It's never a good look when a company sells off assets, and...

It's never a good look when a company sells off assets, and raises capital, to fund growth. WAK could have an excuse - blame Covid for delaying delivery of the plant for about a year.

The cascading result of that delay is that WAK is about a year behind its original trajectory, so it is about a year behind its planned performance targets, so the 167,232,813 options expiring on 20 November are not going to be exercised, so WAK is potentially $41,808,203.25 short of funds it planned to have soon, excluding the impact of X tonnage of product not produced on time. That option money would have dribbled in earlier had the SP risen above 25c, so various capital raises in the recent past would not have had to be made. I do not want to get into a debate about the Covid delay and its affect - it's too subjective - too many ifs and buts.

For me the delay could be a bonus, because the shares issued in recent capital raises was far less than the 167,232,813 options. Also, coming late to the share register, I have been able to acquire my holding at 15.9c, and things should progress as originally planned, but a year late.

My view is that if anybody knows what WAK's value is, it would be Stanco. I think the reason is that particle size can be milled to specification, but WAK can meet demanding purity specifications - 99% pure is old hat for the K99F product sold to Stanco for continuous-filament fibreglass, and 99.9% pure K999F has been available since March 2023. It is, I think, very difficult for many competitors to match the suitability of K99, and matching K999 may be a step beyond them at a competitive price.

It's not only the 1% or the 0.1% of contaminants that is the issue for the continuous-filament fibreglass subsector, it is the fractional percentages of carbon, iron and sulphur that are important. I venture that if Stanco committed to buy over $7m worth of shares at 17c a share, its management expect the shares to be worth more than that.

My next line of logic is based on the Management options expiring on 20 November 2025 at 35c. If WAK is running a year late, then one could hold that a year later, the SP should be above 35c. Things do go awry, and maybe WAK is not going to get to 35c by November 2026. All I am suggesting is that there is no reason to believe that the downside risk is greater than the upside. That (insiders' beliefs) is what I am gambling on, but it is a gamble, and many investors want to have more than the gut-feel that I am prepared to use as the basis for my investment.