I just checked to be accurate, I first posted on SVM as a sell on 9th June 21 at 77c, on the same day and 5 of my first 6 posts we moderated due to complaints by yourself and others. Given the shares fell a full 50% to lows of 38.5c on 24th Feb, I'd say I was also right on the technical from that first MRE release. Called and played one bounce over the journey, sold in Nov for a good trading profit before it fell back again. I didn;t play the last bounce from Feb and admit i would have taken any bet the price would not have run to low 80's, let alone with a bullet as it has. Congrats for hanging tuff, well done on a profit, that is what this game is all about obviously.
Really appreciated your apology on this and another thread btw. Shows a lot better character than most on HC, and though it doesn;t bother it's good that someone gets me occasionally. Some readers want to trade the price cycle, some want to ride it until the end and hopefully one big pay. One approach risks getting caught short if price runs away and doesn't come back, the other that over the journey risks materialise as flaws in the project or it's chances of being funded, or at least funded with horrendous dilution and price falls from early exploration days. One thing is almost certain though, even over a successful journey fear, greed, manipulation and the market tide will cycle through the price and investors psyche...
Fundamental analysis only indicates the destination not the price path to get there. Technical analysis in conjunction with historic relationships of price reaction to newsflow, feasibility stages, CR's etc helps pick the probable price path but tells us little about the destination. All management and their supportive brokers go to extreme efforts promoting only very positive descriptions and best outcomes of inherently uncertain and risky possibilities.
Posters would do better to understand my psyche. Be it a curse or superpower, I simply can't read anything these days without seeing through the spin to reality. I post a contrarian or sometimes negative views as a counterbalance to the only perma bull opinion HC readers are fed. Posters can correct me if I'm wrong, ignore me if I make them uncomfortable, abuse if they feel the need... but every serious investor should welcome the some balance, which by definition has to be negative compared to company/poster uber bullish.
Take Sprott for example, enjoyed taking the stick to their bias reports since I arrived, and generally been right side of the debate. The two biggest project specific risks I identified was a very thin deposit at high enough grades to make sense given a commensurately huge footprint (eg Sprott's 1.5% Rt head grade 5-10 years call), and that the ~1m of soil contained much of the high grade but would be preserved for rehab by an Australia EPA. Latest release has Sprott comparing Kasiya selectively against some deposits, on only some variables, ignoring the largest new rutile deposits on the way to development (hint... monazite is the new black, and Eastern Australia could be the new rutile powerhouse).
SVM are seeking to overcome prohibitive footprint overheads/constraints with deeper pits that swap high grade rutile for high grade graphite bi-product at depth. Brilliant if the process works as planned, problem solved. SVM appear to be solving the large rutile loss to topsoil preservation by convincing Malawi and it's farmers they can use "investigations by SVM on synthetic topsoil generation for rehabilitation."... Hardly ESG best practice for rich soil, intensely cultivated by a large population of subsistence farmers, but hey, who is surprised about lip service by western companies in Africa chasing a dollar?
There I go again sorry. Think I'll bang out a quick reply and end up indulging myself in another sermon. Clearly I don't follow min sands for the money, industry is in a fascinating state of flux with just so much interesting stuff happening.
Cheers and good luck.
Expand
(20min delay)
