NPV

Phazem

Bro this looks exactly like mine. Full puts on everything on robinhood while sitting in my morning finance clsss ignoring all the bonds NPV bs

ButtStuffingt0n

Oh sweet summer child. The market hasn't actually used NPV to trade since the early 90s. If it did, 95% of the market would have zero daily trading volume.

2020Macthedog

I assume you know what net present value (NPV) is. So a bond funds is essentially the NPV of a pile of bonds. The key variable in the calculation is the interest rate used. When you buy a bond for a given duration and interest rate you pay a set price and then (for some) you get paid a coupon at a set interval. At the end you get your principle back. Now say that interest rates go up. What happens? For the bond funds the price will instantaneously reflect the total impact on the NPV of its pile of bonds. Fund could tank a lot. For the bond, the price of the bond drops but nothing else happens. You still receive the coupon and you still get all of your capital back in the end. Make any sense?

IawahR

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/14/3188501/0/en/Euro-Sun-Welcomes-Romania-s-Steps-to-Adopt-the-European-Union-s-Critical-Raw-Materials-Act-and-Reports-Stronger-Project-Economics-With-NPV-Rising-to-US-1-78-Billion-at-Rovina-Valle.html The Romanian government and Europe as a whole is rallying behind the project, with a great management team and fantastic evaluation of the project itself, and countless de-risking events having taken place.

Happy_Discussion_536

No you don't retard because money today has more value than money later. Ugh I've already engaged with you too long. I'm sorry you don't understand basic finance and you need to open a book. I can't teach you this. Unless you bring something substantial to the table that's new I can't engage with you further on this topic. If you don't understand how you will do far better than 3% real borrowing rate by compounding from year 30 to year 50 I can't help you. Best of luck, this is my last comment in this thread. If you say something worthwhile and new that demonstrates your understanding of how to do NPV calculations work I will respond.

Sufficient_Leek2779

I would do an NPV and IRR calculation to check if the project will pay off

bitorontoguy

Outperforming the market on a relative basis doesn't involve like "tricks" that stop working. There are fundamental biases in the market that you can use to outperform over a full market cycle. They haven't "stopped working". The whole job is trying to find good companies that we think are priced below their fundamental valuation. We do that by trying to model the business and its future cash flows and discount those cash flows to get an NPV. Is it easy? No. Is it a guarantee short-term profit? No. Will my stock picks always pay off? No. The future is impossible to predict. But if we're right like 55% of the time and consistently follow our process, we'll outperform, which we have. Glad to recommend books on how professionals actually approach the market if you're legitimately interested. If you're not? Fuck it, you can VTI and chill and approximate 95+% of what my job is with zero effort.

PossibilityNo7360

Yes, the 40m is correct but i need to correct myself. I only started my DD on this so plz anyone chip in. The legacy wells (Seven Rivers) have a NPV10 of $208m. The new farm-out agreement of San Andres is $95m. So i get 208/40 = 5.2$ NAV per share for the legacy wells and 2.3$ NAV per share = 7.5$ per share. Let's take a discount of 40% that yields $4.5 NAV per share. That excludes the newly acquired. Given it is Texas (not California), mature oil field - the execution risk is minimal?

PossibilityNo7360

of course crude oil price is volatile but i was referring to any execution risk? The Graburg Jackson Field has a NPV10 of \~$95m so divided by 25m shares outstanding i get to a $3.8 NAV per share! that is 7x the actual share price. very rough math but it indicates the uspside potential

Significant_Gene7582

Okay regard, a quick Chat GPT says: TL/DR.....YOU are a REGARD! **DNN = Denison Mines** — a Canada-based uranium developer focused on the **Wheeler River** project (Athabasca Basin, SK). The near-term story is the **Phoenix ISR** deposit. # Why DNN is on radars right now * **Permitting is in the home stretch:** Provincial environmental assessment **approved Aug 2025**. Remaining **federal approvals** (EA + License to Prepare Site & Construct) are scheduled for **CNSC public hearings in Oct and Dec 2025**. [Denison Mines Corp.+1](https://denisonmines.com/news/denison-receives-provincial-environmental-assessme-122827/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * **Timeline if approvals land:** Company guidance targets **construction in early 2026** and **first production in H1 2028** for Phoenix ISR. [Denison Mines Corp.+1](https://denisonmines.com/site/assets/files/6716/denison_mines_corp__denison_reports_cnsc_hearing_dates_for_phoen.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * **Economics/tech:** Phoenix has a completed **feasibility study (ISR mining)**; Denison is also advancing **Midwest ISR** (PEA: after-tax NPV \~$965M, IRR \~83%). [Denison Mines Corp.+1](https://denisonmines.com/projects/wheeler-river-project/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) # “Government funding” angle * Most current **U.S. DOE/DoD uranium procurement/funding** programs primarily benefit **U.S.-based producers** (e.g., UUUU, URG, UEC). DNN, being Canadian, would **benefit indirectly** via uranium price and Western supply-chain support, not from U.S. checks to Denison. Canada, however, is politically supportive of nuclear fuel supply growth; policy tailwinds + permitting progress are the nearer catalysts. [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/3bd80044-1b75-42d0-8f15-707eaeefba17?utm_source=chatgpt.com) # What could move the stock this month * **CNSC hearing(s) in October 2025** on federal approvals for Phoenix ISR – any positive read-through or decision timing updates are potential catalysts. [Denison Mines Corp.+1](https://denisonmines.com/news/denison-reports-financial-and-operational-results-122829/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) # Key risks * **Permitting & timing risk** (federal approvals still pending). [Denison Mines Corp.](https://denisonmines.com/news/denison-reports-financial-and-operational-results-122829/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * **Financing/capex** to build Phoenix once permits arrive. * **Uranium price sensitivity** (developer without current large-scale production). * **Execution** on first-of-its-kind **ISR uranium mine in Canada**.

Wheream_I

You’re not really misunderstanding but we are talking past each other. Of course different dividend stocks in different industries have different risk profiles, and thus they have different discount rates assigned to the NPV of their future cash flows. I’m saying that with dividend stocks you aren’t really getting a market advantage, because the risk is calculated and highly correlated, it’s all tied to the risk free rate, and the stock prices reflect all of this and don’t really beat the risk free rate in the long term unless you think the discount rate assigned to the dividend stock is incorrect. Growth stocks are inherently higher risk higher reward because the high-low spread of assigned risk is greater, and you can gamble on a few winners when growth calculations are incorrect on the downside.

Wheream_I

Agreed. The issue with dividend stocks is that they are literally mathematically figured out and their stock prices reflect it. The only premium you get on them vs the risk free rate is the discount rate assigned to the stock, as their valuation is literally just the NPV of all future cash flows.

E__anon

And the Northisle Copper and gold is the largest copper deposit that isn’t currently owned by a major mining company. They boast an NPV of 2 billion with gold at 2150 per oz and copper at 4.20/lb. Needless to say gold and copper are trading much higher than that. This one is a longer play than golden cross but is looking like it’s going to be a 15 billion dollar district. They just announced more drilling and they’re fully funded with 40 mil in the bank.

Zipski577

No it isn’t😂 and it’s not just revenue that gets impacted. And the previous trading price implied that $60m would GROW… substantially Not totally evaporate 😂 the NPV of that just went to 0 when it was previously a sizable piece of the valuation. Ads revenue can’t grow forever.. they needed the AI data revenue to become a driver for growth. Thats out the window now

