Where do we see PNG and Keel Infrastructure in the next 1-2 years? There’s been TONS of hype over the past 6 months for these two stocks yet they are continuing to plummet

Silver has climbed back to around $65 after gaining roughly 15 percent over the past month.

That looks like a strong rally until you zoom out and see that it traded above $100 in January.

Silver is now more than 70 percent above its level from a year ago while remaining over 40 percent below its January high. That pretty much sums up the silver market.

It trades partly like gold and partly like an industrial commodity. It also has a much smaller market than gold, so investment flows can move the price quickly in either direction.

The current rebound has been helped by stronger gold prices, a weaker US dollar and shifting expectations around interest rates. The supply picture is supportive too. Another annual deficit is expected this year and physical investment demand is recovering.

January was still a warning. A legitimate supply story turned into a momentum trade, silver went almost vertical and the correction was brutal.

Silver equities add another layer of risk. They can outperform the metal when prices rise, but operating costs, financing needs and project quality still matter. A strong silver price cannot fix a weak balance sheet or a poor project.

Do you see the current move as the rally restarting, or is silver still working through the excess from January?

Been lurking for a while. There’s quite a few stocks I’ve seen mentioned here over the past year or so that have just blown my mind to have been produced from a small community like this. Just appreciative to have been an observer I suppose. SCD and HGRAF are the main two I’m referencing btw.

