In short: The one tungsten equity he names, and he names it as an under-sizing error rather than a new idea: "tungsten I think is my biggest mistake. Like EQR. I should have had more." Beylo's reply ("I'm so pissed I didn't buy EQR or Almonty — that chart") establishes the move has already run; McCracken's answer is that the demand driver (missile consumption, Western rearmament) is intact regardless: "in hindsight it's just dumb to have not bought it."
EQ Resources is an Australian-listed tungsten producer — a small company operating actual tungsten mines, which is a short list globally outside China.
It appears here as the equity behind the tungsten call, and specifically as the one McCracken says he should have owned more of. Both he and Beylo describe the chart as having already run hard, so this is not presented as a fresh entry at a good price. It is presented as evidence for a rule: when you can identify a commodity whose demand is structurally rising and whose supply is politically constrained, the handful of listed producers are the leveraged expression — and hesitating on valuation while the thesis plays out is itself a cost.
Worth noting the honest asymmetry: he made the tungsten call and did not size it, which is why the stance here is a positive view on a name he under-owns rather than a recommendation to chase.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.