Zipski577

Yes. People don’t understand discounted cash flow and NPV here lol

FastFwdFrank

Stole this from someone on X. Not exactly what you’re looking for but it is extremely thorough: “You are an equity research analyst. Produce a rigorous, source-backed investment memo on {Company} [{Ticker}] with a clear Buy, Hold, or Sell call. Rules for research and writing 1) Use only verifiable, recent sources. Prioritize official filings, earnings materials, investor presentations, regulatory documents, reputable industry data, and high quality media. Cite every non-obvious fact with a link and date. 2) Separate facts from interpretation. Tag each paragraph as Fact, Analysis, or Inference. 3) Use precise dates. Avoid vague time references. 4) Quantify claims. Show math for derived metrics. Use tables where helpful. 5) Note uncertainty. Call out missing data and state assumptions. Deliverables A) Executive summary (8 to 12 bullets): snapshot, thesis, rating, price targets and time frames, key drivers, key risks, near-term catalysts, and what would change the call. B) Full memo with sections 1 through 15 below. C) Appendix: source list with links and dates, data tables, and a simple operating model. 1) Thesis framing (purpose: define what must be true to create value) - State the core investment question in one sentence. - List 3 to 5 thesis pillars that would make the stock attractive. - List disconfirming evidence to test that could break the thesis. 2) Market structure and size (purpose: size the prize and trajectory) - Quantify TAM, SAM, SOM. Segment by product line, customer size, industry, and geography. - Identify growth drivers: regulation, replacement cycles, macro activity, technology adoption. - Estimate current penetration and runway. Compare against peer adoption curves. 3) Customer segments and jobs to be done (purpose: map who buys and why) - Describe mix by size band and industry. Identify buyer roles and budget owners. - Detail core workflows and pain points. Explain mission criticality. - Assess switching costs and vendor lock-in by segment. 4) Product and roadmap (purpose: evaluate product-market fit and durability) - Summarize core modules and adjacent products. Call out differentiators. - Compare depth vs breadth versus best point solutions. - Explain implementation time, integrations, configurability, and typical time to value. - Provide quality and reliability signals: uptime, incident history, mobile performance. - Roadmap credibility: stated milestones versus delivery track record. 5) Competitive landscape (purpose: position the company) - Identify direct and indirect competitors by segment and size. - Compare pricing, packaging, and feature gaps. Include switching friction and contract terms. - Summarize win or loss reasons from reviews, case studies, and disclosed data. 6) Go-to-market and distribution (purpose: test scalability of new-logo engine) - Break down demand sources: inbound, outbound, partner referrals, marketplaces. - Sales productivity: ramp, quota attainment, conversion rates where disclosed or inferred. - Role of channels and partnerships: integrations, OEMs, platforms. - Services and customer success model. Training and community as moat. 7) Retention and expansion (purpose: quantify durability of revenue) - Report gross and net dollar retention by cohort and segment if disclosed or estimable. - Explain logo churn drivers and timing. Provide a churn curve if possible. - Identify expansion vectors: seat growth, module attach, usage-based add-ons. - Discuss contract length, renewal mechanics, and price increase policies. - Include reference-call insights or credible review synthesis. 8) Monetization and embedded finance if applicable (purpose: understand usage economics) - Revenue streams and pricing model. For payments or fintech: share of customers active, GTV penetration, take rate by tender type, blended margin, cost stack, fraud exposure, and who holds credit risk. - Revenue recognition: gross vs net. Seasonality and cyclicality. - ARPU uplift from usage products. Payback on onboarding. 9) Unit economics and efficiency (purpose: test scalability with profitable growth) - CAC, payback period, magic number, LTV to CAC by segment if available or estimable. - Contribution margin by line: software vs usage vs services. - Cohort profitability and cash contribution over time. - Implementation and support cost over customer lifetime. 10) Financial profile (purpose: link operations to financial outcomes) - Revenue mix and growth by component. Gross margin by line. Operating leverage path. - Rule of 40 and efficiency trends. GAAP to cash flow bridge. - Leading indicators: billings, RPO, backlog. - SBC, dilution, and share count trajectory. - Liquidity, working capital needs, and path to FCF breakeven and target margin. 11) Moat and data advantage (purpose: assess defensibility) - Workflow depth and data lock-in. Network or ecosystem effects if present. - AI or analytics differentiation with measurable outcomes. - Integration footprint and practical switching costs. 12) Execution quality and organization (purpose: evaluate management and operating cadence) - Leadership track record and stability. Org design and succession. - Engineering velocity: release cadence, defect and incident rates where available. - Customer sentiment: CSAT, NPS, peer review sites, and community signals. 13) Risk inventory and mitigants (purpose: make downside explicit) - Macro, regulatory, competitive, operational, and concentration risks. - Payments, credit, or compliance risks if relevant. - Implementation complexity and time-to-value risks. - For each risk, propose leading indicators and mitigations. 14) Valuation framework (purpose: value with cross-checks) - Public comps table: growth, gross margin, operating margin, Rule of 40, EV to revenue, EV to gross profit. Normalize for any usage or payments reporting differences. - DCF with explicit drivers and sensitivity bands. - Cross-checks: cohort NPV math, S-curve adoption, unit economics to enterprise value sanity checks. 15) Scenarios, catalysts, and monitoring plan (purpose: set expectations and triggers) - 12 to 24 month bear, base, bull cases. Specify NRR, new logos, pricing or take rate, margins, SBC, and share count. Assign probabilities that sum to 100 percent. - Near-term catalysts: product launches, pricing changes, partnerships, market entries, M&A, regulatory outcomes. - Early warning indicators: churn spikes in small cohorts, backlog slippage, uptime incidents, pricing pushback. - What would change my mind: three positive and three negative triggers. Output format - Executive summary - Rating with price targets and time frames - Investment thesis and variant perception - Detailed sections 1 through 15 - Tables and charts embedded - Source list with links and dates - Appendix with model assumptions and calculations Quality bar - No generic claims. Back important statements with numbers and citations. - Label any speculation as Inference. - Be concise and structured. Prefer bullets and tables.

Sea_Vehicle984

Made the news recently on their permit. Local eco nutbars are appealing EAO decision, but the case is super weak and may be dismissed outright. Read the decision document as the EAO addressed every possible angle, and the courts give a lot of discretion to them. The Friends of Davie vs. EAO precedent dismissed their case, and an overturn decision would affect every gravel pit in the province. Regardless, I have been advised that it has no bearing on the permit finalization underway, which is expected to wrap up in October. It's been 6 years in the making, so it's almost there. Permit unleashes a series of news releases as they can move forward after a couple of years on regulatory treadmill. A billion dollar asset trades at 4% NPV. Magnesium and silica with some nickel to boot. Should be a good trade and long-term hold. Tight float due to large insider ownership. Go WHY!

Vimes76

Not knocking the sentiment here, definitely caution advised. However doing a bit of reading myself, as Lithium is a commodity with a moving price, the NPV of the deposit is surely hard to determine.

Cut_Copies

it can only be worth as much as the NPV of the Lithium deposit in the ground. Its probability adjusted equity value probably exceeds that now... so tread with caution

Sovereign_Sentinel

Few reasons. Tariffs, trade wars, dollar devaluation. The US in particular imports 80-90% of its potash from Canada and has very little domestic production. The US is acquiring a 10% stake in LAC (lithium producer and poorly run at that) and the thought is what's the next investment they will make that we can front run? They recently declared potash as a critical mineral in August so its likely potash could be the US's next investment. I have a massive stake in MLPNF got in at .47 cents. They are targeting a sale of the company end of 2026 for NPV of 1.5 billion CAD or a premium. 5x from here. Taking dilution of shares into consideration im expecting a minimum share price of $7. Currently $2.35.

BackgammonFella

That pushes my TSLA short to 21% of NPV of my brokerage. Stings a bit, but I am not covering. Reality will start to matter at some point.

Narrow_Chance7639

It's easy to get caught up in the hype of a big partnership, but the NPV is the real question. It's probably more about the access to Intel's supply chain and engineering talent than a direct financial return.

keetboy

This is also a fair assessment. There is some upside to doing this. I’m holding for long just bc I believe in Nvidia only. I’m just not sure how much NPV intel brings to the table.

MaximinusRats

Your first set of arguments justifies a large, perhaps overweight, position in US equities. Your second set of arguments acknowledges that the first set of arguments might be wrong and justfies hedging your bet on the US by investing at least part of your assets in foreign equities. IIRC, the US market is \~30 per cent of the global total. Putting 15 per cent of your equity portfolio into foreign assets would mean aggressively overwighting the US. On another issue: you mention "sovereign debt issues" in connection with non-US markets, but the US government on current policy is seriously insolvent in NPV terms, so I don't think it's an issue that would weigh heavily one way or another on the US vs foreign issue. It might be important in deciding how mcuh you want to allocate to alternative assets.

Jeff__Skilling

> Buybacks themselves don’t mean much, They reduce a firms cost of capital? If the ROIC I make on excess free cash flow by utilizing it for capex is less than the reduction in the cost of capital I'd receive by buying back shares or paying down debt, why ***wouldn't*** I choose the latter? Doing otherwise would be a negative NPV scenario....

