GXY IS UNDERVALUED, page-77

The thread is about galaxy being undervalued.
I agree that it is, based on all the evidence that points to potential growth of the company in the future. It’s al about the future, isn’t it?
The shares cost today what they cost today. People investing in the company are buying to realise some return at some time in the future, so it is exactly about where we are likely headed in the future.
“Many of my posts” are about what is unfolding with the ev and battery space, and how we are potentially (and likely) to be able to be fit from this growth.
No one can deny that we have a world-class brine deposit, with projected costs of production at the lower end of similar operations.
Yes, it isn’t a certainty, but what is?
As you say, it’s about the balance of probabilities, and of all the negative views presented here, the actual reasonable evidence or analysis that says that GXY won’t grow with the global EV shift is severely lacking imo. It is mostly based on “the downtrend” or short-term pricing/supply issues, rather than considered evaluation of the developing market.
Calling it undervalued or not depends entirely on the timeframe. If one guesses that we’ll drop next week, then they’ll think we are not undervalued. But what is that guess based on? TA? Gut feel? Dow futures? It’s a coin flip.
At least those calling the longer term potential for growth are based on tangible factors that are taking shape.
As others have noted, someone calling a lower share price based on fundamentally flawed reasoning or an assessment that doesn’t stack up in the face of opposing evidence doesn’t deserve credit for their calls, even if the outcome actually eventuates. Take the reasoning and discuss that!
Colinchi is today telling us that different batteries are required for EVs to be viable. In the context of his post, I take this to mean something other than Li? Ok, so what exactly? It takes many years for tech to progress from the benchtop to the market, and many commentators have said that Li-ion batteries will persist for at least another decade for this very reason (amongst others). Also, costs of Li-ion batteries is so rapidly reducing, with the cells in a 100 kWh pack now approaching $10,000 total. We’ve done this to death, yet some still chuck it in there as some type of supporting argument for the “against”. Based on what?

Undervalued/overvalued for a flip trade for tomorrow or next week? WhoTF knows but there’s charting and a day trading forum for that. It is so much at the mercy of the market makers that it’s pure guesswork imo.
We can all argue about which way the coin will land, or we can dig into the issues and risks associated with future success of the business.
Like I’ve said many times, I want to question my investments, and value reasonable viewpoints and info from both sides! The key word being reasonable.

Saying that LCE demand is likely to exceed 1Mtpa in 6-7-8 years is not hope, it is based on cost and tech trajectories, the plans of auto manufacturers, the planned gigafactories, the increasing emissions regulations, etc.
Is it a certainty? No, but all indications point to it being very likely and in any case not a matter of if but when.

Wanting to win the lotto tonight is hope!

Imo “I hope” SDV gets developed one day isn’t reasonable - there is no good reason presented why it won’t!

Anyway, threads like this are strange because in many ways, a lot of threads are essentially just focussed on the future potential of the company. They should be defined by specific topics within that rather than generalisations, imo.

If we are talking about whether the company os “undervalued” based on some potential value at some time in the future.... we’ll that’s a bit too vague isn’t it...?
SDV in production someday = massive increase in earnings from today = we are undervalued.

Perhaps a better idea would be threads about specific aspects of the business, the market, or the company’s assets...? This one is just bound to churn wild banter and arguments!