I’ve been looking closely at Peyto Exploration & Development (TSX: PEY), and I think the market may be underestimating how several changes in Alberta’s natural-gas market could converge over the next few years.
PEY isn’t some speculative junior waiting to become profitable. It’s an established Alberta Deep Basin producer with a very low-cost operating model, significant infrastructure, growing production, free cash flow and a monthly dividend.
At roughly $25–26/share, analysts are around $27.75 on average, with estimates reaching $30. That isn’t enormous upside by itself.
But I think those targets largely value the company on today’s gas market. My thesis is about what PEY could look like if Alberta’s gas market becomes structurally tighter.
1. PEY is a low-cost producer that’s actually growing
Peyto describes itself as having an industry-leading cost structure, and the latest results support the underlying economics.
Q2 2026:
$227.7M funds from operations
$140.6M free funds flow
FFO/share up 16% YoY
FCF up 68% YoY
Earnings up 21% YoY
This isn’t a company that requires $8 natural gas to survive.
That matters because PEY is simultaneously expanding its productive capacity. If gas prices rise, a low-cost producer doesn’t just benefit from higher prices on existing production — it can potentially sell increasing volumes into that stronger market.
And shareholders get paid while waiting. PEY currently pays $0.12/month, or $1.44/year.
2. Canadian natural gas finally has more places to go
This may be the biggest structural change.
For decades Western Canadian producers were heavily dependent on the North American market, which contributed to AECO trading at ugly discounts whenever Alberta became oversupplied.
LNG changes that equation.
Peyto is also deliberately diversifying where it sells its gas.
It already supplies 60,000 GJ/day to Alberta’s Cascade gas-fired power plant, with pricing tied to Cascade’s realized electricity price.
And starting in 2029, Peyto has a 10-year agreement to supply Centrica with 50,000 MMBtu/day.
Here’s the interesting part:
That gas will be priced against European TTF natural-gas pricing, less deductions.
So PEY is gradually evolving from an Alberta gas producer completely exposed to local pricing into a producer with exposure to power markets, North American hubs and eventually European LNG economics.
3. Then there’s the AI/data-centre wildcard
This is the part I think could become extremely interesting.
Everyone talks about AI as a semiconductor story.
But giant AI data centres need absurd quantities of electricity — continuously.
Alberta’s grid operator has around 40 proposed AI/data-centre projects representing roughly 19.5 GW of potential power demand, according to Peyto’s June presentation.
Only a fraction of those projects need to happen for this to become material.
Peyto estimates that if even HALF were built and powered by natural gas, Alberta gas demand could increase by approximately:
1.5 Bcf/day.
That’s roughly a 20% increase in Alberta natural-gas demand.
Think about what that potentially means.
AI/data centres → enormous 24/7 electricity demand → gas-fired generation → substantially higher Alberta gas consumption → tighter AECO market → potentially higher gas prices.
And unlike heating demand, a server farm doesn’t stop computing because winter ended.
That’s potentially new year-round baseload gas demand.
Who benefits from that?
A producer sitting on large, long-life, low-cost Alberta gas reserves with existing infrastructure and the ability to increase production.
That’s basically PEY.
So my thesis isn’t simply “natural gas goes up.”
It’s that three things could happen simultaneously:
**PEY produces more gas cheaply
Canadian gas gains access to LNG/international pricing
AI/data centres create a new source of domestic baseload demand**
If only the first two happen, PEY can still generate substantial cash flow and pay me a ~5–6% dividend while I wait.
If the third becomes significant, the economics of Alberta natural gas could look considerably different from the market we’ve been accustomed to.
That’s where I think the optionality lies.
Valuation
At ~$25–26, PEY is around a ~$5B company.
Consensus target is roughly $27.75, with the high around $30.
So I’m not claiming this is a 10x moonshot.
My argument is that today’s consensus may not fully price a scenario where LNG exports + Alberta power generation + AI/data-centre demand materially tighten the Western Canadian gas market while PEY continues growing production.
If that happens, I don’t think $30 necessarily represents the end of the story.
What would prove me wrong?
This isn’t risk-free.
The bear case is pretty straightforward:
Most proposed Alberta data centres never get built.
They use little natural gas.
Canadian producers increase supply faster than LNG/power demand grows.
AECO remains chronically oversupplied.
LNG projects are delayed.
PEY’s production growth disappoints.
Higher capex/debt eats the incremental cash flow.
Gas prices fall enough that PEY’s hedge book only delays the pain.
That’s why I wouldn’t value PEY based on 19.5 GW of proposed data centres actually being built. That’s optionality, not my base case.
But if we start seeing multiple gigawatts of Alberta data centres reach FID/construction with dedicated gas generation, I’ll be paying very close attention.
TL;DR
PEY is already a profitable, low-cost Canadian gas producer generating meaningful FCF and paying a monthly dividend.
The potential rerating comes from what happens next:
LNG exports + international pricing + growing production + potentially enormous AI/data-centre gas demand.
The market currently sees a ~$28 stock.
I think there’s a plausible scenario where the underlying Alberta gas market changes enough that we’re eventually asking whether $28–30 was actually conservative.
Position: Long PEY.
Not financial advice. Do your own DD.

