| | | "Yet at this point I could care less if this company had lost me 50%, 70% 90%, 95% or 99% at this point. What I do care about is where the price is headed from here and whether I value the company above or below the current share price."
I find that statement wholly irrational. If you "don't care about it" when you are losing all your money, and are being proven wrong in your judgment... whether that is only as a function of error in timing entry and exit points, or is a function of something more fundamental... it is clear that there is something grossly wrong that is being missed in your understanding, and your analysis. If you "don't care about it"... I think that has to be either untrue and a deliberate rationalization intended to excuse your prior errors in misjudgment, and the losses of $$$ that result from error in judgment... or it is a clear statement that we should not value your opinion, since you are asserting that it isn't based in those fundamental concerns that every rational investor should prioritize as being first among many...
Investors... ARE traders... just with different time lines. Most rational and experienced traders know well enough that they make mistakes... and when the market moves against them they seek to minimize the damage that results, as they understand that the judgment of the market always trumps their own. So, the challenge is not EVER just about "being right" about some esoteric point of potential in the value in the long term... but is always about properly aligning your understanding (AND TIMING) with REAL changes in the market... meaning timing, and decisions in terms of entry and exit points, matter MOST in relation to maximizing the return on your money. It isn't ever about "the value of your opinion" in any analysis conducted independent of the score card, which is graded in $...
Anyone who has lost 99% on an investment... and doesn't care... is qualifying themselves as one of those whose opinions I need to fully recognize and understand... but not ever value.
"I see moderate risk of dilution at this point"
And, given the proofs in performance in relation to your prior perceptions of the risks, here... how should we value that analysis, now ?
"However does this risk warrant a value of Schaft Creek of $200 million? Our current market cap is $50 million dollars today; that is another irrefutable fact. I buy and sell my shares based whether I feel they are overvalued or undervalued not because the share price is trending in a certain direction."
The risk of dilution in the shares... has nothing at all to do with any analysis of the value of Shaft Creek...
It doesn't ever matter what "the value" is... if the value that exists is not solidly attached to the shares.
I think it is not possible to correctly determine relative value or any valuation without considering MARKET TRENDS in values... which is true both of share prices, and of the values underlying the value claimed for shares... while I don't see the process being usefully conducted based on feelings rather than analysis of hard facts and market realities. Copper Fox has value (or not) based on the market price of copper and the resulting economic viability of the project (or not)... and Copper Fox has value (or not) based on the ability of management to navigate to avoid the market risks (or not) while growing value rather than shrinking it.
At Copper Fox, management has done nothing to improve the value. They have instead spent massive amounts of money... with the only result to date being they have reduced the value of what they "own"...
"I have a 3-5 year horizon (if not longer) in which I am looking to make a profit."
Time doesn't fix error in judgment. The market will probably not allow you to wait nearly that long before realizing... a definitive result.
"The share price is 10-15 cents. If this goes down to a nickel for 6 months it does not matter to me".
It should. If your analysis (which I have very good reason to think is not at all reliable) suggests the price will probably bottom out at around $0.05... you should wait and buy it at $0.05... and as a result you will will own a very significantly larger value in an interest that is two or three times larger. There is nothing anyone can ever offer... that is a proper refutation of the fact that the first rule in markets is "buy low". Of course, what "low" is... often is not clear to investors. Copper Fox might still not prove to be priced "low" at $0.05... but, we can wait to judge that when we get there...
"What matters is where I believe the share price will be in 2018-2020."
It doesn't matter a whit... to me... what you believe. What matters... the only thing that matters... is the MARKET FACT after the fact... and, before that fact is realized in a $ result, the only thing that matters is our proper valuation of the proven JUDGMENT that has shown it can optimize extracting an optimal benefit from proper analysis...
When you make a prediction... and it is proven wrong... there are reasons. Either you learn from your mistakes... figure out what those reasons for error are, and improve your future performance as a result of learning... or you pretend your mistakes don't matter... and you lose all your money...
"To me this is getting down to attractive price levels."
Price as a fixed metric is wholly irrelevant... without PROPERLY considering the reasons for the trends in price, and how they relate to, and what they mean about, the trend in the underlying value. Copper Fox will still not be "attractive" because of the price being low when it trades at $0.0001... without there also being a reason to expect that there is a value larger than $0.0001 per share being firmly attached to each share owned... and a reason to expect a change in the trends that might allow that value to be realized by others.
