"But over time, tensions started to build around what was being recommended, and how. I’d raise concerns. Sometimes they were heard. Other times they weren’t."
Thanks, Kevin. I'm not sure how you gleaned it, but yes, this was one of those situations. I'll say this much: it worked out for subscribers in the end, and I'm glad it did. We took profits in February, and I issued many more reminders to take profits. But I wasn't comfortable with how it came about (wasn't my pick originally... couldn't have been with the way the chart looked) - lost a few nights of sleep over it - and if it had been entirely up to me, the timing and the setup would have looked different. That's about as far as I'll go for now.
Thank you for answering. Hydrograph was obvious from context. In fact, I am one of the subscribers who asked about the recommendation from the get go. I placed a bigger than normal “bet”, then bailed out at break-even. Made the mistake of getting back in again. Now sitting on a 30% haircut that I will ride to total loss or free ride. Important lesson for both of us about trusting your instincts.
Thanks for sharing, bkrg2. Your story is exactly why position sizing matters so much, and not just in the obvious way. When your position is too big, it doesn't just increase your risk. It hijacks your decision-making. You become emotional. You can't think clearly. And when something bad happens, you panic and sell - not necessarily because the thesis is broken, but because the position is simply too large for you to sit through the volatility.
You're speaking up about it, but my guess is the same thing happened to other folks too. I remember on Monday's call there was talk about not taking profits at all and a lot of hyped-up language. I remember saying, "Hold up, guys. You still have to take profits." So when the report landed, it really caught most people off guard.
Funny enough, at that point I found myself being pushed in the direction of withdrawing the recommendation and issuing an apology. I pushed back. I asked for more time, spoke with management, dug into the report, and realized a lot of it was actually BS. While I do regret recommending it at that particular price point, I didn't see anything fundamentally wrong with the company. It looked like a great speculation. After doing my due diligence a second time, I actually came away even more convinced. I ended up buying the stock myself, which, funny enough, turned into one of my bigger winners that year.
The difference is that I followed the same advice I gave subscribers: keep the position manageable, take a free ride after a double, and so on. It worked. But you can't do any of those things - and I mean you in the general sense, not you specifically, bkrg2 - if the position is oversized from the start. First, you sell too early because you're relieved just to get your original investment back. Then you feel like you missed out as the stock keeps climbing, so you jump back in... and get burned. It's a classic cycle, and it all starts with poor position sizing.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing, bkrg2.
By the way, would you mind if I screenshot your comment for a quick Note on position sizing? I think your experience captures something a lot of readers struggle with, and it's worth a broader conversation. No problem if not.
Energy Fuels is trading down 50% from its high of $28 in February, which is a nice entry for anyone interested. Another good idea is Almonty Industries $ALM for tungsten with a non-China mine coming online in South Korea.
Well, yes, you're right, but there are objective reasons behind the pullback. Most of it is probably the VAC acquisition - US$1.9 billion, mostly in new shares; meaning the market's punishing the dilution. Then there's uranium spot cooling off from $100 to the mid-$80s. As for Almonty, I was actually looking at them as a potential pick. Great minds think alike, I guess. Funny enough, Almonty is also part of why I struck out on my own.
Zerohedge thinks uranium companies are the next target for the US government to partially nationalize, oops I mean take “equity stake” in. Remember, the derelicts in congress passed that law to ban Russian enriched uranium starting next year I believe. Who knows where you’ll get fuel for the reactor fleet. What I find as sad as it is stupid is how the “climate change” cult ended when their electricity bills jumped and the AI data center narrative emerged. These were the same people who less than a decade ago were completely against anything that wasn’t wind or solar. We are living in an upside down clownshow kabuki theatre retard festival.
Yeah, I agree 100% with ZeroHedge. The power requirements to keep the AI story afloat are such that there's just no other way. On your second point: it's interesting that in Europe, they're so behind in the AI race that the climate story is still front and center… especially with the summer being as hot as it is right now. But the moment the data center buildout reaches them, just you watch how fast the narrative flips there too. But yes, it's the same Larry Fink types pushing both.