LigmaLlama0

You are conflating ROI or NPV with GDP, which are not the same. The usefulness of a dollar invested into capital is completely separate from GDP as a figure. Research has shown that increases in GDP improve quality of life for a country.

djs383

Still a case of TINA. When rf rate is so historically low, margin,NPV from projects or acquisitions make up the needed returns. As rf rate increases and inflation remains, those gains will be minimal albeit at a higher risk level. Rates have been far too low for too long now and a larger correction is needed for normal mechanics in my view

aytikvjo

1 - If liking movies a lot is their best qualification for running the company, i have concerns. 2 - Sounds like a pretty competitive space. What analysis do you have to show that the market is mis-pricing their future earnings? 3 - ok so they spent a lot of money on some rights? What kind of rate of return are they going to get on that investment? All you've said is a bunch of marketing fluff - i see no analysis here - just words and narrative, no numbers or NPV calculations or projected scenarios. Stock is up 50% eh? Sounds like maybe the market has already priced in some part of an expected future over performance the company may have had. Too bad we don't have a time machine.

East-Description-243

…hmm apparently I don’t know how to create a post and my text isn’t showing. My theory is DJTs announcement that 2 billion in chips act funds, TMCs report of NPV of 23.6 billy and NOAA announcement that TMCs exploration licenses are in compliance will send shares higher. 

thisisjustascreename

This isn't even close, NPV of $300 a month for 25 years is like $56k. Sell the property and invest the 200k. Or else raise the rent you dirty capitalist.

CallMePyro

You’re crazy. Search, ads, and cloud alone justify the fair value. You’re saying the NPV of Deepmind, Waymo, YouTube, Isomorphic Labs, Verily, Chrome, and GSuite are ALL ZERO?

mistryman95

URU Metals - watch this over the next 6 months, 2.5m market cap, old 311mNPV, mining right imminent, EM survey end of August, expecting new NPV to be at least 500m, easily brought out by the Chinese given current US relations. A 50m buyout (which is cheap) would be a 20x

Tendie_Tube

1) Create a spreadsheet with a growth rate and formulas to calculate 10 years of earnings. E.g. growth rate 5%, Y1 earnings 100k, Y2 earnings = Y1 \* (1+growthrate)... and so on. 2) Decide upon a cost of capital, e.g. calculate a weighted average between what the company would have to pay to issue new debt and what the stock investors expect to earn (e.g. 12%). The weights are the % of assets that are equity and the % that are debt. 3) Use the NPV formula, with cost of capital as "rate", and the array containing 10 years of earnings as values. 4) Calculate a PE ratio by dividing Y1 earnings over the NPV. 5) Vary the earnings growth rate, and watch what happens to the PE ratio. With a cost of capital of 9%, I got the following PE ratios: 0% - 6.42 5% - 7.8 10% - 9.56 15% - 11.8 20% - 14.68

potsmokinsocialist

$TMC finally gets its day TMC Releases Two Economic Studies with Combined NPV of $23.6B and Declares World-First Nodule Reserves https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tmc-releases-two-economic-studies-110000607.html Trading at $6.5, PT $8.18 and ATH $8.63

potsmokinsocialist

$TMC finally gets its day TMC Releases Two Economic Studies with Combined NPV of $23.6B and Declares World-First Nodule Reserves https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tmc-releases-two-economic-studies-110000607.html Trading at $6.5, PT $8.18. Oh, and Steve the minerals guy got calls.

potsmokinsocialist

$TMC finally gets its day TMC Releases Two Economic Studies with Combined NPV of $23.6B and Declares World-First Nodule Reserves https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tmc-releases-two-economic-studies-110000607.html Trading at $6.5, PT $8.15. Oh, and Steve the mineral guy got calls

BingBongersonOttawa

So many projects in the global uranium pipeline; makes me wonder which will sink and which will float. I like Denison a lot. I also like NexGen and Deep Yellow  and Aura Energy. I like the buyout prospects for Denison given its total size and potebtial synergies for Cameco. Phoenix NPV to CAPEX of 3.7:1 is wild and OPEX is amazingly low; even if they dont get bought out it'll print cash. This project will go as soon as it is permitted.

mistryman95

Honestly I’m still surprised more people aren’t talking about this URU owns the majority of the Zeb Nickel Project in South Africa. This is a nickel and platinum group elements project that already had a 317 million dollar NPV over ten years ago. That was before higher grade zones were found and before any PGEs or deeper sulphide targets were included. Updated estimates now put this closer to 500 million dollars yet URU’s market cap is still just around 2.7 million pounds That gap is insane Environmental approval is already done. The mining right is expected soon. They’ve just announced a high spec EM survey using the same tech that helped map out major discoveries like Platreef. If this survey confirms sulphide rich zones like they’re expecting then things could get very interesting Here’s why I’m holding URU has a really tight float with only around 20 million shares tradable Any decent news could trigger a rerate There are hints of buyout interest in the background Nickel and PGEs are critical for batteries and EV supply chains This is one of the few juniors with permitting mostly de risked It’s also had historic drilling and there’s more coming soon This is still totally under the radar. No hype no promotion. But it’s lined up with all the right pieces If we get strong EM results or the mining permit lands this year I don’t think it stays below 10p for long. And if the maiden resource shows real size you can build a case for 20 to 30p and beyond. Possibly a lot more with a buyout Obviously not financial advice. Just what I’m seeing

mistryman95

URU METALS (URU.L) — The AIM Junior Hiding a Potentially Major Nickel-PGE Discovery For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now.

mistryman95

URU METALS (URU.L) — The AIM Junior Hiding a Potentially Major Nickel-PGE Discovery For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now.

mistryman95

For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now. #URU #Nickel #PGEs #AIM #Mining #JuniorMiners #ZebNickel #CriticalMetals

mistryman95

For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now. #URU #Nickel #PGEs #AIM #Mining #JuniorMiners #ZebNickel #CriticalMetals

mistryman95

For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now. #URU #Nickel #PGEs #AIM #Mining #JuniorMiners #ZebNickel #CriticalMetals

mistryman95

For those following the mining space, URU Metals might be one of the most overlooked asymmetric opportunities currently trading on AIM. Here’s why I’ve taken a position — and why I think the next few months could finally unlock value. ⸻ The Basics URU is the majority owner (74.82%) of Zeb Nickel, a South African nickel-PGE exploration company listed in Canada. Their flagship Zeb Project sits in the Limpopo Belt — right next to Ivanhoe’s massive Platreef discovery. This is a district that has already proven it can host world-class deposits. Despite an historic NPV of $317m based only on low-grade disseminated nickel (with no PGEs and no sulphides included), URU’s market cap is sitting around just £1.8 million. That’s with a tiny float — fewer than 10 million shares likely in public hands. ⸻ Key Catalysts Coming Soon • SpectremPlus EM survey has just begun — this is cutting-edge tech that can identify high-conductivity sulphide targets to depths of 700m+. Results are expected within weeks, and the company will use this data to refine its 3D model. • A maiden resource estimate is expected shortly after that. This will be the first time the company defines its total inferred and indicated resources, now that higher-grade sulphides and PGE mineralisation have been confirmed in Zones 2 and 3. • The mining right is now likely imminent. Environmental Authorisation was granted almost a year ago, and typically the mining permit follows within 9–12 months in South Africa. Once this drops, the project becomes significantly more valuable overnight. • There are persistent rumours of external interest — including speculation about strategic players (possibly even from China or regional investors) looking at this project as one of the few near-development sulphide-rich nickel assets left in the region. ⸻ Why This Could Rerate Fast The combination of tight float, strong upcoming newsflow, and significant resource potential could drive a major rerate. URU has already proven it can hit high-grade intercepts — now it’s about confirming the scale. Even modest value being attached to Zeb would move the share price several multiples from current levels. A buyout or JV could happen once the mining right and resource are locked in. ⸻ Risk Perspective The major early-stage risks are mostly behind. Environmental approval is secured, the geological model is validated, and capital has been raised to fund exploration. Yes, there’s still a convertible loan in the background — but it hasn’t been triggered, and the company hasn’t needed to dilute heavily. Most of the real “de-risking” is now in the hands of the drill bit and the EM survey. The stock is quiet now, but history shows that these plays often move fast and violently on hard news. ⸻ Conclusion If you’re looking for a high-upside junior in the nickel/PGE space — with real near-term catalysts and a massive disconnect between market cap and asset value — URU Metals is worth watching very closely over the next quarter. Just my view — not financial advice — but I think this is one of the best asymmetric setups on AIM right now. #URU #Nickel #PGEs #AIM #Mining #JuniorMiners #ZebNickel #CriticalMetals

stonkmc

You're just extending your time to make a full salary. If you're in school for 6 years that should equate to a masters. It's all about opportunity cost and net present value. NPV delayed 2 years = $-x.x lost money

Specific-Ad-6687

What was the WACC you used to calculate NPV?

