Outlook: Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares is assigned short-term Ba1 & long-term Ba1 estimated rating.
Dominant Strategy : Hold
Time series to forecast n: 04 May 2023 for (n+3 month)
Methodology : Supervised Machine Learning (ML)

Abstract

Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares prediction model is evaluated with Supervised Machine Learning (ML) and Spearman Correlation1,2,3,4 and it is concluded that the LITM stock is predictable in the short/long term. According to price forecasts for (n+3 month) period, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Hold

Key Points

2. Is Target price a good indicator?
3. How do you pick a stock?

LITM Target Price Prediction Modeling Methodology

We consider Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares Decision Process with Supervised Machine Learning (ML) where A is the set of discrete actions of LITM stock holders, F is the set of discrete states, P : S × F × S → R is the transition probability distribution, R : S × F → R is the reaction function, and γ ∈ [0, 1] is a move factor for expectation.1,2,3,4

F(Spearman Correlation)5,6,7= $\begin{array}{cccc}{p}_{a1}& {p}_{a2}& \dots & {p}_{1n}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{j1}& {p}_{j2}& \dots & {p}_{jn}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{k1}& {p}_{k2}& \dots & {p}_{kn}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{n1}& {p}_{n2}& \dots & {p}_{nn}\end{array}$ X R(Supervised Machine Learning (ML)) X S(n):→ (n+3 month) $\stackrel{\to }{S}=\left({s}_{1},{s}_{2},{s}_{3}\right)$

n:Time series to forecast

p:Price signals of LITM stock

j:Nash equilibria (Neural Network)

k:Dominated move

a:Best response for target price

For further technical information as per how our model work we invite you to visit the article below:

How do AC Investment Research machine learning (predictive) algorithms actually work?

LITM Stock Forecast (Buy or Sell) for (n+3 month)

Sample Set: Neural Network
Stock/Index: LITM Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares
Time series to forecast n: 04 May 2023 for (n+3 month)

According to price forecasts for (n+3 month) period, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Hold

X axis: *Likelihood% (The higher the percentage value, the more likely the event will occur.)

Y axis: *Potential Impact% (The higher the percentage value, the more likely the price will deviate.)

Z axis (Grey to Black): *Technical Analysis%

IFRS Reconciliation Adjustments for Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares

1. If, at the date of initial application, it is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8) for an entity to assess a modified time value of money element in accordance with paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset, an entity shall assess the contractual cash flow characteristics of that financial asset on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset without taking into account the requirements related to the modification of the time value of money element in paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D. (See also paragraph 42R of IFRS 7.)
2. If a put option obligation written by an entity or call option right held by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at amortised cost, the associated liability is measured at its cost (ie the consideration received) adjusted for the amortisation of any difference between that cost and the gross carrying amount of the transferred asset at the expiration date of the option. For example, assume that the gross carrying amount of the asset on the date of the transfer is CU98 and that the consideration received is CU95. The gross carrying amount of the asset on the option exercise date will be CU100. The initial carrying amount of the associated liability is CU95 and the difference between CU95 and CU100 is recognised in profit or loss using the effective interest method. If the option is exercised, any difference between the carrying amount of the associated liability and the exercise price is recognised in profit or loss.
3. The credit risk on a financial instrument is considered low for the purposes of paragraph 5.5.10, if the financial instrument has a low risk of default, the borrower has a strong capacity to meet its contractual cash flow obligations in the near term and adverse changes in economic and business conditions in the longer term may, but will not necessarily, reduce the ability of the borrower to fulfil its contractual cash flow obligations. Financial instruments are not considered to have low credit risk when they are regarded as having a low risk of loss simply because of the value of collateral and the financial instrument without that collateral would not be considered low credit risk. Financial instruments are also not considered to have low credit risk simply because they have a lower risk of default than the entity's other financial instruments or relative to the credit risk of the jurisdiction within which an entity operates.
4. For the purposes of measuring expected credit losses, the estimate of expected cash shortfalls shall reflect the cash flows expected from collateral and other credit enhancements that are part of the contractual terms and are not recognised separately by the entity. The estimate of expected cash shortfalls on a collateralised financial instrument reflects the amount and timing of cash flows that are expected from foreclosure on the collateral less the costs of obtaining and selling the collateral, irrespective of whether foreclosure is probable (ie the estimate of expected cash flows considers the probability of a foreclosure and the cash flows that would result from it). Consequently, any cash flows that are expected from the realisation of the collateral beyond the contractual maturity of the contract should be included in this analysis. Any collateral obtained as a result of foreclosure is not recognised as an asset that is separate from the collateralised financial instrument unless it meets the relevant recognition criteria for an asset in this or other Standards.

*International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adjustment process involves reviewing the company's financial statements and identifying any differences between the company's current accounting practices and the requirements of the IFRS. If there are any such differences, neural network makes adjustments to financial statements to bring them into compliance with the IFRS.

Conclusions

Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares is assigned short-term Ba1 & long-term Ba1 estimated rating. Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares prediction model is evaluated with Supervised Machine Learning (ML) and Spearman Correlation1,2,3,4 and it is concluded that the LITM stock is predictable in the short/long term. According to price forecasts for (n+3 month) period, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Hold

LITM Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares Financial Analysis*

Rating Short-Term Long-Term Senior
Outlook*Ba1Ba1
Income StatementCC
Balance SheetBa3Baa2
Leverage RatiosBaa2Baa2
Cash FlowB3Ba1
Rates of Return and ProfitabilityCCaa2

*Financial analysis is the process of evaluating a company's financial performance and position by neural network. It involves reviewing the company's financial statements, including the balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement, as well as other financial reports and documents.
How does neural network examine financial reports and understand financial state of the company?

Prediction Confidence Score

Trust metric by Neural Network: 82 out of 100 with 649 signals.

References

1. Hill JL. 2011. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 20:217–40
2. E. van der Pol and F. A. Oliehoek. Coordinated deep reinforcement learners for traffic light control. NIPS Workshop on Learning, Inference and Control of Multi-Agent Systems, 2016.
3. J. Harb and D. Precup. Investigating recurrence and eligibility traces in deep Q-networks. In Deep Reinforcement Learning Workshop, NIPS 2016, Barcelona, Spain, 2016.
4. V. Borkar. An actor-critic algorithm for constrained Markov decision processes. Systems & Control Letters, 54(3):207–213, 2005.
5. Arora S, Li Y, Liang Y, Ma T. 2016. RAND-WALK: a latent variable model approach to word embeddings. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 4:385–99
6. Artis, M. J. W. Zhang (1990), "BVAR forecasts for the G-7," International Journal of Forecasting, 6, 349–362.
7. M. J. Hausknecht. Cooperation and Communication in Multiagent Deep Reinforcement Learning. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 2016
Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: What is the prediction methodology for LITM stock?
A: LITM stock prediction methodology: We evaluate the prediction models Supervised Machine Learning (ML) and Spearman Correlation
Q: Is LITM stock a buy or sell?
A: The dominant strategy among neural network is to Hold LITM Stock.
Q: Is Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares stock a good investment?
A: The consensus rating for Snow Lake Resources Ltd. Common Shares is Hold and is assigned short-term Ba1 & long-term Ba1 estimated rating.
Q: What is the consensus rating of LITM stock?
A: The consensus rating for LITM is Hold.
Q: What is the prediction period for LITM stock?
A: The prediction period for LITM is (n+3 month)