one man owner-operator garage business.
HMW is the only play here. I believed in the 2 holes on the edge of the salar and they may pan out, especially as a mid-term momentum play. Maybe at best as a concentrate producer (which would still be great). And until today I was hoping for the best in terms of operations and management. But I don't see the risk versus spec reward here anymore given what I was hoping for with the last two days as a kind of cut off. Simple - that is me.
Maybe others have doubts and would like to know those doubts are shared. That is all. Selling a large position (whatever that means for anyone individually) is often harder than buying into one, and inertia in the market is real. For many holders, they would be well in the green with GLN as it stands today but they may still have doubts. If what I say is bullsh*t, call me on specifics or ignore it, as people should feel safe with their investment. If I am getting to someone (with 2 posts), they have serious problems I would say (and seemingly some serious subconscious insecurities regarding their investment HAHA). Or call me a downramper and hope for rockets as you wish
As for the raise: I know it was the brokers who approached GLN after the run up. This is in response to 8horse also (thanks also at least for replying with some substance). Not any institutional investors. It was shopped around. Use that however you want. That is fact. At the time it was probably bullish to get those "commitments" but that was peak lithium bull market also so hindsight is wonderful. I would say JP probably should not have taken the bait as I am skeptical on the need/use for the funds. If you accept GLN was not the initiator - the need is logically not a driver (that is fact). The CR in addition to the lithium sector taking a hit clearly caused additional under performance and has at the least created a pretty solid ceiling to break through (that is opinion).
The HMW DFS was already fully funded prior to the CR. And by the way, a DFS isn't costing $50 million. Candelas will never pass FID. People need to be real on that front. A lucky, unplanned, unneeded, **over sized** raise is usually not liked by Mr Market and the trend continues with GLN. Taking just the tranche 2 of $20M off these mysterious two investors and leaving it at that would have been a better decision from the start. Probably would have also limited the inevitable s708 churn that is still to come and will be a major future resistance in the 1.15-1.30 range I suspect. Taking just the $20M off two investors straight away under existing limits would have appeared very bullish, not opportunistic/naive, and would have provided plenty of funds to get on with whatever. I call amateurish again.
I just disagree that this tranche 2 issuance is still a given. Not saying it isn't but cannot see that it is. I hope it is. Was hoping for info yesterday or today. The vote means nothing. I tried contacting GLN for word on this matter at the time of meeting notice to no reply. Was happy to wait till the meeting or day after and hope for a bounce in the run up, which we did get. These mysterious institutional investors would have to be mighty keen to buy at this premium now? Anyway, in the mean time wait for word from GLN I guess.. I do hope for holders its sooner rather than later. There is a 3 month window at worst. Some institutions might play the long game and it will probably be bullish at this point if they do go through as I was hoping to hear (but come on give a date if that is known for sure to be happening?). Even the two month delay on the meeting makes no sense (as no other business was raised?) and price action was always going to be pressured downward while these shares are in the air.
In response to comments on me missing some points, I don't believe that I am. Tranche 1 was issued when the share price was whatever (lets say 99c, fine). But the purchase was made at the broker's end well before, at the time of the raise. This is how a raise like this works - ones that don't require share holder approval. Its like a SPP - you pay up front and issuance happens at some later date (you know that going in). Otherwise it'd be hard getting anyone to honor "commitments" following a fall after CR announcement HAHA. Tranche 2 is not this. The apparent institutions involved never had any guarantee that approval for their shares would even be given. After the raise announcement they are only obligated to proceed in as far any contractual obligation is in place at the time of announcement. I would say there were no contractual obligations for tranche 2 (seems logical), but I don't know and that is the nature of my point - and I was happy to wait mostly for confirmation. The fact a vote went ahead yesterday means nothing. The window for issuance is now 3 months in the absence of further information; and anything can happen, which is my point (including bullish moves like issuance during a time of significant premium, but also quite bearish moves, e.g. institutions dropping out).
GLN is an easy stock to manipulate short term for accumulation and distribution but also just for trading and bot action. SOI is very low as you say. Anyone wanting in below the CR has had their chance even if seeking serious volume. (Its still 10% under the raise price, ~30% down from all time highs). Its been shorted pretty seriously over the last couple weeks - as another poster has noted, the relative day volume of shorts is actually significant. Whether that action is for accumulation or simply for trading is hard to know - hard to see in the broker data also (I suspect its trading action not serious accumulation).
For me I am over it with GLN after the meeting and today, and maybe someone will find this useful to think about rather than hoping for the best. Honestly, if tranche 2 was commented on in announcement up to today, I'd probably have held some final portions and downplayed to myself other doubts that have been accumulating. Inertia is real. Any positive announcement on that front (if it still comes) will be short term bullish so I would have been happy enough short term. But I am happy either way. The lack of clear announcements and some of the operations are broader sell signals to me which need to be acted on at some point. There are lots of opportunities on the market and the issues with GLN weigh on the speculative potential for mid-term serious gain (if any at all). Agree with 8horse that this forum is just mostly opinions. This thread is mostly one. The return of "$2 in two months" talk after one day of pump compelled me to comment here also I guess. People spouting that nonsense need to seriously stop kidding themselves and do some serious objective research. Or call me a down ramper for pips, as anyone wishes. Guess you will never really know the truth
I'd watch for short action increasing again, after the distinct decrease in daily shorts in the immediate lead up to the meeting.
Good luck anyway!
(20min delay)