Analyse a set of junior mining holdings for what they actually expose you to — commodity concentration, jurisdiction risk and development-stage mix — because a portfolio of ten companies is often one bet held ten times.
Add the companies you hold, then analyze the set for commodity, geographic and stage concentration.
Junior mining portfolios accumulate rather than get designed. Positions arrive one at a time, each bought for its own reasons, and the collection is rarely examined as a whole. The usual result is a portfolio that feels diversified because it holds a dozen names and is in fact a single concentrated bet.
Ten gold explorers in Ontario is not diversification. It is one position in the gold price and one position in Ontario permitting, split across ten balance sheets — which adds company-specific risk without reducing the risk that actually dominates the outcome.
This tool takes a set of companies and shows what the collection exposes you to: which commodities, which jurisdictions, which development stages, and how concentrated each of those is.
Commodity exposure is usually the biggest surprise. Investors who believe they hold a spread of metals frequently find 80% of the portfolio sitting on one, because gold juniors outnumber everything else and get bought one at a time.
Geographic concentration is the risk most often underestimated. Jurisdiction determines permitting timelines, tax and royalty regimes, and the possibility of expropriation. A portfolio concentrated in one country is exposed to a single set of political decisions, and those decisions arrive without warning.
Stage diversification describes the shape of your risk and your timeline. A portfolio entirely of grassroots explorers is a series of lottery tickets with no near-term cash flow anywhere in it. One entirely of developers is exposed to permitting and construction risk in unison. A mix spreads both the risk and the timing.
There is no correct allocation, because the right shape depends on what you are trying to do. Concentration is a legitimate strategy if it is deliberate. The problem this tool addresses is concentration you did not know you had.
A reasonable target for a portfolio intended to be diversified is no single commodity above roughly half, no single jurisdiction dominating, and a spread across stages so that not everything depends on the same catalyst arriving at the same time.
The subtler risk is correlated dilution. In a weak market every junior needs to raise at once, so a portfolio of pre-revenue explorers dilutes in unison exactly when share prices are lowest. Holding a company or two with a funded treasury changes that dynamic more than adding another explorer does.
Worth checking alongside this: whether your holdings actually move independently. The Metal Leverage Analyzer includes a correlation matrix, and tightly correlated holdings are not diversifying anything regardless of how the exposure chart looks.
You supply a set of companies and the tool aggregates their project data — primary commodity, country and development stage — alongside market capitalisation, to produce the exposure breakdowns.
There is no correct number, and the count matters far less than what the holdings expose you to. Ten companies in the same commodity and the same jurisdiction is one concentrated bet held ten ways — it adds company-specific risk without reducing the commodity and political risk that will actually determine the outcome.
Because a single political decision can reprice every holding at once. Jurisdiction determines permitting timelines, royalty and tax regimes, and in the worst cases the security of tenure itself. A portfolio concentrated in one country is exposed to one government's choices, and those tend to arrive without warning.
No, and this is worth remembering when reading it. Exposure is computed across the companies you list, treating each equally, so a small speculative position counts the same as a core holding. It maps the names in the portfolio rather than the money in it.
The tendency for pre-revenue explorers to need financing at the same time. In a weak market every junior's treasury runs low together, so they all raise into the same poor conditions and dilute in unison — precisely when share prices are lowest. Holding companies at different funding stages mitigates this more effectively than simply holding more explorers.