AdBackground7796

GPHOF is anchored by an April 23, 2025, Bankable Feasibility Study that assigns the integrated Alaska‑mine‑plus‑Ohio‑anode project a post‑tax NPV of US$5.0 billion and a 27 % IRR at an 8 % discount rate, with payback in 7.5 years over a 20‑year life. The planned mine will process 10,000 t/day and deliver an average of 175,000 dry‑metric‑tonnes of graphite concentrate annually, positioning GPHOF as the largest future US source of battery‑grade feedstock. Against a current enterprise value of roughly US$0.10 billion, the NPV‑to‑EV leverage for GPHOF is about 50 ×, the widest in the North‑American critical‑minerals peer set. A US$37.5 million Department of Defense Title III grant funded 75 % of study costs and accelerated completion by 15 months, underscoring that federal backing for GPHOF is tangible rather than aspirational. Regulatory visibility improved when the project entered the FAST‑41 program in June 2025. The program requires the US Army Corps to publish a full federal review timetable no later than August 12, 2025, curbing the timeline uncertainty that typically discounts developers like GPHOF. Financing prospects brightened after the U.S. Export‑Import Bank issued a non‑binding LOI for up to US$325 million with a potential 15‑year tenor under its “Make More in America” initiative, covering roughly one‑fifth of the Ohio anode facility’s initial cap‑ex. Study economics rest on a US $7,500/t anode‑graphite price; every US $500/t swing shifts NPV by about US $0.9 billion, exposing GPHOF to Chinese export policy and EV‑demand cycles. Management projects US $43 billion in cumulative revenue and more than US $10 billion in after‑tax free cash flow, suggesting GPHOF can self‑fund later expansion phases without perpetual equity dilution. Execution risks include securing the remaining ≈US$1 billion of cap‑ex if EXIM terms fall short, possible Alaska environmental litigation that could delay the EIS, and the need to finalize binding offtakes before the 2028 first‑production target. Even after hair‑cutting the model for a one‑year schedule slip and a 15 % graphite‑price decline, the NPV stands near US$3.2 billion—still more than 30 × current EV—indicating the market is either over‑discounting GPHOF’s funding and permitting risk or undervaluing the premium for domestically sourced graphite anode material.

AdBackground7796

GPHOF is anchored by an April 23, 2025, Bankable Feasibility Study that assigns the integrated Alaska‑mine‑plus‑Ohio‑anode project a post‑tax NPV of US$5.0 billion and a 27 % IRR at an 8 % discount rate, with payback in 7.5 years over a 20‑year life. The planned mine will process 10,000 t/day and deliver an average of 175,000 dry‑metric‑tonnes of graphite concentrate annually, positioning GPHOF as the largest future US source of battery‑grade feedstock. Against a current enterprise value of roughly US$0.10 billion, the NPV‑to‑EV leverage for GPHOF is about 50 ×, the widest in the North‑American critical‑minerals peer set. A US$37.5 million Department of Defense Title III grant funded 75 % of study costs and accelerated completion by 15 months, underscoring that federal backing for GPHOF is tangible rather than aspirational. Regulatory visibility improved when the project entered the FAST‑41 program in June 2025. The program requires the US Army Corps to publish a full federal review timetable no later than August 12, 2025, curbing the timeline uncertainty that typically discounts developers like GPHOF. Financing prospects brightened after the U.S. Export‑Import Bank issued a non‑binding LOI for up to US$325 million with a potential 15‑year tenor under its “Make More in America” initiative, covering roughly one‑fifth of the Ohio anode facility’s initial cap‑ex. Study economics rest on a US $7,500/t anode‑graphite price; every US $500/t swing shifts NPV by about US $0.9 billion, exposing GPHOF to Chinese export policy and EV‑demand cycles. Management projects US $43 billion in cumulative revenue and more than US $10 billion in after‑tax free cash flow, suggesting GPHOF can self‑fund later expansion phases without perpetual equity dilution. Execution risks include securing the remaining ≈US$1 billion of cap‑ex if EXIM terms fall short, possible Alaska environmental litigation that could delay the EIS, and the need to finalize binding offtakes before the 2028 first‑production target. Even after hair‑cutting the model for a one‑year schedule slip and a 15 % graphite‑price decline, the stress‑tested NPV stands near US$3.2 billion—still more than 30 × current EV—indicating the market is either over‑discounting GPHOF’s funding and permitting risk or undervaluing the premium for domestically sourced graphite anode material.

Organic_Morning_5051

If you intend to run a CC strategy over a long period of time you should just buy it now. The NPV of the cashflow will outpace and price difference you experience in the short-term.

RAC-City-Mayor

I actually disagree. You can do a simple back of the envelope Risk adjusted NPV to see that it’s likely still quite undervalued

Difficult-Quarter-48

I honestly am not too on top of it. I was sold at the exim loan + Paulson. My understanding is the exim loan probably won't be approved til next year though? Either way the NPV of the mine would seem to cap gains at about a 2x from here unless gold keeps going up which it could. I still really like the stock. To me it's a really high probability 1.5-2x. I'm a bit spoiled by mp though now. MP has much better options I've so I had a pretty crazy gain on that position. PPTA options are terrible so the degen in me is disappointed. My PPTA position is almost entirely shares

Difficult-Quarter-48

I really like PPTA but I don't see any near term catalysts for it and it's already running a bit hot so not sure this is the best entry. My thesis: 1. Company is first and foremost a gold mine. I think gold is likely to continue to run over the next 1-2 years especially after rates come down when Powell is gone. Rate cuts, lack of optimism on deficit, and geopolitical instability are all tailwinds for gold. 2. The mine would be I believe the only antimony producing mine in the US and has capacity to produce I believe 35% of the US antimony demand. This gives the stock a national security narrative ala MP. In reality, the revenues from antimony would be relatively small, but it gives the US gov a reason to support the company. 3. John Paulson is a massive shareholder in the company and very actively involved in management. This guy is deeply tied to the trump admin. Given the grift angle and antimony providing a reason to support the mine, this is a no brainer grift play to me. The company has applied for a 1.8 billion dollar exim loan. I think this loan is a guarantee given the political environment, and I think the mine may get fast tracked in any ways possible. All that being said there is a limit to how much this can run based on the NPV of the mine. Im looking for about a 1.5-2x within the next 1-2 years. Not an explosive play but I have high conviction in the stock. If gold runs, the gain could be lsrger

E__anon

Price target is correlated to de-risking and the NPV the more de risking and the larger the NPV the higher the market cap. Eventually the market will realize a 1:1 market cap to NPV with a junior mine assuming all de-risking has taken place. They have an official NPV of 2 billion CAD and the market cap is at 300 CAD right now. Major upside potential. I’m personally holding and will not sell a single share until we’re at $5 a share US at which I will take some profit but plan on holding until $20+ because of how much they’re worth once the de-risking is over.

RAC-City-Mayor

I completely agree with the TAM comments. The other piece is the level of risk. I'd say IXHL is fairly de-risked as it's already shown to work in humans with OSA. The market cap is what like $50M? I think still quite a lot of room for upside. Even a risk adjusted NPV of just the OSA program is probably multiples of the current share price? Just my opinion.

E__anon

They look decent…. They just got a partnership with Apple it looks like too for their magnets which is huge! Check out $NTCPF as well. 7 million oz of gold 3.1 billion pounds of copper already discovered NPV at $5 billion (CAD) Still in exploration phase. Boasting to be the largest copper and gold mine on the planet “that’s not currently owned by a major”

E__anon

NTCPF is copper and gold…. 3.1 billion lbs of copper already discovered 7 million oz of gold A ton of Infrastructure already in place from an old BHP mine that used to be near by NPV is $5 billion (CAD) with gold at $2900 and copper at $4.60 What’s $AVL’s PEA/NPV looking like? Are they still exploring? When do they plan to begin production? How committed is the current CEO to zero dilution? Are they funded? How much mineral do they currently have and what spot prices are they using?