Short answer: no. The infrastructure gap is still massive. China controls the refining, and that's the part that takes years to rebuild. The financing the government is pushing into the space is a step, but one mill (or two or three for that matter) doesn't replace decades of lost capacity. That said, it's exactly why the companies that do have the infrastructure are so valuable right now.
Keep up the good work, Lao. Yer gonna be fun to work with. And IMO you are definitely on the right track. I'm checking out the EGS players lately. Definitely US rare earth miners and the metals too. AI needs to consolidate a while. Uranium is kinda wild these days if looking for big baggers. I recommend a small cap Rolls-Royce security a couple years ago on Bonners subscription chat @ 0.17 per share... Cheers!
I like your recent backstories such as this, but propose to hold my tongue on the platform you were formerly paid by, since the bi weekly Youtube ‘adverts’ are becoming frustrating enough within themselves and I prefer not to comment on the most recent throwaway line regarding the future.
Keep up the good content Lau and no doubt you can do well for yourself alone, should that be your wish.
Thanks. I hear you, and I appreciate you saying it. Believe me, I'd rather not deal with any of it either. Sigh. Either way, glad to have you along for the ride, Marc.
Looks good to me. I'm in if you keep going. I'm getting concerned about the AI infrastructure stocks I'm currently holding. They may be values as separate from the mainstream AI company stocks, but when the AI company stocks sneeze.....you know the rest. Thanks for the article.
Thanks, Florian. I do still hold, though keep in mind my entry was much lower than where it trades today, and I've since taken profits to cover my initial investment. Nothing beats having all the upside left and no downside.
Don't know that one well enough to have a view, Florian. It's a micro-cap cobalt play - interesting space, though the EV story has been decelerating quite a bit, esp. in the U.S. - but not something I've dug into.
I have a eye for these types of plays too. My question is what is next. rare minerals have been profitable now what? This is just my opinion but Nuclear energy is coming back as pressure and policies are forcing energy away from petrol. But Russia is the holder of those keys. I am curious if you have taken a look at that angle.
Respectfully, the investment thesis is weak. UUUU trades like an AI stock. Price may have spiked, but not based on fundamentals. The company is hemorrhaging money, has a huge debt load, and isn’t expected to have positive earnings until 2029. I get the mining industry - very long time horizons, but the fundamental calculation tells me it’s way overbought. Hence the fall from the $25 range, headed to $12 minor support.
As with any investment, time horizon and the depth of your capital reserve is critical. I like the idea of being able to extract “rare” material from American dirt rather than depending wholly on a foreign adversary. However, every business needs to earn profits or go out of business. If it’s going to depend on US military spending or executive authority for its profitability, then no thanks. I’ll buy some more AAPL or TSLA.
Thanks, Thomas. Some fair points… but I think you're analyzing a different trade than the one I described. When I recommended UUUU at ~$5.50, it wasn't trading like an AI stock. It was an undervalued uranium producer with an unpriced rare earth kicker. The debt load you're referring to is largely from the VAC acquisition, which happened last month. That’s a year after the recommendation. As I mentioned in the essay, subscribers took their initial capital off the table when the stock doubled. The rest is a free ride. So the current valuation concerns are valid for anyone buying today, but they don't apply to the trade I walked through. And, again, to be clear, this wasn't a recommendation… just a look at the process. Appreciate the pushback though.
Thanks for this, Lau.
In your "what happened" essay you said:
"But over time, tensions started to build around what was being recommended, and how. I’d raise concerns. Sometimes they were heard. Other times they weren’t."
Can you share your real thoughts on HGRAF, now?
Thanks, Kevin. I'm not sure how you gleaned it, but yes, this was one of those situations. I'll say this much: it worked out for subscribers in the end, and I'm glad it did. We took profits in February, and I issued many more reminders to take profits. But I wasn't comfortable with how it came about (wasn't my pick originally... couldn't have been with the way the chart looked) - lost a few nights of sleep over it - and if it had been entirely up to me, the timing and the setup would have looked different. That's about as far as I'll go for now.