Auxly (XLY.TO): A Cannabis Growth Story That Doesn’t Need US Legalization
I’ve owned Auxly for a long time, through some pretty ugly years in the Canadian cannabis sector. What interests me now is that I think people are still looking at Auxly as the company it used to be rather than the company it has become.
This isn’t a bet on the US suddenly legalizing cannabis.
It isn’t a moonshot based on some regulatory event that may or may not happen.
Auxly is already growing, already profitable, already taking Canadian market share and already generating cash under the regulations that exist today.
That’s my thesis.
1. The numbers have changed dramatically
Q2 2026:
Revenue: $45.8 million
Revenue growth: 18% YoY
Adjusted EBITDA: $14.3 million
Adjusted EBITDA margin: 31%
Finished cannabis gross margin: 55%
Net income: $7.7 million
Cash: $38.6 million
Debt: $43.6 million
Debt/TTM adjusted EBITDA: 0.8x
For the first six months of 2026, revenue grew about 20% while adjusted EBITDA grew about 40%.
That’s what I care about.
Revenue is growing, but profitability is growing even faster.
2. This growth does NOT depend on US legalization
This is probably the biggest misunderstanding I see when people talk about Canadian cannabis stocks.
Auxly doesn’t need the United States to legalize cannabis for my investment thesis to work.
Its growth is happening in Canada right now.
The company has no active international operations today. It is building its business within Canada’s existing federally legal recreational market.
That means I’m not buying Auxly because I think Washington is suddenly going to save Canadian cannabis companies.
I’m buying a company that is:
increasing Canadian sales
gaining market share
expanding production
improving margins
generating positive earnings
reducing leverage
generating cash
under the regulatory system that already exists.
If the US eventually legalizes, great.
If international exports become significant, great.
Those are additional opportunities.
They are not required for the current business to work.
That’s an important distinction between Auxly and some of the cannabis moonshot arguments we’ve heard for years.
3. Auxly is taking market share
This isn’t just cannabis market growth carrying everybody higher.
Auxly has become one of Canada’s largest licensed producers.
Back Forty became the #1 cannabis brand in Canada during 2025.
Auxly was the #3 Canadian licensed producer by market share.
Liquid Imagination and Fire Breath were the two best-selling SKUs nationally.
It has also become a leader in all-in-one vapes and has several leading pre-roll products.
So my thesis isn’t that Canadians suddenly start consuming twice as much cannabis.
Auxly can grow by taking a larger percentage of an already established multibillion-dollar legal market.
4. Now they’re increasing capacity
Auxly isn’t sitting still.
They’re investing in Leamington to increase production capacity.
That matters because they already have products that are selling.
If you increase production while maintaining strong demand, you get another path to revenue growth without needing legalization, acquisitions or some speculative new market.
And management says the expansion and innovation can be funded through operating cash flow.
That’s a very different company from one that has to continuously issue shares just to survive.
5. The balance sheet has been transformed
This was one of the biggest problems with old Auxly.
Debt and dilution mattered more than the underlying business.
That situation has changed considerably.
Auxly ended Q2 with:
$38.6M cash
$43.6M debt
debt/TTM adjusted EBITDA of only 0.8x
And here’s something I never thought I’d be saying about Auxly:
They’re buying their own shares back.
Auxly repurchased approximately 2.6 million shares for around $5.7 million.
Think about the difference.
Old Auxly needed shareholder capital.
Today’s Auxly is generating enough cash to invest in expansion, manage its debt AND return capital by buying shares.
That is a major change.
6. The reverse split doesn’t create value — but it may allow the market to recognize it
Auxly recently completed a 14:1 consolidation.
That reduced approximately:
1.42 billion shares → ~101 million shares
Obviously that doesn’t magically make the company worth more.
But I think it removes one of the things that made Auxly look almost uninvestable.
A $0.20 cannabis stock with 1.4 billion shares outstanding looks like a penny stock disaster.
A profitable company with roughly 100 million shares, growing revenue, 30%+ adjusted EBITDA margins and improving cash flow is a very different proposition.
The business didn’t suddenly improve because of the consolidation.
The business improved before the consolidation.
The consolidation just cleaned up the capital structure afterward.
7. Imperial Brands is interesting, but I don’t need a buyout
Imperial Brands owns approximately 20% of Auxly.
That’s obviously interesting.
Could Imperial eventually buy Auxly?
Maybe.
But I’m not investing based on that happening.
Again, I don’t need a moonshot event for this thesis.
I don’t need:
US legalization
an Imperial takeover
another cannabis bubble
meme-stock mania
Those would all potentially add upside.
But the company can continue growing without any of them.
That’s exactly why Auxly interests me now.
8. The cannabis collapse may actually be helping the survivors
The Canadian cannabis sector spent years destroying capital.
Too much production.
Too many companies.
Too much debt.
Too much dilution.
Eventually that catches up with an industry.
Facilities close. Weak companies disappear. Capital becomes harder to obtain.
Meanwhile Auxly survived and has moved in the opposite direction.
It’s profitable.
It’s expanding.
It’s gaining share.
It’s generating cash.
That’s where I think the opportunity is.
The market may still be applying the valuation and skepticism of the old Canadian cannabis industry to one of the companies that actually survived the shakeout and became profitable.
9. The next stage is operating leverage
This is what I’m watching most closely.
Auxly already has the cultivation facilities, brands, manufacturing, distribution and infrastructure.
So revenue doesn’t necessarily have to increase at the same rate as costs.
We’re already seeing that:
H1 revenue +20%
H1 adjusted EBITDA +40%
If they can continue anything close to that relationship while expanding production, earnings could grow considerably faster than revenue.
That’s where a rerating becomes possible.
What would change my mind?
I’m bullish, but there are obvious risks:
Canadian market share starts falling
margins deteriorate
new capacity can’t be sold profitably
price compression accelerates
cash flow weakens
debt starts climbing again
management starts diluting shareholders again
Those are the numbers I’ll watch.
I’m not waiting for Washington.
I’m watching Auxly’s quarterly financial statements.
TL;DR
My Auxly thesis is actually pretty simple:
Revenue is growing.
EBITDA is growing faster than revenue.
The company is profitable.
Margins have become very strong.
Debt has been dramatically reduced.
Market share has increased.
Production capacity is expanding.
They’re generating cash.
They’re buying shares instead of constantly issuing them.
Imperial owns roughly 20%.
And NONE of this requires US legalization.
That’s why I don’t see Auxly as a cannabis moonshot anymore.
I see it as a small Canadian company that went through an awful restructuring period and has emerged as a profitable growth business that I think the market is still valuing based on its past.
US legalization?
International exports?
An Imperial acquisition?
Those would be bonuses.
I don’t need any of them for the thesis to work.
That’s the difference.
Long XLY.

