Originally posted by C@pitali$t
Big K I am yet to come across a situation where "financial completion" for an explorer or small miner is straight forward. Particularly if it involves multiple borders (AUS-DRC-UK) and JV partners. That's why it has taken a year to get this far and why there is nothing simple about the transaction at any phase of the acquisition.
Tbh I didn't come across a single post by anyone talking about financial completion before this TH. AK acquisition was supposed to be the big one and it ended up going literally nowhere. Now there's a 'financial completion' announcement and suddenly all the pro-VECs are saying it was part of the plan all along, and now that it's moved into suspension financial completion is now "always complicated".
If financial completion was always the barrier and always going to be complicated, why did we spend two weeks talking exclusively about gap theory?
There are three consistent features about Vec:
1. Inability to hit deadlines.
2. Big spikes followed by big drops (pump and dumps).
3. Posters insisting "it will be different" this time, until it isn't, then "that was to be expected, it will be different this time".
Holding might pay off big; AK is a big deal and there's a lot of value in it. But, if Vec's past performance is anything to go off, may as well wait for the next pump and take profits.
