RE:RE:RE:RE:Why the short term doesn't matterI took your advice and typed bearish uranium into a google search, only thing I could find was a Twitter thread from April discussing caution and uncertainty of depth of kazak supply. I suggest you do more research to understand what production capacity in Kazahkstan means to world supply and growing demand. Understand how few producing mines there are and how long it takes to restart ones on care and maintenance, you will see a supply problem. When the picture becomes clear, even those exploration companies whose mines are yet to be permitted and will not deliver an ounce of uranium in this swing, will appreciate. Why, because there is no clear evidence of oversupply going forward. What there is , is uncertainty of inventory but that too becomes clear once long term contracts expire over the coming months.
youngskywalker wrote: Fact is the uranium market is oversupplied. If not it wouldn't be selling at $26/pound. Production is starting to be cut from already overproducing mines. No big deal there.
If there were not a valid bear case then everyone would be a bull and mining stocks wouldn't be getting crushed like they've been. Common sense there. Perhaps the bears are wrong but nonetheless they are there.
Just google "bearish uranium" and you'll see the other side. I'm not going to bother to comment as I'm not an expert. I do have enough experience if life to know that forecasts are often times wrong.
I see uranium going to $40-$60 in the next couple years. So I'm mildly bullish. I'm long and I own shares of UUUU.
I don't think there is a mine in the world that wouldn't sign a contract for $60. That's why I see a cap on the price. It can't go higher because mines will scoop up all the contracts in that range. There is plenty of uranium ore in the ground and if the mines can sell it at a profit they will. No, they won't hold out, they can't. If mine X refuses to sell at $40 then mine Y will pick it up at $50 and mine X is left holding the bag.