The price here has declined... because the value has dropped. The value has dropped for at least two obvious reasons. One, and the most important, is because management is incompetent and has failed in creating value... and has instead destroyed it... and that fact has become increasingly obvious over time as mattering, even to people who didn't get it, before. Management trumps geology. The value in the rocks (if there is any) doesn't matter... if the management aren't capable of doing the right things to have that value be realized in a way that BENEFITS shareholders. The value in the rocks (if there is any) doesn't matter... if the management aren't capable of ensuring that value remains attached to the shares. I can see nothing in the way of change occurring here that suggests to me that the result produced by the management here thus far was a "one off"... So, to see any value existing here to justify taking a risk with a management whose judgment I know I can't trust, I need to have a reason to think management can succeed in the future... where they have not in the past. The other reason the price has declined... is because the market value of the underlying assets has been declining... even to the point that the "asset" clearly is not economically viable. In that context, baring change in management, or a changed performance by the management, the only thing that might work to move Copper Fox share prices higher... is a reversal in the price trend in copper. What has to happen for that to occur ? When is that likely to occur ?
"Everybody and their mom hates this stock, nobody wants to touch it".
And that's rational. A management who, for obvious reasons, loses all their shareholders money will tend to do that. That nobody else wants to touch the stock... for very good reasons... is not a reason in and of itself for me to want to buy it. Odds are... those who (like me) don't want to touch the stock... are probably right. I've been one of those who refuse to touch the stock... for a couple of years now... and I haven't been proven wrong in my judgment yet. I'm still not seeing any change in the cards occurring here... that appears it is capable of changing my mind. That's not to say that change can't occur... but, change OTHER than a decline in the share price has to occur, before it becomes probable or reasonable to expect that value creation, instead of investment money destruction, will result from Copper Fox management's efforts.
"Every other person tells me to stay away because they have lost so much money. The worse the attitude the more appealing this becomes to me as a contrarian".
You are not a contrarian... you're just someone who doesn't want to believe the obvious fact that any company that is that consistently wrong in its choices will soon cease to exist. What goes up, must come down... generally works in physics, and markets. There is no physical or market corollary that holds that what goes down must come back up. Drop a rock on the water... and it sinks. Waiting as long as you like for it to float... will not make it float. Success is harder than rocks. It is not the norm. There has to be positive reason you can express... to expect it can occur... to justify the opinion that it might.
A contrarian is one who has, understands, and can express a rational REASON why others analysis of the "value" is incorrect... while offering an alternative REASON that proves it makes sense to recognize the existence of values that others in the market do not perceive or recognize. The question isn't "is the price low"... the only question that matters to a contrarian is... is there value here others are missing... and a reason to expect others will need to recognize that value in the future... when they don't now ?
Can you explain what value it is that you perceive here that I and others are missing ?
"I don't want back in this when everybody likes it again because the share price will be many times higher"
I have far too much experience in the market to believe that a formerly popular stock... will of necessity become popular again for no reason at all... rather than cease to exist when its actions require that. What I see proofs of here, thus far, is a company on the fast track to not existing within a fairly short period of time... I'll continue to watch, but see no reason to expect Copper Fox to become a survivor, when thus far it has shown no capacity at all to adopt the behavior of survivors.
" that is the time I plan to sell. The lower the share price the less risk I see as there is only so far it can go before it goes to zero."
Zero is perfectly reasonable as a price for company's with no value... and proven ability to destroy rather than create value.
" It was a costly lesson to be a CUU holder but markets work and they are the reason we sit at these levels."
I see no evidence in your posting that you have learned any meaningful lessons from Copper Fox...
"I more than welcome new insights, but the constant repitition of the same points is not necessary. That was the only point I wanted to make."
If the situation that exists is "nothing has changed"... so that what we should continue to expect is more of the same price performance on trend in the future... it is perfectly reasonable that we keep making the same point... that there is no reason apparent to expect the price to rise... The market is a dynamic. We seek to benefit by properly judging the trends in that performance resulting from management effort...
You are telling us... "the price is low so it has to be a buy"... we are telling you "nothing is changing to suggest any reason exists to expect the price to move higher"... so, you are requiring us to keep making the same points over and over again... by your own insistence in making your own points over and over again... in spite of having been proven consistently wrong ?
Given what I have seen thus far... I do not expect Copper Fox to survive.
Failure is not only an option... it is far and away the most likely outcome...
I'll continue looking for evidence that I am wrong... will point it out if and when I see it... but, thus far I have seen nothing at all that suggests any reason to expect a reversal in the price trends of this stock...
I think it will be wildly diluted before it dies... will see that as a part of the process of killing it, only, as long as there is no change apparent to suggest it should survive... but, on current trends, that result I expect probably won't take too long...
|
|
