In short: Historic long, the fund's template: built "about a 10% stake," disproved the consensus objections one by one (ravine too steep? First Nations? infrastructure?), aired public letters, and it was "acquired by a major" at a price "the major probably feels really good at." "We got to win and… the major got to win as well."
GT Gold was a small company with a copper-gold discovery in northern British Columbia that most mining investors dismissed. Muddy Waters went through every popular objection — the valley was too steep for an open pit, local First Nations would block it, there was no infrastructure — checked each on the ground and found them untrue. They built a roughly 10% stake and pushed management publicly; a major miner (Newmont, in 2021) then bought the company. It is no longer listed; it matters here as the model for how the fund looks for mispriced assets.
13:34And to cut a long story short there, we thought it was a really good asset. Lots of reasons people didn't like it. All the reasons people didn't like it, we just went and looked and basically went with an open mind: is that true? Is the asset in too steep of a ravine that you can't put a pit there? No.
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.