The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
Valid points MYF and TMS re resources.
The rampers bang on about ‘fundamental’s
The key research on any mine sale should be how much ‘proven’ resource is there....?
What is existing infrastructure and name plate capacity...
Not a ramp or deramp but folk should thoroughly research those two items then value the company.
someone will no doubt plaster the message board now with a list of ‘potential’ resources that RMM may hold or potentially hold.....
EUA have around 50koz pd equiv C1 reserves proven. That's it. The other 98% of MT is Inferred, and everything else is complete speculation worth nothing. This includes the JV licenses, which they do not own and are currently worth zero to any buyer.
Once again, the only value in the JV to any buyer of EUA is the $500k option. To assign any more value means you are taking the position that Rosgeo have charged EUA far below market value for the option, and will again charge them far below market value for their 75% of the licenses, such that EUA could immediately sell them to a buyer for more than they paid for them. This puts you in the position of believing that the Russian state would simply gift enormous amounts of value to British PIs, when the licenses are right next to the territory of a Putin-backed, Russian-owned megacorp. This, to put it kindly, is just silly.
TMS,
If only UBS, CITIC, DLA PIPER, ROSGEO etc, etc, could have had your input 2 years ago, this would have saved all and sundry a lot of time, and money. All us PI'S could have just fawned over your brilliance, and slavishly followed you eternally grateful.
1st time. This is where you need to be a little bit careful. The "de-rampers" are being disingenuous, not for the 1st time, about both acf and rosgeo.
Acf - the report talks about Mt production but in the context of the board being 100% focused on development, activating the sinosteel contract and going hell for leather on actual mining. The c.1m oz production is for year 3 following that (2023, report having been first published in Feb 20). So given it's nearly 2022 and we are still focusing on the sale, rather than activate and mine, then no we won't be producing that amount from Mt in 2023. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen, but to rubbish the report based on us not yet starting the mining route, isn't a good look.
Rosgeo - stork never mentions value only cost. If cost was the only indicator of value, nothing would ever happen as by definition no profits can ever be made. Try offering the BoD £500k to take the JV off their hands, and see what they say.
GLA
Can you actually respond to my points re
a)EUA's almost complete lack of proven resources
b)The fact that the JV is only worth $500k to a buyer unless you believe the Russian state would just gift huge value to British PIs over NN.
OSF:
Not only is the Sinosteel deal for MT only and not the flanks, not only can it not be activated without a DFS, not *only* is it only for 125koz/year and not 1m, but the latest ACF report came out in September. I will not put what I think of ACF here as it will get my post removed, but surely you can see the problem here.
a) most of the existing drilling data pre-dates jorc. So let's wait for the jorc, then we'll see.
b) i dont believe the jv areas will be sold yet, unless we get taken over completely. We're an explorer, that will likely continue post-sale with proving these up, and selling them on. Then we realise value.
Now can you answer my question about which test under Rule 15 will be met by the sale, and the Rule in gerneral triggered?
OSF:
Re the JV value, I can maybe accept the option is now worth more than $500k, ($750k? $1m?) although you're going to have to provide evidence as to how, since the only real development since EUA were granted the option is that PGM prices have fallen. What I cannot accept, and what is patently ludicrous, is the idea that this option alone is now worth tens or even hundreds of millions to EUA despite the fact they actually own none of any of the licenses.
Re Rule 15: I believe that nothing will be sold and it will therefore never be triggered.
rule 16 roasted stork taste like ......... chicken apparently :)
So your now trying to infer Russia is a rogue state with no understanding or no obligation to honour business agreements licences or contracts despite international banks and global law firms involved in Eurasia mining asset sales?
And how do you think that would benefit Russia as oppossed to developing an area to rival Bushveld with billions of rare earth metals and considerably larger areas to explore in the surrounding areas, whilst ignoring the fact EUA has represented Russia internationally?
And further to that nonsense you think EUA are that short sighted to simply 'flip' the licences to the next party and ignore the vast resources and further potential in the area whilst disrespecting the country they built a relationship with for the past 3 decades?
LMFAO....COMEDY GOLD!
If they were mining MT then I agree the plan (and 1m is still year 3 levels) becomes more relevant and something to hold the BoD to account over.
But until that decision is made, any criticism over actual 2023 mining output is somewhat moot imo
Beast:
I am saying that an option that EUA paid $500k for is worth... $500k. I am not saying anything controversial. They own nothing else.
It's the bulls who are implying something underhand is going on by suggesting that in fact EUA were simply gifted huge amounts of value by the state.
Hi TMS,
Whilst I agree with your point ref the ACF report I would say you are very much mistaken regarding what EUA have at MT.