RAC-City-Mayor

Not sure why people are talking about IXHL as though it's not the beginning of the beginning of a run. This run up is nothing compared to the likely pop that could arise from strong Phase 2 results. Market cap is abysmal for the market size. The read out to me is fairly de-risked, given we already have IN HUMAN data of the drug, from the Australian Phase 2 in 2022. So basically, there's a good chance it will work. I ran an EXTREMELY conservative rNPV aided by chat GPT. Assuming: \-25 million adults with OSA, \-1% penetration rate, \-$1000 per patient per year, \-5 years to launch, and a 10 year post launch cash flow ...chat GPT is spitting out a \~$100m risk adjusted NPV. A 3% penetration rate is a \~$300M market cap. This is JUST for IHL-42x, and completely ignores the other irons in the fire

E__anon

Yeah that’s Canadian so it’s like $1.46 billion US. It’s trading for around 86¢ USD to we can see a pop to $5.65 based on an outdate PEA with old spot prices for copper and gold. Here’s the math on the $5.65 share price 258 mil outstanding shares, 5.65 x 258 mil = $1.46 billion. Junior mines achieve their market cap equal to their NPV in relation to how derisked the project becomes. It eventually goes to a 1:1 ratio of NPV to market cap when the project begins production. It’s trading at a huge discount right now in relation to low projections of the NPV. This is t a get rich tomorrow company… but a sure pick for some appreciation over time.

RonMexico16

Yeah…I’m still adding more on dips like this one. I have no fundamental valuation based on any NPV of future earnings for them. I just think their balance sheet is strong enough, cash flows are good enough, and they’re following the right strategy. Who knows…maybe they’ll get bought out at some point for all of their data and IP.

MajorGlad8546

Rare earth metals. CRML (moving now) and NB (waiting on news). Both are large mines pre-production. Both are pending news on potential financing from the U.S. and other governments due to the national security issues with China having a monopoly on those elements. These finance deals (and potential grants) would eliminate the necessity for share dilution. Both are extremely low float. Using rules of thumb for mine valuations based on their NPV and company health, both *could* have peak valuations of 8x current price. Generally thought to have 2x-4x potential after news of financing.

sassydaisies

Big run up within the last month! Why didn’t you tell us back in April?? 😂 I think a lot of the Junior mines are lagging behind in terms of unrealized value… but this one seems extremely undervalued right now. It’s trading at less that a .035x of its NPV to Market cap… it should at least be a .1x if not a .2-.3x You might be on to something here….

E__anon

How is $NTCPF still not being talked about? Northisle Copper and Gold. Junior mining company on Vancouver island. All the infrastructure there already. $5 billion NPV with gold at $2900 an oz It’s gunna a ton of room for market cap expansion.

lalich

👆 it’s total gas lighting to assume the people commuting 1hr will see a positive NPV from this … anyway fuck em ♾️🏴‍☠️🤙

Dr-Jim-Richolds

$184 million is nowhere near enough to build a mine, man. You gotta look at CAPEX, IRR, WACC, construction time, ramp period.... So many things that go into giving you a ballpark, and based on their PEA, "Based on a spot gold price of $2,900/oz, the Project's undiscounted after-tax cash flows(2)(3) total $902 million with an after-tax NPV(2)(3) of $581 million..."

Jaded-Influence6184

FYI using current numbers in their financing reports, projected gold reserves mean a NPV share price should be in the range of 2.7 to 3.6 times current price. However that is based on 4.8 million ounces of gold on site. In fact, there are other areas of the site where preliminary drilling indicates they have at least 7 million ounces, so shares will be worth considerably more (maybe upwards of 5 times). The company will obtain new exploratory drilling permits for later this year to do complete site mapping in order to open up new mines to retrieve those deposits, whether open pit or underground.

soymilkmolasses

LSANF (an OTC stock on the American side) is priced low right now. Possibly a good buy and hold. Wealthy friends of ours own a lot of it, and say that is going to be worth much more due to underlying assets. The company has done initial permit work, and the town is in cooperation. https://losandescopper.com/projects/overview/ Via ChatGPT Bottom Line • If Los Andes sold Vizcachitas today at fair value, LSANF shares could theoretically jump to about $19.80 USD/share. • If the project is de-risked and sells later, shares could be worth $67.80 USD/share or more. • Current price (~$4.50) reflects high risk and long timeline to realize that value. 1. Shares Outstanding • Roughly 29.5 million shares outstanding (both LA.V and LSANF represent the same underlying stock). ⸻ 2. Estimated Sale Value if Sold Now • Current realistic sale price range: around $600 million to $1 billion CAD (because project is early stage, permitting risk, etc.). • Using an average: $800 million CAD sale value. Convert CAD to USD (assuming 0.73 USD/CAD): • $800 million CAD × 0.73 = $584 million USD ⸻ Per Share Value if Sold Now: \frac{\$584,000,000}{29,500,000 \text{ shares}} \approx \$19.80 \text{ USD/share} ⸻ 3. Estimated Sale Value if Sold Later • After permitting & de-risking, with copper prices rising, market estimates NPV around $2.77 billion USD (or higher if copper prices climb). Let’s say the project sells for $2 billion USD conservatively (lower than NPV due to capex risks but higher than now). ⸻ Per Share Value if Sold Later: \frac{\$2,000,000,000}{29,500,000 \text{ shares}} \approx \$67.80 \text{ USD/share}

Dr-Jim-Richolds

Which REEs do they have, and grades with commodity breakdown? What's the reserve, resource, annual production? CAPEX needed? Ramp up time? Construction time? Off take agreements? Who will process? Will they produce REO, concentrate, or separate the metals? Why did they use NPV8? What WACC are we looking at? If you're going to do a ChatGPT dive, you should have some answers that investors actually would ask, not just generic high level bullet points

fallingknife2

These bonds have a 7 year term and 0 coupon, so at current 7 year treasury yields, that's an implied value of 0.76 on the dollar. So in terms of NPV we're talking a $480 million capital gain for GME.

taylor_cfc

I mean, the company does have the option to repay the full amount of cash in 2032, it doesnt have to be shares. So 1.75 billion at 0% for 7 years where inflation will eat away at the principle seems like a really good NPV deal to me.

Altruistic-Necessary

There is a formula that tells you exactly what the price of any contract that generates cash (like a stock) should be. See [NPV](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The problem is that, according to this formula, current prices depend on future cash flows and discount rates. That's why different market participants will price the same stock differently. Regarding metrics and backtesting: What I can say without getting too technical is that statistics don't work well in financial markets due to how badly behaved distributions are. The past does not give you lots of info about the future.

Expensive_Web_8534

Tesla is worth 100 bazillion. NPV of all EV credits that Tesla could ever get is like 10 billion max. Tesla's valuation (or Elon's net worth) has nothing to do EV credits. Sorry.

MT-Capital

Already trading at its NPV.

archaic_ent

I asked my mate, he says: Thanks for sharing the Reddit post breakdown — it highlights a bullish retail thesis on $USAU, but it’s crucial to separate hype from hard valuation. Here’s a critical analysis of the points made: ⸻ 🔍 Key Claims in the Reddit Post vs. Reality ✅ 1. In-Ground Gold Valuation – $4.75 Billion • This figure likely reflects gross in-situ resource value, not actual net present value (NPV). • Reality: In the mining sector, only a small fraction of in-ground metal ever becomes economically recoverable. Extraction costs, environmental permitting, political risk, and discounting for time-to-production are key. • It’s common for junior miners to quote large “potential” resource numbers without a bankable feasibility study. • Conclusion: $4.75B is not false, but it’s not equivalent to cash or realisable value. Always apply a severe discount (often 90%+ for early-stage miners). ⸻ ⚠️ 2. DCF Valuation of $443.82 per Share • Source cited: Simply Wall Street. Their automated DCF models often overestimate fair value, especially for pre-revenue or pre-production companies. • Current share price: ~$12 • Claimed upside: 3934% — this is mathematically plausible only if assuming perfect extraction and full resource monetisation, which is unrealistic. • Conclusion: DCF models on junior miners without proven production are often unreliable. This figure is theoretical at best. ⸻ ✅ 3. Low Float + Small Market Cap = Volatility • This part is accurate. A ~$4.8M market cap with only 12M shares means low liquidity. • When interest (especially speculative) hits such stocks, extreme price moves can follow. • However, this also means the stock can crash just as fast on exit. ⸻ ⚠️ 4. Price Target of $16.80 by Interactive Brokers • There’s no public analyst research from Interactive Brokers itself — they are a brokerage, not a research firm. • Likely, this was user-input or a misattribution. • Conclusion: Treat this claim with caution unless verifiable via a formal IB analyst report (none seen as of now). ⸻ ✅ 5. Russell 2000 & 3000 Inclusion • If true, this is genuinely significant. Index inclusion does force some passive buying. • But the buying impact is often one-time and short-lived. • It doesn’t change fundamentals or reduce operational risk. ⸻ 🧠 Bottom Line – Should You Buy? • The Good: • Real mineral assets. • Low float can fuel rallies. • Index inclusion = real demand from passive funds. • The Risks: • No current revenue or production. • Highly speculative — valuation depends on future success. • DCF and gold-in-ground values are misleading without proper context. ⸻ 🚨 Final Verdict This is a classic junior mining speculative play — potentially explosive, but equally capable of collapsing. If you’re in for the volatility or swing trade opportunity, it’s valid with risk management. Investors should treat the $443+ valuation claim as exaggerated hype. Fair value is higher than $12, perhaps, but not remotely near that number unless multiple milestones (feasibility, permits, financing, production) are reached. As always, DYOR — and never bet what you can’t afford to lose in junior miners. Would you like a forensic-style breakdown of their 10-K or project reports?