CHAR Tech reports super exciting results from their PFAS pilot!! This is such a huge and exciting opportunity which can be scaled so large. They are already doing a commercial level pilot with Synagro (wholly owned by Goldman Sachs) and City of Baltimore.

PFAS ("forever chemicals") are the toxic stuff found in things like non-stick pans and waterproof gear. They don't break down and they just build up in our water, soil, and bodies.

Most current cleanup methods (filtering, landfills) don't actually destroy PFAS, they just move it somewhere else.

CHAR Tech just got independent lab results back, and they're good! Their HTP technology processed contaminated sewage waste and the leftover solid material came back with zero detectable PFAS.

Tested 5 different times in 2025 by an outside accredited lab, using the strict EPA-approved testing method.This is a real way to destroy PFAS instead of just relocating it.

Full results will be submitted to the EPA end of 2026.

Its a great sign for a company working in a market that's only getting bigger as PFAS regulations tighten up.

Not financial advice.

Ive done well buying Boston pizza, good yield at the current price.

6.7% divided.

I've been digging deeper into the latest PyroGenesis fumed-silica update, and I think the market is still looking at this completely wrong.

Everyone is focused on:

"It's a 1,000 tonne/year reactor."

That's not the story.

The story is what happens if the first commercial reactor proves the economics and becomes a repeatable plant platform.

And when you compare the potential economics to the current market caps of both HPQ Silicon and PyroGenesis, the asymmetry gets pretty crazy.

FIRST: WHAT EXACTLY IS FUMED SILICA?

Fumed silica — also called pyrogenic silica — is an ultra-fine, high-surface-area form of silicon dioxide.

It isn't commodity sand.

It is a specialty material used as a thickener, stabilizer, anti-caking agent and performance additive across thousands of products.

Applications include:

Adhesives

Sealants

Paints

Coatings

Construction

Pharmaceuticals

Cosmetics

Food

Agriculture

Automotive

Batteries

Personal care

HPQ/PyroGenesis is attempting to produce it directly from quartz using the Fumed Silica Reactor (FSR) in a single plasma-based process.

PyroGenesis says the technology eliminates harmful chemicals used in conventional production. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

THE MARKET IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

HPQ/PyroGenesis previously cited a global fumed silica market of approximately US$1.3B in 2022, growing toward roughly US$2.1B by 2032. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

More recent industry estimates put the market even higher.