Thank you for answering. Hydrograph was obvious from context. In fact, I am one of the subscribers who asked about the recommendation from the get go. I placed a bigger than normal “bet”, then bailed out at break-even. Made the mistake of getting back in again. Now sitting on a 30% haircut that I will ride to total loss or free ride. Important lesson for both of us about trusting your instincts.
Thanks for sharing, bkrg2. Your story is exactly why position sizing matters so much, and not just in the obvious way. When your position is too big, it doesn't just increase your risk. It hijacks your decision-making. You become emotional. You can't think clearly. And when something bad happens, you panic and sell - not necessarily because the thesis is broken, but because the position is simply too large for you to sit through the volatility.
You're speaking up about it, but my guess is the same thing happened to other folks too. I remember on Monday's call there was talk about not taking profits at all and a lot of hyped-up language. I remember saying, "Hold up, guys. You still have to take profits." So when the report landed, it really caught most people off guard.
Funny enough, at that point I found myself being pushed in the direction of withdrawing the recommendation and issuing an apology. I pushed back. I asked for more time, spoke with management, dug into the report, and realized a lot of it was actually BS. While I do regret recommending it at that particular price point, I didn't see anything fundamentally wrong with the company. It looked like a great speculation. After doing my due diligence a second time, I actually came away even more convinced. I ended up buying the stock myself, which, funny enough, turned into one of my bigger winners that year.
The difference is that I followed the same advice I gave subscribers: keep the position manageable, take a free ride after a double, and so on. It worked. But you can't do any of those things - and I mean you in the general sense, not you specifically, bkrg2 - if the position is oversized from the start. First, you sell too early because you're relieved just to get your original investment back. Then you feel like you missed out as the stock keeps climbing, so you jump back in... and get burned. It's a classic cycle, and it all starts with poor position sizing.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing, bkrg2.
By the way, would you mind if I screenshot your comment for a quick Note on position sizing? I think your experience captures something a lot of readers struggle with, and it's worth a broader conversation. No problem if not.
No problem to share this Lau. If it helps anyone avoid learning the hard way, that would be great!
Thanks, bkrg2!
Thank you.
Appreciate you sharing the analysis and timing and the feedback in the comment section. Keep going. And stay in touch.
Thanks, Jay. Will do.
Energy Fuels is trading down 50% from its high of $28 in February, which is a nice entry for anyone interested. Another good idea is Almonty Industries $ALM for tungsten with a non-China mine coming online in South Korea.
Well, yes, you're right, but there are objective reasons behind the pullback. Most of it is probably the VAC acquisition - US$1.9 billion, mostly in new shares; meaning the market's punishing the dilution. Then there's uranium spot cooling off from $100 to the mid-$80s. As for Almonty, I was actually looking at them as a potential pick. Great minds think alike, I guess. Funny enough, Almonty is also part of why I struck out on my own.
Zerohedge thinks uranium companies are the next target for the US government to partially nationalize, oops I mean take “equity stake” in. Remember, the derelicts in congress passed that law to ban Russian enriched uranium starting next year I believe. Who knows where you’ll get fuel for the reactor fleet. What I find as sad as it is stupid is how the “climate change” cult ended when their electricity bills jumped and the AI data center narrative emerged. These were the same people who less than a decade ago were completely against anything that wasn’t wind or solar. We are living in an upside down clownshow kabuki theatre retard festival.
Yeah, I agree 100% with ZeroHedge. The power requirements to keep the AI story afloat are such that there's just no other way. On your second point: it's interesting that in Europe, they're so behind in the AI race that the climate story is still front and center… especially with the summer being as hot as it is right now. But the moment the data center buildout reaches them, just you watch how fast the narrative flips there too. But yes, it's the same Larry Fink types pushing both.
In your opinion has the US solved its rare earth problem? My guess is they have made little to no actual progress right?
Short answer: no. The infrastructure gap is still massive. China controls the refining, and that's the part that takes years to rebuild. The financing the government is pushing into the space is a step, but one mill (or two or three for that matter) doesn't replace decades of lost capacity. That said, it's exactly why the companies that do have the infrastructure are so valuable right now.
