There's a lot of exaggeration in this report with respect to LODE, if you really dig into it EV recycling isn't anything as bad as what they say. Today alone numerous sources cite $300-$400M industry today and expected to grow over $1.5B in the next 5 years.
LODE also has a lot going for it other than LiNiCO, the Lithium play is already extra on top of the MCU operations and Au/Ag reserve developments. We're looking at double the current market cap in near term valuation on just those aspects of their business.
Even if in the first year they don't hit the estimated revenues for LiNiCO, they will get there because it is a necessary part of the future of Lithium. But we don't know what's in store and tomorrow we'll get a better understanding. What I do know is there's a lot of shorts being screwed over by the recent price action and they'll do anything to fix that problem.
There's not many companies in the world, especially in clean energy, that don't get attacked like this. The more you dig into that the more you'll see how intense and combative critics have always been against clean energy.
Don't let them fool you. The pipelines will get built and rapidly because the incentive to do so is much greater than it was back in the early days of Lead acid batteries. It's a different economy and comparing the two doesn't work.
I also think it's factually wrong for them to say the original holders of the LiNiCO building was sold in a way that makes no sense, something like "why would they sell a $30m revenue stream for $20m". The reality is LODE has a 65% stake and the other company a 10% stake. We don't know the real terms of the deal, there's still 25% to account for. It's quite possible the original holder didn't have the financing left to see it through and it presented an opportunity to LODE. What if the original owners kept a 25% stake? I'm just speculating but for sure we don't know exactly what happened, but I do know it wasn't as the short seller claims.
Also, I don't know much about this Scott/Jeff situation yet, but one person is not guilty because the other is. He's distorting reality very strongly to get the share price down, that much is very clear.
This short seller is guilty of everything he claims in his report. He has a stake against the company and he's distorting facts to fit his agenda, it's just more of the corruption he claims to fight against.
