I just read the article you quoted, paying attention to the...

I just read the article you quoted, paying attention to the detail, and applied some analysis beyond believing a pumpy headline.

Why did EFA provide a loan, and not the headline attention grabbing US$135M, only US$30M? Because Vinfast put up numbers that showed the loan had a good chance of being repaid.

Where's BSX's numbers showing that a loan/investment has a good chance of being repaid/profitable? If the number's are good, put them out and the funding will follow. Oh, SW said that BSX would be profitable in the current pricing environment. Would it be profitable enough to attract US$1BN in financing/funding to justify actually getting the company off the ground? There's a difference between profitable and investment worthy, and it's a big ass gap.

BSX can't/refuse to do that, why?

The EFA investing in the equivalent of an EV petrol station is a no brainer. All battery types require electricity, not all batteries require nickel, and even less batteries require woke nickel.

Get SW to put out the numbers and maybe I'll be less inclined to call BS on the "Everything is Awesome" crowd.