Cybertwit

Backstory: the Nautilus Minerals fiasco To understand TMC, it is important to know the history of Nautilus Minerals, its predecessor. As we will show, there are striking similarities between the two companies, particularly how OPEX spiraled out of control and precipitated Nautilus’ downfall. TMC’s CEO Gerard Barron was an early investor in Nautilus along with TMC’s founder David Heydon, who was CEO of Nautilus from 2002-2008. Nautilus’ flagship project was Solwara 1, a seafloor massive sulfide deposit within the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea (PNG) at depths between 1,200 and 1,600 meters. Like TMC, Nautilus boasted: Large resources that would address the scarcity of “stretched” land-based mines. The deposits were polymetallic (copper, gold, silver and zinc), with extraordinary copper grades. Who could resist this chart? Not the PNG government that granted an exploration licence in 1997, then a mining (exploitation) licence in 2011. The government took a 30% stake in Nautilus. Although the company had been allowed to mine, amazingly no pre-feasibility study (PFS) had ever been conducted by Nautilus. The preliminary economic assessment (PEA) filed in 2018 warned: “The potential viability of the Mineral Resources has not yet been supported by a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study.” Then clouds gathered on the horizon. The company initially claimed in a 2010 technical report (pg 9) that the operating cost (including shipping) was competitive at $70/tonne of ore. However, in its 2018 PEA, the cost was revised to $192/tonne of ore, a 174% increase. Due to the surging cost, the PEA only yielded a measly NPV of only $56mn. After raising ~$686mn from investors and mining nothing, Nautilus eventually ran out of money, filed for creditor protection in 2019 and was delisted from the TSX. The Prime Minister of PNG declared “we burnt almost 300 million Kina ($72mn) in that Nautilus project on a concept that someone told us can work, but it is a concept that is a total failure as I speak.” However, the episode was highly profitable for Barron as his $226k Nautilus investment turned into $31mn when he sold all his shares a decade earlier, around 2007-2008, near the height of the market. Heydon also exited around the same time. According to a 2021 Bloomberg article, Barron said: “I originally invested in Nautilus not because I knew mining but because I just sort of thought it sounded cool, and I sold out at the right time”. TMC (formerly DeepGreen), which rose from the ashes of Nautilus, now owns two exploration licences that once belonged to Nautilus through wholly-owned subsidiaries, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (“NORI”) and Tonga Offshore Mining Limited (”TOML”). The Wall Street Journal, summarised the episode when TMC merged with a SPAC: “The first time Gerard Barron tried to mine the sea floor, the company he backed lost a half-billion dollars of investor money, got crosswise with a South Pacific government, destroyed sensitive seabed habitat and ultimately went broke. Now he’s trying again.” And why not? As Barron declared in a 2019 interview: “Whether you invest in a company like Deepgreen or not, everyone is a sucker for the story”. In this report, we will show that in every aspect, TMC is following the same path. https://iceberg-research.com/2025/05/27/the-metals-company-tmc-a-remake-of-the-nautilus-fiasco/

chopsui101

forgot your NPV.....unless you are retiring today

skilliard7

The price you pay for an investment matters. In 2008 for nearly a decade, you had an opportunity to buy some of the most innovative companies at a very cheap valuation. Obviously, that is a recipe for high returns. The issue now is you have some of the most innovative companies trading for 40-100x earnings, while other solid companies trade at 3-4x earnings. To illustrate this, let's look at 2 hypothetical companies: Company 1: $1 per share in earnings, 10% annual growth for 20 years followed by 3% terminal rate(think high tech) Company 2: $10 per share in earnings, 2% annual growth, followed by 2% terminal rate(think mature company like KO). Using a 8% discount rate, Company 1 has a NPV of $54.13, or 54x earnings. However, Company 2 has a NPV of 170.1, or 17x earnings. This illustrates how just because a company has better growth prospects, it might not be the better investment if the price is too high. >You can't really compete with AWS, Google Cloud or Microsoft Azure. Most companies use them or will go over to them. We still have at least a decade of on-prem solutions transitioning to the cloud. They are all competing with each other, which is enough to keep pricing in check. They all need to invest a lot of money into cutting edge infrastructure, just to need to price it competitively to maintain market share.

curiousninja1

# $NB - NioCorp: Unlocking U.S. Critical Minerals - 20x Potential NioCorp Developments ($NB) controls the **only permitted niobium-scandium-titanium deposit in the United States**. The 2022 feasibility study pegs the Elk Creek project at an **after-tax NPV of US $2.35 billion** versus a sub-US $120 million market cap today - a >20× valuation gap. Financing due-diligence is underway (EXIM Bank review of up to US $800 million) and fresh drilling is upgrading reserves. If capital comes through, NB flips from optionality play to the first U.S. producer of these critical minerals. **1. Macro tail-winds** * **Supply squeeze:** 95 % of world niobium comes from one Brazilian complex. Washington wants redundancy. * **Demand ramp:** Niobium demand CAGR \~10 % (2024-29) on HSLA steel, EV battery anodes, superconductors. * **Policy muscle:** IRA, CHIPS and DoD Title III offer tax credits, loan guarantees and priority offtakes for U.S. critical-mineral projects. * **China export controls:** Fresh REE / scandium restrictions amplify U.S. urgency for domestic supply. **2. Valuation math (back-of-napkin)** * After-tax NPV (US $2.35 B) / 41 M shares -> **≈ US $57 per share** vs. \~US $2.6 today. * Haircut NPV by 60 % for financing & execution risk: fair value still >US $23 -> **\~9× upside**. **3. Risks to watch** 1. **Financing risk** \- Elk Creek only happens if debt + offtake packages close. 2. **Dilution** \- More equity likely before final investment decision. 3. **Commodity prices** \- Niobium & scandium trade thinly; price swings can hammer cash flow. 4. **Execution** \- Underground mine + hydromet plant are complex; delays kill IRR. **Bottom line** If you bet that Washington will bankroll a domestic critical-minerals supply chain - and you can stomach mining-sector volatility - $NB offers asymmetric upside: tiny market cap, world-class orebody, a clear (if fragile) path to funding. **I’m loading while the market prices Elk Creek like it’ll never be built.**

igiverealygoodadvice

Ok so my reasons for being very cautious and doubting of them are: 1) revenue - what are the main revenue sources and why can't those customers or markets be addressed by fixed wireless? There aren't THAT many dead zones these days and where they do exist, how much revenue can they really generate? 2) satellite - they are proposing some of the largest sats ever flown, larger than the test sats that are currently in orbit. There is huge technical risk for these to be: controllable in terms of pointing and altitude, thermally stable with suitable radiator, able to operate at high duty cycle from power reasons etc 3) launch costs - SpaceX has a massive advantage being vertically integrated and paying 4-5x less than anyone else per pound launched to orbit. With capital costs making a HUGE difference in any ROI/NPV calculation, this makes the business case much much harder. And as to the meme stock part - I say that because the ASTS sub is full of people who truly have no idea what they are investing in. Go read many of the comments in threads and you'll see what I mean. People rely on catse, antman (or whatever his name is) etc to give them all the technical info and they blindly trust what they're hearing is correct. Also just look at how ASTS gets mentioned in tons of threads just like this one, that's why it seems to have meme stock value - lots of people on Reddit hoping it will 10x without reaaaally understanding the business or its risks.