The majority of what is at MT is C2, not an inferred resource but what qualifies as an indicated resource or probable reserve so worth more than an inferred resource but less than a measured resource or proven reserve.
A part of the C2 resources at West Nittis just scrape to a inferred resource level because they are besides the C1 reserves there. That is as per Russian Standard.
They also know both WN and L pits extend beyond what has already been proven so whilst they haven't proven how much more there is there it has more value than simply being inferred because geo and magnetic surveys that form part of a JORC report will take into account that there are extensions of the proven reserves/resources.
4 areas of the JV have proven reserves and resources, again to C1 and C2 levels. From tisnigri reports Mac has posted these areas have 3moz of Pd and 625Koz of Pt. If expressed as a Pt equivalent it's around 6.5moz of Pt equivalent.
What EUA have never revealed is what makes up the Pt equivalent figures that give the c105moz of Pt equivalent, it could include the Copper and Nickel which would up the proven 6.5moz Pt equivalent. EUA should have clearly stated how the Pt equivalent was reached and any JORC report that gave a Pt equivalent would list what was included (Copper, Nickel, Pd, Pt, gold etc) and the prices of each material at the time of the report.
So there is a lot more value there than you believe there to be.
POAZ for example may be P2 inferred resources but being the same source rock and same type of multi layered reef type deposit as MT and being close to it has a bearing on it and it's perceived value which is higher in it's potential for delivering on what may be there than if it was a stand alone deposit away from something proven as MT has been.
Calamari,
UBS, DLA, WI are simply companies being paid to provide a service. They are expressing no opinion on the valuation.
How can any of us interact with a poster with a clear agenda and narrative on the fact he wants his opinions to affect holders to sell to bolster his bank account ? Very few can really move the sp and way up or down but the narrative is to create negativity, none of us know the exact outcome but work on facts we can see from EUA , Russia as a whole , mining sector and the green revolution incoming. This has enabled us to make a decision to invest in EUA , it’s very simple and we hope for the best outcome which IMO will be a sale more than the sp has been this far.
I don’t wish anyone loses money in the market but for the shorters, rampers and deramper s I hope they lose enough to change their greedy, selfish ways for sure .
Hold tight everyone :)
MrYFronts:
I'll cede the point since you do seem to know what you're talking about more than most. What would you say such resources are worth on market given comparative valuations and transactions? I'm not aware of anyone ever paying anything over nominal value for P2 PGMs.
' EUA were simply gifted huge amounts of value by the state'
The state benefits hugely thats the point.....however fair play you acknowledge the 'huge amounts of value' contained thats good.
It's a moment, an epiphany, time for you to go long! :D
I will have to go through the earlier RNS's but I was under impression that UBS fee was centred around a sale happening i.e. no sale no fee so you argument would seem so what irrelevant, a bit like your posts in general. Can i suggest you stop making off the cuff remarks and actually make points that start a conversation and do not make those who have done there research and taken a position laugh.
If anyone has ever worked within an investment bank such as UBS they would be fully aware of the total nonsense being spoken by some posters here.
Why people pay any attention to such comments is beyond me.
In regards to the current lack of update from the BOD, i would make two observations:
1) I believe 'shortly' is very much approaching and feel we will have an update at the very latest end of next week.
2) EUA have a history of defending the share price, as such i expect they are pushing hard to release share price enhancing news.
MrYFronts:
And to add to my last post, what are the resources worth given that EUA do not own the any of whatever may be in the JV and therefore obviously cannot sell it to any buyer.
EIE01:
I completely agree that the Board as past masters at ramping and will be desperate to defend the share price. The question is, how long can they avoid admitting that there is no sale? I'm not going to make any firm predictions given that they've managed an astonishing 25 months and three placings so far
Calamari:
It's not that complicated. EUA approached them saying they wanted help selling the company. UBS said yes and are taking fees for doing nothing. When the no sale rns comes, EUA will obviously not say that there was never any chance of a sale, they will say that having studied the options the board have decided it is best to go alone. No reputational damage for UBS, retainers banked, trebles all round.
As to why other AIM cos don't do this, it takes quite a bit of time and money to set up with no guarantee of success. I would expect others to start doing similar though, after what EUA have done.
Calamari:
Yeah no doubt. That just makes it all the more hilarious that EUA PIs seem to think the state will gift *them* free money and not the putin-backed megacorp next door.
TMS
I have no idea as to your background, nor do i care, but your comments as to how an investment bank operates is complete and utter nonsense, and that is a FACT.
TMS,
I don't think you are mad. Definitely very dedicated and have a financial interest in driving the share price down. Whether you are right about valuation of the assets, remains to be seen.