HPQ itself currently references a global opportunity that could reach billions of dollars, while another recent HPQ presentation discusses the fumed silica market reaching approximately US$2.57B by 2034. (HPQ Silicon)

So we're talking about a multi-billion-dollar specialty-material market.

And the first commercial FSR is only:

1,000 tonnes/year.

That's tiny relative to the total market.

NOW LOOK AT THE CAPEX

This is where the story gets REALLY interesting.

PyroGenesis/HPQ's earlier economic analysis estimated capital intensity of approximately:

Conventional process: ~US$145.92/kg of annual capacity

versus approximately:

FSR process: ~US$9–10/kg of annual capacity

That's potentially a ~93% reduction in capital intensity.

The current commercial proposal is for a 1,000 TPY FSR reactor priced at US$20M. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

And here's an important point:

The first commercial reactor isn't necessarily being funded by HPQ shareholders.

Under the proposed JV structure, the strategic partner is expected to finance the US$20M reactor.

That's potentially a huge advantage.

WHAT DOES A LEGACY PLANT COST?

Look at the conventional industry.

PyroGenesis has previously referenced a Wacker US fumed-silica facility costing approximately US$150M for 20,000 tonnes/year.

That's about:

US$7,500 per annual tonne of capacity.

But that's just one comparison and isn't perfectly apples-to-apples because conventional production involves upstream infrastructure and different process configurations.

The more important number is the company's modeled total process capital intensity:

~$145.92/kg conventional

versus

~$9–10/kg FSR.

If those economics survive commercial-scale operation, that's potentially a massive competitive advantage.

AND THEN WE GET TO EBITDA

The earlier economic study estimated:

60–65% EBITDA margins

and approximately:

1.7-year payback

for the 1,000 TPY FSR model.

Let's use a conservative illustrative example of $7M EBITDA per plant.

Then:

1 plant

~$7M EBITDA

5 plants

~$35M

10 plants

~$70M

25 plants

~$175M

50 plants

~$350M

100 plants

~$700M

Obviously, these are scenario calculations, NOT forecasts.

But this is exactly how I think investors should be looking at the technology.

The first reactor isn't the end game.

It's the factory template.

NOW LOOK AT HPQ

This is where I think the valuation gets particularly interesting.

HPQ Silicon currently has approximately:

471.4M shares outstanding

and a market cap of approximately:

C$68.4 MILLION

at around C$0.145/share. (TMX Money)

Read that again.

C$68M market cap.

For a company developing a technology that could potentially participate in a multi-billion-dollar fumed-silica market.

And fumed silica isn't even HPQ's only technology.

HPQ also has:

High-purity silicon

Silicon-based battery materials

Novacium

Hydrogen technology

HPQ's own investor materials identify multiple technology platforms and show approximately 471M shares outstanding. (HPQ Silicon)

NOW THE VALUATION MATH

Let's completely ignore the other HPQ businesses for a minute.

Imagine the FSR business eventually produces economic value equivalent to:

$10M EBITDA

At 10x EBITDA:

$100M valuation

At 15x:

$150M

$25M EBITDA

10x:

$250M

15x:

$375M

$50M EBITDA

10x:

$500M

15x:

$750M

$100M EBITDA

10x:

$1 BILLION

15x:

$1.5 BILLION

And HPQ is currently around:

C$68M market cap.

That's the asymmetry.

WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN FOR HPQ'S SHARE PRICE?

Using the current ~471.4M shares purely for illustration:

HPQ Market Cap

Approx. HPQ Share Price

C$68M

~$0.145

C$100M

~$0.21

C$250M

~$0.53

C$375M

~$0.80

C$500M

~$1.06

C$750M

~$1.59

C$1B

~$2.12

C$1.5B

~$3.18

Again:

These aren't price targets.

They're simply market-cap math using today's approximate share count.

