| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 133 | $13.12 | $1,745 | 0.07% | $11.24 | $249 | +16.7% | — |
In short: The endorsement that was written and then pulled by the tape — the closing footnote is the whole entry: "We were intending to include an endorsement of the world's largest palladium producer, SBSW, which we previously brought to your attention as a high-risk play on this critical metal in May 2024. (We suggested profit-taking on it last December.) However, as we were preparing to write this note, it began a ripping rally and is now up 15% this week alone. We will keep an eye on it and advise if it settles back." So: the operating leverage on the same palladium thesis is acknowledged (it is the equity expression of the PALL call, and the world's largest producer of the metal), the prior round-trip is on the record, and the current stance is explicitly watch-not-chase — no Buy is issued, and the trigger for one is a pullback, not a further advance. The physically-backed ETF is the vehicle recommended instead, on the "no counterparty risk" argument.
Sibanye Stillwater is the world's largest palladium producer — a South African miner that also owns the Stillwater operation in Montana, the only significant US source of the metal. It is the obvious way to make a leveraged bet on the same idea as PALL: if the metal rises 20%, a miner's profits can rise far more, because its costs are largely fixed. That leverage runs both ways, which is why Hay originally introduced it in May 2024 as a "high-risk play" rather than a core position, and why he told readers to take profits on it last December.
The interesting part of this note is what did not happen. Hay had written an endorsement of the stock to accompany the palladium call, and pulled it before publishing — because in the days he was drafting, the shares ripped 15% in a single week. His stated position is to watch it and "advise if it settles back."
That is a stance, and worth reading as one: the thesis on the metal is unchanged, but he treats the entry price as part of the recommendation rather than a detail. A name that has already jumped 15% before his readers can act is a name he will not tell them to buy. For the reader the practical translation is: interested, not endorsed, and the trigger to revisit is a pullback rather than further strength. Meanwhile the recommendation he did make — the physical metal via the ETF — carries no mining risk at all: no South African labour disputes, no shaft accidents, no cost inflation, and, as he puts it, no counterparty risk.
In short: Mentioned as operator of the Ezulwini processing plant, where West Wits delivers ore under a toll-treatment arrangement. No investment view expressed — contextual mention only; the toll dependency is flagged as a company-specific risk.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: The higher-torque alternative to Valterra: "Sibanye is more Trump-adjacent with some US assets, and has more torque due to leverage via cost lines and the balance sheet." Cited as a levered platinum play he acknowledges (his position is in Valterra), and one of the depletion-story SA producers.
In short: Cited as the palladium catalyst — its petition to restrict Russian flows into the US could resolve in March 2026; until then it adds volatility to palladium prices.
In short: Original owner of Altar; staged 80% down to Aldebaran over several years via milestones and still holds 20% of the project plus ~14% of ALDE stock. Framed as a likely eventual seller — no investment view expressed.
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.