Dude, I'm not a fan of ASM either, just pointing out the coincidence ASM was in the news last week agitating for more government assistance like HAS. They're all chasing government assistance, ARU also, well played if they convince the pollies to write bigger checks. Privatise the gains, socialise the losses... that's how the world works these days. For the record, among other things,
I'm positive; Australian mining projects, retail investors making money not losing money, genuine debate, sharing knowledge and research.
I'm negative; misleading and deceptive management, informed brokers and insiders profiting at the expense of retail and well-guarded HC bull echo chambers.
So if you have followed my work on HAS and the Gifford Ck area for RE's, it's not surprising I'm negative HAS management and express concerns of Yangi's economic viability. Having looked into Gifford and Yangi with some effort and detail, I'm bearish for multiple reasons and shared those concerns for HC readers to consider. I was going to re-hash the erroneous valuation metrics HAS trotted out again for that Rotto presso recently, but couldn't be bothered spending any time re-hashing. Any serious or sensible HC investor has surely gone back and read through the discussions on HAS others found valuable.
Getting a guvvie double dip from EFA is big news and worth my time to comment. That's all the time I gave it, about 10 min type, google and copy in parts of the ASM article I recently read. Went through HAS, DRE, KFM etc like a dose of salts, have all the research, spreadsheets, links, diagrams saved into an excel spreadsheet. Once you learn a thing, it's worthwhile keeping a watch on developments, to see if I was wrong or things panned out how i predicted.
HAS is the best chance of getting a mine up and running, and very much doubt the government will double up this sort of support for DRE unless they make a sensational discovery. The RE space has only become more interesting with Tesla plan to remove RE-permanent magnets completely... and higher risk for all involved with HAS. After some consideration, I can see the west shifting away from RE-magnets while China maintains it's dominant use (including copious RE-magnet exports to the west). What is the cheaper and strategically easier path for the west; try and replicate a new RE supply chain then catch-up with China's RE-magnet expertise, or work around RE-magnets until no-RE PMs or new induction motor designs level the playing field on an efficiency v cost basis?
Niron's VP was interviewed for an article last week and remains confident that iron-nitride magnets superior to PM's will be producing EV strength magnets in 2025 (sending out customer samples in 2023). Even if this new tech is late or eventually fails (it's been in development since 2010) it represents a binary, go broke Darwinism moment for HAS and most other RE developers if it's the real deal. So only another $130M risk equity together with more guvvie finance to reach FID perhaps, but which investors, at what price, want make that sort of high risk investment??
That is why I say HAS and others need fixed price off-take to square the funding circle. ATM, lenders and equity investors are being asked to take all the risk to support EV manufacturers. That's ass about. EV manufacturers either want ex-china RE supply badly enough to pay up fixed and where any losses if RE prices fall or new tech comes along or not. If not, why not, and why should others (including me the tax payer) be on the hook to create their ex-chain supply chain? Tesla doesn't appear to be taking calls on negotiating long term fixed-price RE offtake agreements...
I don't own HAS, probably never will, but that doesn;t mean I'm down ramping to buy in cheaper. I like to research, think and share my opinion even when it's not wanted... which makes HC a perfect forum to fill in spare time
GLTAH
HAS Price at posting:
$2.70 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)
