this has to be one of the worst bits of analysis I’ve ever seen....

this has to be one of the worst bits of analysis I’ve ever seen. I won’t break it down in full because it’s a waste of time but just to save some well meaning people from falling for your nonsense, here is the simple part of it.

“Bubble” is used by a lot of people to indicate no investment future in a certain sector. However, even if there is a bubble, this does not always mean the whole sector is at the mercy of the burst. For example, when the BNPL bubble burst, it was not the same as the dot com bubble bursting. Amazon was part of the dot com bubble. You’d have been an idiot to not have invested in Amazon. Although it was indeed part of the bubble it still fulfilled a service / need / gap in the market and had good direction.

Even if we assume the EV market is a bubble (not a boom) and we assume the EV bubble bursts. Ask yourself which part of the EV industry would collapse? EV tech is not going anywhere as evidenced by our political direction / public sentiment / environmental science data. So the tech isn’t going anywhere. Maybe instead, certain expressions of the tech won’t make it?? For example, alot of mid and smaller car companies might not make it because the bigger companies have the manufacturing segment on lock and that is why for me, car manufacturing is a riskier investment. Well, luckily for us, RNU is not competing with the biggest car manufacturers. It’s simply supplying the battery tech’s growing need for graphite, which is significantly less risky than a product manufacturer because, it is just relying on the growth of the tech, not on the growth of one specific car manufacturing company.

I’m not saying RNU is a sure thing and it certainly comes with a healthy dose of risk. I’m just saying don’t make your investment choices based on the fact that something might be in a bubble. Look at the needs of the market, the service being provided, the competing companies, the health of management and their funding.