An excellent question, B, which factored v.heavily in my decision to exit. Answered in two parts:
1) Cash Conservation: During the last Ni winter, which lasted ~3½ years for POS (i.e. late-2014 to mid-2018), fundamentally different decisions were made around cash spending by the then-Chair, CI. For example, no swanky offices in West Perth; Board members paid in shares only; no CEO (that role was reduced to 40% FTE and covered by the Chair -- also paid in shares only); no asset sales required in order to survive (cash top-ups were much smaller and were made by tapping the market via The Laundomat).
Ccntrast that against the current spending culture.
Yes, spending is down, but it's going to settle at a fundamentally higher fixed cost level.
2) Macro Picture: This Ni 'winter' (I'll circle back to that term) is likely to differ markedly from the previous one, imo. My view appears to be the opposite of yours (no offence intended).
I don't believe it will be as cold this time (i.e. spot prices won't get as low) because there isn't anywhere near the same inventory supply mountain/glut present today.
However, I think this downturn will last much, much... much longer because this time around we're not talking about waiting for global consumption to digest a massive overhang of (aleady-produced) warehoused inventory, before Ni pricing returns to economic levels for the likes of POS.
Instead, the industry is faced with the issue of a large (and still-growing) China/Indo production supply complex that operates much further down the cost curve than WA sulphide operators -- esp. POS.
Having a pipeline of greater ongoing competing supply capacity, with plenty of room to grow, which is economically sustainable at prices below the WA Ni sector -- esp. POS -- speaks strongly to the high likelihood that the supply landscape has fundamentally changed (for quite possibly a generation).
On that basis I think that referring to WA Ni"s current downturn as another 'winter' is somewhat misleading. That's not a criticism -- I use it as slang myself, but I do think that it isn't an accurate descriptor, given the ongoing permanent and sustainable nature of the supply shock to Ni sulphide producers.
There were other angles to also consider. For example, the potential for supply disruptions from Indo [insert whatever reason] and resultant price impacts; or the question around substitute chems down the track (LFP isn't a cure-all, but it's having an impact); or yadda, yadda.
At the end of the day it was primarily about combining and relating both points decribed above to POS' LT viability as a Ni hopeful, including (at best) the potential for massive ongoing dilution or (at worst) bleeding-out and VA. The result was a reluctant and somewhat painful, but necessary, no-brainer for me.
Cheers.
Expand
(20min delay)