curiousninja1

# $NB - NioCorp: Unlocking U.S. Critical Minerals - 20x Potential 🚀 NioCorp Developments ($NB) controls the **only permitted niobium-scandium-titanium deposit in the United States**. The 2022 feasibility study pegs the Elk Creek project at an **after-tax NPV of US $2.35 billion** versus a sub-US $120 million market cap today - a >20× valuation gap. Financing due-diligence is underway (EXIM Bank review of up to US $800 million) and fresh drilling is upgrading reserves. If capital comes through, NB flips from optionality play to the first U.S. producer of these critical minerals. **1. Macro tail-winds** * **Supply squeeze:** 95 % of world niobium comes from one Brazilian complex. Washington wants redundancy. * **Demand ramp:** Niobium demand CAGR \~10 % (2024-29) on HSLA steel, EV battery anodes, superconductors. * **Policy muscle:** IRA, CHIPS and DoD Title III offer tax credits, loan guarantees and priority offtakes for U.S. critical-mineral projects. * **China export controls:** Fresh REE / scandium restrictions amplify U.S. urgency for domestic supply. **2. Valuation math (back-of-napkin)** * After-tax NPV (US $2.35 B) / 41 M shares -> **≈ US $57 per share** vs. \~US $2.6 today. * Haircut NPV by 60 % for financing & execution risk: fair value still >US $23 -> **\~9× upside**. **3. Risks to watch** 1. **Financing risk** \- Elk Creek only happens if debt + offtake packages close. 2. **Dilution** \- More equity likely before final investment decision. 3. **Commodity prices** \- Niobium & scandium trade thinly; price swings can hammer cash flow. 4. **Execution** \- Underground mine + hydromet plant are complex; delays kill IRR. **Bottom line** If you bet that Washington will bankroll a domestic critical-minerals supply chain - and you can stomach mining-sector volatility - $NB offers asymmetric upside: tiny market cap, world-class orebody, a clear (if fragile) path to funding. **I’m loading while the market prices Elk Creek like it’ll never be built.**

RockBottomRiches

I've finally done my research on the company. Here's my take: This is one of those plays that’s flying under the radar but has serious potential if they pull it off. Northisle is a junior copper-gold explorer working on a massive 34,000 hectare land package on Vancouver Island, BC. The 2025 PEA just dropped with a $2B after tax NPV and 29% IRR based on phased development, and that’s at conservative metal prices. At spot prices? It jumps to $3.8B NPV and 45% IRR. So yeah, spicy numbers. They're sitting on 3.1 billion lbs of copper and 6.9 million oz of gold in indicated resources, and the project has legit infrastructure already in place, roads, power, port access. That alone cuts down a ton of the usual development friction you see in more remote projects. Capex for Phase 1 is $1.1B. That’s no joke for a company with \~$4M cash and a $183M market cap. They’ll need a big JV, a deep pocketed partner, or to print shares like it’s 2021. That’s the catch. Big upside, but big financing risk = dilution risk. Trading at around $0.71 right now, it’s roughly 9% of NPV. Cheap on paper, but that’s junior mining, nothing's priced for perfection because everyone knows how much can go sideways between PEA and production. I like it for what it is: a high-risk, high-reward copper-gold spec. If they execute and financing doesn’t crater the share structure, this could easily be a multi bagger. BC is mining friendly, metals are trending, and copper’s long term macro is strong. But don’t get it twisted, it’s not a "safe" bet. Size your position like it could go to zero (because it can), keep tabs on 2025 drill results, and watch for offtakes or JV chatter. This could be a 5x story if they deliver, but if you’re throwing rent money at this, you deserve the rug. Set alerts, and respect the risk. This one’s for the bold. Might consider doing a seperate write up on it.

dndnametaken

I hear what you are saying. That money that I pay into my mortgage gets tied up earlier in the cash-flow and effectively makes the NPV of my loan higher; which under normal circumstances is bad. This compounds with the fact that I could invest my money elsewhere and get a ROI (instead of just avoiding interest). What you are missing are two things: 1. You seem to be assuming a decent return on investment from other assets; that right now is def not a given. We're on the brink of recession and the risk/reward calculus gets completely messed up by that. 2. You are assuming that I can't change my asset allocation in the future. I can easilly ramp up my 401K contributions when uncertainty resolves and the US stops shooting itself on the foot; or I could refinance under other terms in the future too. You probably know that investment decisions are done at the margin. Through marginal analysis, I can't look at the cash-flow of my mortgage alone. Its the delta in expectations between paying that money into debt vs paying into assets that matters. It's a natural reaction to higher risks, and currently every investor should be doing that. And yes, given a high risk environment, even corporations should consider lower-risk options right now. Paying down debt (if you are able) is as low risk as it gets.

Rustic_gan123

>Corporations have limited capital to spend, so they must pick and choose which projects to invest in, what investments to make. Sure, but if these markets were even remotely that solvent, they wouldn't be ignored. >Given the choice between two projects where one has an expected NPV of say $1billion, and the other has an expected NPV of $0.9billion, all else being equal they probably go for the higher NPV project. Why did it suddenly become a choice? In most cases, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. >If the administration communicated very clear and realistic asks of the country they’re trying to pressure, and imposed tariffs that are clearly communicated ahead of time to give businesses time to adjust and plan, the impact to domestic consumers is somewhat mitigated. >But instead the administration has been applying tariffs arbitrarily, without communicating clear asks of the target countries, and then withdrawing tariffs just as suddenly as they were imposed. Even if after it’s all said and done tariff policies revert back to exactly where they were before, it will take time before the perceived risk of another sudden shift in tariff policy calms down. Of course, but some things are independent of who is in power, Trump or the Dems

Organic_Morning_5051

I have never understood why people say this. It's really easily understood to be false. The key to the "puzzle" here is understanding that when you make a decision about financing something there's an extra element in this particular financial decision which I will call "satisfied debt". Let's say I have a $100k ***fixed*** debt to be paid over 10 years with the interest already imputed into the value of the debt. Using simple amortization and straight line we come to around $834 a month. If you already can afford the $834/mo. the next question is whether any dollar beyond this has any return value greater than the time-value, not nominal interest rate, by losing it. Generally speaking when you change the narrative from nominal to real savings you are losing money by spending more on the mortgage specifically because when you are done with the mortgage it has a $0 value. Now this is complex so let's explain: 1. Even though equity exists extraction of equity is always debt therefore any form of equity extraction is a loan and thus after you book it, a zero dollar outcome, because even if you get cash you pay it back (w/ a fee) so it's a loss. Equity loans are, by definition, a collateralized loan which is toxic to the asset. 2. If you intend to live in the home and do not intend to sell it during your lifetime the higher, faster payments have $0 savings value. Time-value of money tells us that dollars today are worth more than dollars tomorrow due to interest, right? Well, "saved interest" isn't the same as received interest. The reason is that bringing payments forward in time actually makes them *more* expensive. The $834 in ten years after inflation is worth *less* than the $834 now so when you accelerate payments you're actually reducing the amount you pay, yes, but also decreasing the potential savings through time-value decay and also increasing the time-value burden on yourself. Stepping into the next phase of this thinking we have "satisfied debt". Any money you pay above and beyond the $834 is no longer money you have and not replaceable (once you spend a dollar it's gone forever, any new dollars are distinctly different) which means that when you give that money up to whatever company and they invest it instead of you they are now on the right side of the time-value of money proposal. So if you paid $100 more a month you lose $100 in future investment values and they gain $100; even though you paid less interest that interest savings is not recognized upfront therefore you have to correctly think of that interest saved. This is a long NPV problem but basically you isolate the returns over real-time and project out the real-value of those returns. So if the nominal savings on the 100k would be 6,000 by paying it early the projected real-value after time and such would probably be closer to 2,000. In theory you would model the payments you make to exactly come to zero, or slightly in favor of your lender by a few bucks, so you might pay something like $4.58 more a month rather than $100 because, while it seems strange and small, it is the correct value to use for the time-value consideration. This is really long, I admit, but when people say "I saved \[nominal return\] by reducing my debts!" that's not true because you have a satisfied position baseline, so it's not a state of equilibrium when you start (meaning that you aren't picking between two options with full value starting at zero; you *must* commit *at least* $834 to the project) which is how most people begin making financial decisions, and it also does not have equivalency in time-based outcomes (meaning that even if the mortgage was 30 yrs from date *t* you might have the extra money be in the stock market for 50 years therefore the additional outflows for the mortgage are distorted in value by the returns of the 50 year investment outcomes) which makes the model complex but accurate. A good way to think of it is pretty simple: Why does Apple, who has the money, just always pay their debts to zero?

