We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
The one thing that is always at the back of my mind is confirmation bias. I am very aware that we are in a bubble that is sometimes not helped by people being shouted down with reasonable questions. The antidote is good research, much provided by some great posters on this BB. The article in question is does nothing to alleviate any confirmation bias due to obvious lack of research..
lazy research by the author me thinks ?
I took it that when we get the flanks approved 70p is more than likely. Yes we are being sold but no one knows what the price will be so let’s be happy that 70p without a sale is a nice position to be in.
Good points Bacefook.
Personally I consider it at best disingenuous. I think that the author knows much more about our prospects but has chosen not to include them.
Every advancing weekend I get more confident and encouraged for the eventual outcome as it becomes closer,
a rainbow with a real pot of gold and the gold is just a small part of the prize.
Trift
Totally agree Bacefook, she had to write about something so picked EUA and tried to use Glencore as a comparator. poorly researched indeed. Amateurish imo.
The very things that she says are a positive for Glencore i.e that there will be an upturn post covid, also work for eua. Also, if there is no sale then eua can and will just crack on with the mining. It may take longer for the share price to rise to some of the speculated prices but rise it will. She fails to mention the fact that the BOD are all heavily invested, for me this is a true indicator of potential, along with already proved resources and licenses.
Possibly the article is aimed at day traders but at best it is under researched and at worst disingenuous. Dyor
Further to this I would also add that anyone can write for fool.co.uk. Their opinions are no different to any opinion you would find here. Take it as another view and DYOR. I've done that and while my valuation is on the low side to many here I still believe there is value for shareholders at the current price by at least a factor of 2.
Personally I wouldn't trust someone who writes for fool.co.uk and is "studying IT and finance" any more than I would trust anyone else on this board.
I've saved the link so I can go back and laugh in a few months now. GLA
The author does not provide any indication of a potential valuation. I could understand her argument if the value of the company was lower than the market cap.
The key line for me is "The recent share price hike may have already priced the positive speculation in" with emphasis on the word *may*.
If she could offer some indication or workings of what her valuation of the company is then I may find her arguments more believable. However, when I read this I just think she had taken one look at the recent share price movement and not considered any other factors or how truly undervalued the current price is.
I wish I'd put on my "Tennas" for men before I read that article..........Jesus
Didn't really follow his logic...seemed to be looking for plusses for Glencore but not for Eurasia. just my opinion.
Their previous advice was to sell after we resumed trading. Looks like poor advice so far...