The inanity of The Engineer has encouraged me to put forward a couple of thoughts that come to mind regarding the next couple of years for SYA. For balance. Run a red herring up the flagpole, so to speak. I have touched once before on how, why, why not would a very large corporate not wish to firm up the current sine qua non of their future supply chain - Li - by using their financial muscle to become hard rock miners in their own right and simultaneously make life difficult for their competitors? I'm thinking here of course of vehicle assemblers but also the energy sector - specifically oil companies who are staring at fossil fuel end dates.
Is it, perhaps, because these corporate giants think in decades, not years? And that - with such a drastic change coming to the entire planet like a freight train - they realise that battery technology development will only speed up with the emergence of the political will to implement 'climate change strategies'.
In the end, I see two medium / long term risks to balance out what I agree with everyone else here is a perfect storm akin to a ride on one of Elon's Falcon 9s.
The first one is, of course, an unexpected unsolicited take over bid. Normally I don't think that this would be any kind of possibility. But in this case, the circumstances are quite extreme. I'm not any kind of financial expert. More novice, to be frank, but even I can see risks in the gap - well canyon, to be realistic - between the might of concerns such as Ford, GM., Stellantis, VW, Tesla etc. and the little Aussie ingrate (sorry) Sayona. And SYA is out of its comfort zone having just badly upset some very influential Quebecois who used the nationalist instincts of the local population in their recent court proceedings. That might or might not be of relevance, but it serves to my mind anyway to highlight SYAs vulnerabilities.
The second is technological change. Rapid change. When researchers at U Queensland claim to be able to field in a commercial setting within two years Graphene based aluminium-ion battery technology that can recharge 60 times quicker than lithium technology, suffers no overheating issues, is far more compact and utilises a readily available basic ingredient which costs $1350 per tonne as against lithium's $13,000, I have to take note. And they claim EV compatibility with their research.
My research, such as it is, tells me that the only reason we are not using bauxite in Teslas is that there are longevity problems with current Al-ion battery designs.
My point is that we as shareholders, rather than traders, should keep the horizon in sight. Yes, get excited about today but remember - this world is changing rapidly and what works today will eventually become an historic footnote as soon as the 2030s.
My purpose is not to pour cold water but to provide context - to those who, like me, intend to be long term holders. And to encourage debate, not the usual jockeying for position.
You dear reader, me and many others are going to benefit not despite but because of the current CR, among many other reasons. Because it's part of a process. How do I know this? - because people such as SB, SF, SS and many others have described the processes and I have listened.
And because this is NOT a 'dog' stock it's one the bots just couldn't tame. Shagz, I'm with you on this.
I would be happy to be shot down in flames on any or all of these thoughts as that would inevitably lead to better understanding of the company we all own bits of.
All facilitated by HC. Hi, moderators!
This all IMHO only - and please DYOR.
Jig.
Expand
(20min delay)