Frnklfrwsr

Corporations have limited capital to spend, so they must pick and choose which projects to invest in, what investments to make. Given the choice between two projects where one has an expected NPV of say $1billion, and the other has an expected NPV of $0.9billion, all else being equal they probably go for the higher NPV project. But if the risk is significantly higher for the higher NPV project, then not all else is equal. If wildly fluctuating trade policy makes the first project far riskier than the second project, then they are much more likely to invest their capital in the second project. In order to entice a company to take that extra risk introduced by uncertain trade policies, the NPV would have to be commensurately higher. So maybe if the NPV goes up to $2billion for that first project now they’re willing to accept that higher risk. What would make the NPV increase high enough to entice a business to accept the risk and make the investment? Well, if the expected revenue increases. That likely takes the form of the final product from the project being able to be sold for a higher price. The end result of all this is that just the uncertainty introduced by the volatile and unpredictable trade policy places upwards pressure on prices as businesses need a higher NPV to be rationally willing to accept the higher level of risk. And regarding administration differences, like I said before, it’s not just about whether there are tariffs or not, it’s about the uncertainty and unpredictability of it. If the administration communicated very clear and realistic asks of the country they’re trying to pressure, and imposed tariffs that are clearly communicated ahead of time to give businesses time to adjust and plan, the impact to domestic consumers is somewhat mitigated. But instead the administration has been applying tariffs arbitrarily, without communicating clear asks of the target countries, and then withdrawing tariffs just as suddenly as they were imposed. Even if after it’s all said and done tariff policies revert back to exactly where they were before, it will take time before the perceived risk of another sudden shift in tariff policy calms down.

Crazy_Donkies

Thank you. His broad generalization and textbook definitions don't seem to meet my "measure of return." Most financial models (IRR, NPV, DCF, PV, FV) require a period of time. Yes Im sure his definitions are correct. Yes stocks only go up. However, in practice measurements are time bound.

serodi03

I definitely agree with you, however just from a purely valuation pov it could mean that present cash flows have to be lowered (perhaps more capex investment required than at first expected). Lowering cash flows obviously would result in a lower NPV. Again not saying I disagree, I think more investments into the Amazon business (as long as it returns more value than the CAPM model would require for shareholders) is very good. I'm just giving a possible reason as to why Wall Street responded the way that it did.

Little-Perspective51

I think short term fair value is like $12-24 a share bro based on 25-50% of NPV which is around 16billion

fond_diagram5

TMC has a NPV over 13 billion or so. Market cap is 1 billion. Trump EO imminent

Virtual_Seaweed7130

These companies are such steaming dogshit if you look under the hood. Unprofitable or no operations, trading over the NPV of their mines, crap like that. Good for you for making some money but these companies are terrible. Nothing about rare earth metals is rare unfortunately, they’re everywhere, the biggest hurdle is they’re incredibly environmentally destructive to produce, so we don’t do it here.

Marketspike

**ritical Minerals ($CRML)** is a mining company with one of the largest rare earth deposits in the world with a 4.7 billion metric ton mineralized kakortokite unit. The results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) demonstrated that the Tanbreez Project in Southern Greenland is expected to have a Net Present Value (NPV) of approximately US$3 Billion (approximately US$2.8 Billion to 3.6 Billion at discount rates of 15% and 12.5%, respectively, before tax), with an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of approximately 180%. This news came out 15 days ago--so it looks like a delayed response with all the market volatility--although it increased from its recent 52 week low of $1.25 on almost 6 million shares. [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/critical-metals-corp-tanbreez-valued-123000197.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/critical-metals-corp-tanbreez-valued-123000197.html)

Heisenberg_Wernher

This looks like a classic pump and dump. OP bought at $1.70, stock already shot up 40% to $2.16 by April 11, and now you're telling us all about it AFTER making the gains. The timing is convenient - promote a penny stock that's already pumping, create FOMO with China export fears, and casually mention astronomical NPV numbers to bait new buyers.

Rakeit-in

You are technically right that they didn't default, they voted on and passed a private sector involvement. Where instead of facing full loss on capital investors received extended terms and lower interest on their bonds. In NPV terms something akin to a 95% write down on notional value. Not very unlike the forced century bonds switches that is being discussed in the US

Jets237

Clearly the NPV

killadaze

There’s an older pre-feasibility study from when TMC first went public — kinda outdated now, but still gives you a good idea of the upside. Here’s the link: https://metals.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/01.05-NORI-D-Initial-Assessment-US-SK-1300-by-AMC-March-2021.pdf Back then they had a post-tax NPV of $6.8B, pre-tax $11.2B, and a 27% IRR. They even modeled 29% IRR assuming a 2023 investment start. That’s all just based on NORI-D and some pretty conservative pricing assumptions. We’re still waiting on the updated pre-feasibility. It’s been delayed, yeah — but not without reason. The ISA’s been dragging their feet on finalizing the mining code, so TMC’s been holding off on locking in numbers until there’s regulatory clarity. The new study is gonna be a big catalyst. I honestly think they’re timing it to drop with the Exploitation Contract approval. Once both hit, that’s a major derisking event and could seriously move the stock.

VacationAgreeable912

Not luck, just good ole hard work and research. Buffet does an excellent job using financial calculations to determine fair values and retail investors do not. Any financial metric will tell you that the market is overvalued.  Take Tesla as a single stock. It does not make much money, compared to other automakers, and the IP it actually owns is very minimal. It does not have a strong moat as other companies can come out with similar products. Taking its NPV of it's assets and future earnings, it should be half of what GM or Ford is. The only reason the price is so high is because Elon is telling every gullible person that his future ideas could be worth $Trillions$, which there might be a very small chance, but you can plug that potential growth into calculations and still see he's full of shit. A Trillion $$$ 25-30 years from now is really only an addition of $50 Billion in todays terms using NPV. After accounting for the possibility of it actually happening, 10%, it really is only worth an extra $5 Billion in market cap. Why is Crypto so high? It's not used by any major country as a store of value in any meaningful way like the US $ is. It's not easily used for purchase and Stocks/Bonds/Treasuries are paid in USD. As a store of value or hedge, it's abysmal compared to Gold. You'll see 50% swing in a given year, which is not what a stable investment does.

VacationAgreeable912

Like Peter Lynch once said, "a stock does not know anything or cares who owns it." Stock prices are future earnings and the company value, NPV, and divided by it's outstanding shares. If future earnings are impacted by, micro or macro, enconomic events the share prices will react accordingly.  Another pill that is hard to swallow for a lot of people is that retail investors really don't move prices and markets. There are cases like GME, but that was because retail investors were using leverage to make bigger outsized moves. In this scenario, that would be a bad move as if the markets as a whole tank, it would wipe out those leverage moves before the retail investor can cover.

capobvime

EMM.V, over $1M invested, now patiently waiting. Got their mining license along with 5y special economical zone tax reduction, NPV over 1B and will improve significantly when drill remaining properties, CAPEX only $280M. Few weeks away from sending high purity MSM to offtakers (OEMs and battery producers), updated DFS later this year with offtake contracts, financing to follow.

BJPark

Disagree. Stocks of companies that are capable of (and give) dividends will always have value, regardless of whether anyone purchases them or not. The value is the discounted NPV of future cash flows. It doesn't matter if no one ever purchases them again, intrinsic value exists.

RealBullishcowboyyy

NAK land holding NPV worth $400 Billion with in situ commodities the answer to Usa commodity needs Alaska No more woke leftist policies with new Sheriff in town Alaska to see economic boom

lalich

This is so simple as their expenses dropped hundreds of millions more than their Gross Profit did which in math is just a massive increase in margins, not all revenues are created equal grasshopper! This was a very powerful quarter for their formation of Game$hire. I wish they let the stock cook more than a day b4 the press release of a 0% note but it’s also a 0% note, which is more than 4% less than the US Government is paying currently. Those 5 year stock options be expensive! The NPV of that 1.3-1.5B is barely over a billion for them to get it today and could net interest a few hundred million. Or see how the BTC returns are, over 5 year periods I believe it has been more than acceptable historically speaking? ♾️🏴‍☠️🤙