Dilution could obviously change these numbers.

But going from:

C$68M → C$500M

would represent roughly a:

7.3X increase in equity value.

C$68M → C$1B would be roughly:

14.6X.

And that's BEFORE assigning meaningful value to HPQ's battery-material, high-purity silicon and hydrogen opportunities.

AND PYROGENESIS ISN'T JUST THE CONTRACTOR

This is another piece I think gets overlooked.

PyroGenesis exercised its option to convert its royalty rights into 50% ownership of HPQ Silica Polvere. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

That means PYR potentially participates directly in the economics of the FSR business.

So you have a potentially very interesting structure:

HPQ → owns the FSR business / Polvere

PYR → owns 50% of Polvere

PYR → designs/builds the commercial FSR

Strategic partner → potentially finances the first $20M reactor

If this scales, there are multiple ways value can accrue.

THIS IS WHERE A BIDDING WAR COULD HAPPEN

I'm NOT saying there is currently a confirmed bidding war.

But imagine this scenario:

The first 1,000 TPY reactor is built.

It runs.

Independent customers qualify the material.

The economics are validated.

And suddenly a large manufacturer says:

"We want our own plant."

Then another says:

"We want one too."

Then another.

At that point, the FSR isn't just an interesting technology.

It becomes scarce production capacity.

And when a technology potentially offers dramatically lower capital intensity than incumbent processes, customers don't necessarily want to wait years for someone else to build capacity.

That's where you could potentially see:

multiple strategic partners competing for access to the technology.

Again, that's the bull-case scenario—not something that has been announced as fact.

AND THERE IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL VALIDATION

This isn't just a PowerPoint.

HPQ has already reported:

✓ Pilot-scale production

✓ Independent laboratory testing

✓ Material meeting fundamental commercial specifications

✓ A 50 kg purchase order for advanced customer testing

✓ Extended semi-continuous FSR production runs

✓ Engineering data being generated for the 1,000 TPY commercial facility

The 50 kg order came from the strategic industrial partner and was produced using PyroGenesis' FSR pilot plant. (HPQ Silicon)

PyroGenesis also announced successful independent third-party testing of FSR-produced material in February 2026. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

That's a meaningful progression from:

technology → pilot → validation → customer testing → commercial reactor.

NOW LOOK AT THE TWO MARKET CAPS TOGETHER

This is what gets me excited.

HPQ:

~C$68M

PyroGenesis:

small-cap company with a market value nowhere near the potential value of a successful global deployment platform.

And the first commercial reactor:

US$20M.

The underlying market:

multi-billion dollars.

Potential economics:

60–65% EBITDA in the company's earlier model.

Potential payback:

~1.7 years in that model.

Potential deployment:

not one reactor — potentially dozens or hundreds if the technology works commercially.

THE REAL BULL CASE

The bull case isn't:

"PYR sells a $20M reactor."

That's boring.

The bull case is:

1,000 TPY reactor

↓

commercial validation

↓

customer qualification

↓

second reactor

↓

multiple customers

↓

repeatable deployment

↓

JV/royalty/ownership economics

↓

dozens of reactors

↓

potentially hundreds of reactors

↓

a new decentralized fumed-silica production model

That's when the valuation starts getting interesting.

WHAT IF HPQ ONLY CAPTURES A SMALL PIECE?

Let's say the global market is ~$2B+.

If the FSR eventually enabled HPQ/its partners to capture only:

5% of the market

That's roughly:

$100M of annual fumed-silica revenue.

10%:

$200M

20%:

$400M

These aren't forecasts.

They're simply showing how little market share is required before the opportunity becomes enormous relative to a C$68M company.

And because the FSR potentially changes the cost structure, the important metric isn't just revenue.

It's EBITDA and free cash flow.

