Share
4,334 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 461
clock Created with Sketch.
28/01/22
13:18
Share
Originally posted by AM74:
↑
Hi Shane456, Bit of a long one. My apologies. I am open to the same possibility. I want to contribute to the conversation but fair warning, my observations below are not all complimentary of LPD. I’ve been reading various views here about causes for recent SP behavior. Obviously the macro conditions have played a role however I think it is impossible to absolve the Board of all responsibility. We all remember JW’s promotional interviews last year ahead of the AGM vote. The cheezy grin pumping the big list of company making events arriving in CY2021 Q4 (or spill over into CY2022 Q1). Significant items are now formally guided toward CY2022 Q2. This guidance now creates some interesting tension around the expiry of options. If you have made it this far then I’ll share my next observation. Seems to me that many here allowed themselves to be swept up in how reliable the MD and Board is in planning and releasing updates. I agree … but with a twist. At this stage I cannot find a way to see how the milestones advertised by the MD last November are ‘delayed’ because that implies they were genuinely on track for delivery in CY2021. With the information we all now know, is there any way to accept that the Board genuinely believed what the MD was promoting to the market last November? On the other hand, Joe has form for making exaggerated claims before important AGM votes that benefit Strategic Metallurgy (the Chairs private company). These are strong comments, but this is not the first, second or even third time this routine has played out. I definitely agree that the Board ‘plans ahead’ very carefully. In hindsight this now seems to have been another repeat of the old routine. One reason that I am personally not surprised about this weeks SP performance is that another item related to financing is still in the back of my mind. The project equity component is yet to be finalized. Several AGMs ago Joe indicated in the open Q&A session that raising somewhere near 2.7c was the goal. In recent years conditions have changed. Lithium prices in the DFS have increased more that the likely increases to costs laid out the DFS (for capex upgrades, general inflation, etc). These changes to project economics may provide some scope for LPD to amend their own asking price for project equity and perhaps target 3c to 3.6c? With that in the back of my mind i think the SP is now closer to reality. I am of the view that the macro conditions are not so much ‘the cause’ of the recent SP drop but the perfect screen to legitimize working the SP back toward a zone that stacks up for project equity. The significant selling volumes seem normal rather than a cause for concern. Seems to me that LPD continues to work the share market harder than any trader. The above is my observation. I share it because over the last week I did not have the doom and gloom feelings that some are repeating here. Also, rather than being ‘oversold’, the recent SP drop seems to me to be a reasonable correction from being in an overbought situation that was initiated by LPD several months ago. Obviously some may strongly disagree with my observations about the cause of SP correction. Let’s hope I am hopelessly wrong and LPD can raise equity somewhere in the 4’s. For example, some by-product offtakes may support high SP and negate the need to raise at a discount. Until we know for sure let’s not allow ourselves to absolve the Board of all responsibility for the current situation. Go the slow ‘pus. A
Expand
This is brilliant! Many are patting these guys on the back and some others are actually able to see the reality. Great post man! I can see you honestly want to see this fly but you have to ask these questions. I see the answers in the language they use in the Ann’s.. they can excuse themselves from meeting deadlines by wording it right and the masses will just lap it up.. until it happens again and again.. and it has here!