PLS chart, page-22757

"While PLS Dec 2022 close was down from the peak, the declines (50s-60s%) of the other international Lith companies seem to be influenced by the 85.5% Spod price decline."

The 85.5% Spod price decline is universal. But PLS's share price decline is seen to be not influenced by the 85.5% Spod price decline, which is unlike the other 3 companies' share price decline. That is not seeing all 4 companies' share price decline objectively. So there is prejudice against PLS from the start.

"This makes the PLS decline in SP of only 18%, look more than a bit unusual."

Yes, of course, it does.

But that is only because you base that conclusion of yours on the following questionable assumptions:

1/ that the current and past share prices of those 4 companies are and were fair prices;
(But market prices are not always fair prices. And as far as we can tell, closing prices are market prices. And market prices can't be used for that kind of comparison because market prices are arbitrary

2/ that those 4 companies have had the same rate of growth (in terms of production, resources, profit etc) and decline;
(Have they?)

3/ that stock investors or traders never want to pay premium to a stock they consider to have a better prospect of making money;
(Don't they?)

4/ that the market has been wrong with the current share price of PLS but right with the current share prices of the other 3 companies;
(This is caused by that prejudice. And if that is the case, that the market has been wrong with the current share price of PLS, then how can it stay uncorrected for this long?)

So the argument: "While PLS Dec 2022 close was down from the peak, the declines (50s-60s%) of the other international Lith companies seem to be influenced by the 85.5% Spod price decline. This makes the PLS decline in SP of only 18%, look more than a bit unusual." is just not sound.