My last two posts did not provide the usual adequate info as...

My last two posts did not provide the usual adequate info as they were made in a bit of a rush on iphone. It's the fifth time that HC had reset my post while I was still typing a lot of verbiage. Annoying. Now back to typing on the laptop.

Giovanni...
It's said that the market is irrational, it isn't said that the market is intelligent. We've seen evidence of that when buyers hesitated at 70c-75c but paid at 85c.

I think there's a chance on 1st May pre-open to make some good bids. I'll keep an eye on it just out of interest and some quirky amusement.
Watching the market at play can be like watching a game.

Mick...
Thanks for your detailled explanation. I totally get where you're coming from. But this other matter keeps bothering me.

I had a look at the last cr, which took the Indonesian soph investor GEAR to its max limit of 9.85%. I believe the reason for that is to stay flying under the FIRB radar. At 10% shareholdings, it would trigger bleeps on the screen.

It is this rationale that makes me wonder whether ARL might have difficulty issuing more than 10% equity to the JC, whether in ARL or in NewCo, or in tenement holdings.

One way around the FIRB road block is to sell the minerals using the offtake mechanism.
That seems to be fine with the FIRB watchdog because it is a regular sale of commodities. The FIRB clearly has a big No-No position on selling a share of tenements or in-ground resources to foreign investors because that is selling Aus land, which is against legislation and against the country's national interest.

I'm beginning to think that the recent delays experienced by ARL also have something to do with passing the FIRB review. Ring-fencing has gotten more complicated.

It would be inconsistent, even to the point of raising a red flag, if ARL made a submission for a $20M grant from the govt. and then at the same time make arrangements to breach regulations protecting national interests. Canberra would have a conniption when it learns about that. And learn Canberra will. Many informants around.

The other very relevant matter that suddenly occurred to me yesterday evening as I stepped into the shower (yea, yea, too much info here) was that the JC have found their ultimate weapon of defence against the China-Indonesia joint assault on Ni producers globally.

The weapon being that miraculous goose that lays the golden eggs. With this miracle, the JC can now match China's/Indonesia's aggressive and environmentally destructive AISC war moves and still win. Not only win, but in the process of continuing to meet the high ESG benchmarks set by USA and EU, also shame those two countries. (So far, K-Pop has joined in the fray. Just waiting for J-Pop to do likewise.)

On a bigger picture context, Japan has learned that it is at risk of being at the "mercy" of China in terms of supplies of REE, graphite, scandium and Ni/Co.

So, given these two very important and persuasive factors for the JC to deliberate, why would they walk away from the JV with ARL?
And why would they play hard against ARL when they should be collaborating with ARL to win against the might of China and Indonesia combined?

As mentioned in my earlier post, ARL's $ bottomline is comparatively small when seen in the light of the JC's global operations.
It is the 40+ years of mineral supply that the JC are targetting, not the equity in ARL or the in-ground resources. The FIRB regulations just make business arrangements too complicated.

The JC would much prefer keeping it sweet and simple. Aren't the Japanese known for elevating simplicity into a refined work of art?