Keep up the good work, Lao. Yer gonna be fun to work with. And IMO you are definitely on the right track. I'm checking out the EGS players lately. Definitely US rare earth miners and the metals too. AI needs to consolidate a while. Uranium is kinda wild these days if looking for big baggers. I recommend a small cap Rolls-Royce security a couple years ago on Bonners subscription chat @ 0.17 per share... Cheers!
**Correction: 0.76 per share.
I like your recent backstories such as this, but propose to hold my tongue on the platform you were formerly paid by, since the bi weekly Youtube ‘adverts’ are becoming frustrating enough within themselves and I prefer not to comment on the most recent throwaway line regarding the future.
Keep up the good content Lau and no doubt you can do well for yourself alone, should that be your wish.
I for one would be supportive.
Be well, Marc
Thanks. I hear you, and I appreciate you saying it. Believe me, I'd rather not deal with any of it either. Sigh. Either way, glad to have you along for the ride, Marc.
Very much looking forward to hearing the plans Lau.
Looks good to me. I'm in if you keep going. I'm getting concerned about the AI infrastructure stocks I'm currently holding. They may be values as separate from the mainstream AI company stocks, but when the AI company stocks sneeze.....you know the rest. Thanks for the article.
I hear you. And, no, I'm not stopping anytime soon:). Thanks, Robert.
I would love more silver , gold, CU analysis and asymmetric jr miner
stock picks. Thanks, G.
Thanks, Geoffrey. Noted.
Thank you very much for sharing your systematic approach!
I also made that trade finding the simple facts, that it still is the only permitted Mill and the geopolitical and economic components, unbeatable.
Do you still hold your Position after recent company’s changes?
Thanks, Florian. I do still hold, though keep in mind my entry was much lower than where it trades today, and I've since taken profits to cover my initial investment. Nothing beats having all the upside left and no downside.
I agree, me too!
Thank you once again!
Hey Lau,
What do you think about electra battery materials?
Don't know that one well enough to have a view, Florian. It's a micro-cap cobalt play - interesting space, though the EV story has been decelerating quite a bit, esp. in the U.S. - but not something I've dug into.
As well as i know it‘s the only cobalt-Processing facility in north america.
Thank you, greetings from Austria!
First of all thank you for sharing. This was very insightful.
Thanks, Pablo. Glad it landed. I may do more of these going forward, if folks feel the same way.
I have a eye for these types of plays too. My question is what is next. rare minerals have been profitable now what? This is just my opinion but Nuclear energy is coming back as pressure and policies are forcing energy away from petrol. But Russia is the holder of those keys. I am curious if you have taken a look at that angle.
Respectfully, the investment thesis is weak. UUUU trades like an AI stock. Price may have spiked, but not based on fundamentals. The company is hemorrhaging money, has a huge debt load, and isn’t expected to have positive earnings until 2029. I get the mining industry - very long time horizons, but the fundamental calculation tells me it’s way overbought. Hence the fall from the $25 range, headed to $12 minor support.
As with any investment, time horizon and the depth of your capital reserve is critical. I like the idea of being able to extract “rare” material from American dirt rather than depending wholly on a foreign adversary. However, every business needs to earn profits or go out of business. If it’s going to depend on US military spending or executive authority for its profitability, then no thanks. I’ll buy some more AAPL or TSLA.
Thanks, Thomas. Some fair points… but I think you're analyzing a different trade than the one I described. When I recommended UUUU at ~$5.50, it wasn't trading like an AI stock. It was an undervalued uranium producer with an unpriced rare earth kicker. The debt load you're referring to is largely from the VAC acquisition, which happened last month. That’s a year after the recommendation. As I mentioned in the essay, subscribers took their initial capital off the table when the stock doubled. The rest is a free ride. So the current valuation concerns are valid for anyone buying today, but they don't apply to the trade I walked through. And, again, to be clear, this wasn't a recommendation… just a look at the process. Appreciate the pushback though.
Hey Lau, unrelated to rare earths, but did you see that two multimillionaires are talking shit about you lately? Does it feel kind of honored?
Yeah. Saw it, responded.