WHAT I'M WATCHING NOW

The next major catalysts are pretty obvious:

1. Definitive JV agreement

2. Final commercial reactor order

3. Construction

4. Customer qualification

5. First commercial production

6. Proof of the projected economics

7. Additional reactor orders

8. Additional strategic partners

If those start hitting one after another, the market may have no choice but to start valuing HPQ and PYR on future FSR economics rather than today's tiny revenue base.

MY TAKE

At ~C$68M, HPQ doesn't need to dominate the global fumed silica market.

It doesn't even need 20%.

It needs the technology to work.

If a ~$20M commercial reactor can prove the economics, and that reactor becomes the template for additional plants, the potential EBITDA generated by a scaled network could be orders of magnitude larger than HPQ's current market capitalization.

And because PYR owns 50% of HPQ Silica Polvere, PYR has direct exposure too. (PyroGenesis Inc.)

That's why today's announcement gets my attention.

The first reactor isn't the prize.

The first reactor is the proof that the next 10, 50 or 100 reactors are possible.

And if the economics actually work at scale?

The market caps we're looking at today could eventually look very, very small.

🚀

Bullish? Absolutely.

Guaranteed? Absolutely not.

This is still a speculative commercialization story, and the MOU, customer qualification, scale-up, economics and future financing all carry risk.

But IMO the risk/reward gets extremely interesting when you compare:

C$68M HPQ market cap

against

a multi-billion-dollar target market

and a technology potentially capable of dramatically reducing the capital intensity of entering it.

That's the FSR thesis.

Five official scans produced 784 qualifying volume rows this week.

That does not mean 784 unique stocks, and it definitely does not mean 784 ideas. A company can repeat across several days. Unusual volume can be accumulation, distribution, a forced rebound or a one-day reaction to news.

Friday’s top 50 was mostly oversold bounces, weak follow-through, thin dollar volume, extended moves or companies without a current primary catalyst.

Two names earned a proposal for deeper research. Neither became a call.

That zero matters more to me than the raw scan count.

The dated record currently has 10 calls since June 16: +19.2% weighted by predefined conviction tiers, +13.6% equal-weighted, eight positive and one visible -17.2% loss.

Encouraging start, tiny sample.

A winning list can make almost any process look smart for a few weeks. A rejection log shows whether the process can also say no when the screen is noisy.

What would you rather see from someone posting small-cap research: only the final picks, or the rejected setups and the reason each one failed?

Positions: none in the two rejected candidates discussed here. I personally hold some names in the broader dated record. Not financial advice. Do your own DD.

I added a screenshot of a part of what the scanner saw on Friday to give an idea at the kind of stuff that pops out. I also added the screenshot of my ledger as "proof".

https://preview.redd.it/1d0nzb0uzqjh1.png?width=1348&format=png&auto=webp&s=61008cfa915082227faf633ccccb0a97c0fd988f

https://preview.redd.it/1ba8cvcvzqjh1.png?width=1758&format=png&auto=webp&s=98b1d0a34882abecde4c65cf601c1fdbeebea74a

Doubled my investment on FLT today. Cut my average cost in half in the process.

Other than an overreaction by the market, I think Trump's tarriffs on drones is a positive for a Canadian company. The tarriffs are really about keeping China out of the US market, but they should also drive Canada and NATO to accelerate their non-US sourced drones.

If we start to get some announcements to that effect, this could take off. If not, I tihnk 50 cents is a pretty solid low without much more room to drop.

I've been building a Copper portfolio for about a year now. I hold the usual large caps and ETFs with COPP as my core. Looking to add some junior exposure, currently have Western Copper and Copper Giant. Wondering if anyone has any other compelling ideas?

Quick question for the traders in here: Has anyone actually used a Bloomberg Terminal, either professionally or personally? If yes, what made it genuinely valuable to you?

Not really interested in the it has better data answer. I’m more curious about the actual experience:

What did you use the most?
What did it let you see or do that you couldn’t easily get elsewhere?
Was there anything about the workflow that completely changed how you approached the market?

Curious to hear from people who have actually spent time on one.