Buy Reasoning
EQR was a primary target I tracked closely in January 2026. The trade thesis combined a structural commodity driver with a time-sensitive market repricing narrative, which is the kind of setup that can move fast in ASX small caps and ASX micro caps once liquidity turns on.
The core macro driver was the structural tungsten supply constraint. China began restricting tungsten exports in February 2025 and tightened them further in January 2026. That shift directly fed into pricing: European APT (Ammonium Paratungstate) spot pricing pushed through US$1,000/mtu and was up materially year on year. In that context, EQR’s asset base—Mt Carbine (Queensland) and Barruecopardo (Spain)—reads as “rare Western supply” rather than just another mining story, and that distinction is where the geopolitical premium comes from.
The second pillar was policy and strategic signalling. In January 2026, EQR received a US$52 million Letter of Interest from the US EXIM Bank. I treated that as more than a headline. For a small-cap producer, that type of signal can change the market’s perception from “cyclical miner” to “strategic supply chain asset,” which tends to compress perceived financing risk and amplify bid-side interest.
Execution-wise, I did not treat this as a single entry. I built it as a scaled position where the first tranche provided structural safety, and later tranches expressed momentum and pullback logic. The goal was to keep the average cost anchored while still participating in the move.
Position Sizing & Entry Breakdown:
| Date | Price | Units | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-19 | $0.105 | 95,238 | -$10,019.94 |
| 2026-01-28 | $0.195 | 102,564 | -$20,029.93 |
| 2026-02-09 | $0.200 | 75,000 | -$15,029.95 |
| 2026-02-10 | $0.170 | 58,823 | -$10,019.86 |
The first tranche (Jan 19 at $0.105) was the foundation. It was early enough that the geopolitical premium was not fully priced, and it gave the position a cushion that mattered later when the chart started moving in wider ranges.
The second tranche (Jan 28 at $0.195) was a deliberate momentum add. The trigger was a clear volume surge and a push through prior highs. The assumption was that new capital was entering and that continuation had a credible probability.
The third tranche (Feb 9 at $0.200) was the most aggressive add and, in hindsight, the least disciplined. It was a continuation bet that leaned too hard on “more catalysts ahead” rather than on what the tape was confirming in that moment.
The fourth tranche (Feb 10 at $0.170) was a buy-the-dip entry during a sharp pullback. This one mattered because it was the first add that improved the position’s risk profile rather than worsening it. It pulled the average back to $0.166 and reduced the chance that a normal retracement would invalidate the whole trade.
Sell Reasoning
On February 13, I cleared the entire position of 331,625 shares at $0.210 in a single transaction, realising $69,557.68 in proceeds.
The exit was driven by a short-term momentum read, not by a change in the structural tungsten thesis. In mid-February, tungsten price sentiment began to cool, and EQR spent three consecutive sessions compressing in the $0.210–$0.215 range without producing a clean continuation breakout. At the same time, the price and volume behaviour started violating the stop levels I had pre-set for this swing leg. That combination is usually my signal that upside continuation has become lower probability on the immediate timeframe.
Given the position size and the nature of the tape, I chose to exit in one action rather than scaling out. The intent was capital efficiency: bank the move, avoid letting a tight range turn into a fast retracement, and keep decision-making simple.
| Date | Price | Units | Proceeds |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-13 | $0.210 | 331,625 | +$69,557.68 |
Final Result: Net Profit +$14,458.00 (+26.24% on invested capital)
Trade Review
This trade did a few things right, and one thing wrong in a way that is common in fast-moving ASX resource stocks.
The clear weakness was the exit timing. The February 13 sell was influenced by what, in hindsight, looks like a shakeout: price action crossed my short-term lines with enough volume to feel like a breakdown, but it did not meaningfully damage the larger structure. I treated a short-term disturbance as a structural failure and handed over the position too quickly.
At the same time, there are two execution wins worth keeping. The first is scaling in. Without the low-cost foundation from January 19, the later high-priced adds would have carried much higher psychological and risk load. The second is that I actually took profit. I have enough trade logs where I watched paper gains evaporate because I refused to realise them. Selling “too early” is still a better failure mode than refusing to sell at all.
The deeper lesson is about exit design when the thesis remains intact. My fundamental view on EQR did not change when I sold. What changed was my short-term momentum read. A more robust approach for this type of trade is to separate a core thesis position from the swing leg, or to treat the exit as a tactical reset rather than the end of attention. “One-and-done” thinking is comfortable, but it is not always optimal when the structural driver is still live and the stock remains in play.
Net outcome: +$14,458.00 (+26.24%). Good result, imperfect execution, and a clean reminder that exits deserve as much structure as entries.