The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Optimist59
I get that, but could that mean 90% of the assets as opposed to 90% of the value of the assets which is what I assumed on first reading? Might well (and probably is literal) but just got me thinking because part of me still thinks JV is the most logical conclusion to extract greatest value and reduce risk for a potential buyer while there's still lots to prove up.
According to google substantial means 90 percent.
Year 2020
Before the recent RNS and the 'substantial sale' I was convinced it would be a joint venture going forward once Japanese consortium were highlighted. They would want the boards experience in mining, the area and politics was my thought process.
However could a dividend based on the sale of 'substantially all' assets mean that all assets are underconsideration MT, WK, flanks and JV. But actually only an interest in 50% of the afore mentioned being sold? So a joint venture with a new entity? Has this been considered/discussed? Apologies if it has.
The more I think about it the more it makes sense. Just not sure if this would trigger the takeover rule of 75% of assets or not which was also mentioned in the RNS? Technically all assets are being sold, just not 100% of them?
GLA
The British now have two things to moan about;
1/. The weather.
2/. EUA share price.
The first often disappoints, the second will definitely not.
Aspen
The bod have brought LTHs huge value, not just based on the potential sale, but the development of assets and securing of further huge potential beyond the established assets. I can see why traders would be grizzling, but for investors this is amazing.
Wish there were a few more of these out there.
Fair point Dore, thanks for a thought out reply.
I think you guys need to get off Twitter and stop looking for confrontation, stories, and emoji flag waving where there aren't any. My post was about prospective companies manoeuvring to keep the current BoD in place for some time, instead of a full sale. Bringing on new blood to build experience in the company is a key role of BoD.
Ageist... deary me.
Yes age is a problem in the UK, society tends to think once you have reached a certain age, that's it you are not fit for anything, whereas in the US/ Japan for instance, it seems if you can still do it carry on doing it.
Aspen
Seems rather AGEIST!
Slightly larger company, potentially a downstream customer, Toyota - nominees for the BOD, AGE 74,67, 65, 72, 50, 52, 64, 70,56.....
BTW , think Clint was OK directing movies in his 80s.....
Clearly this BoD has been exceptional at returning value to shareholders over the many many years they have been leading the organisation. Even these exceptional guys need to pass the baton of running the company to other individuals / organisations (via various transactions).
James Nieuwenhuys is 65yrs
Iain Rawlinson is 63yrs
Christian Schaffalitzky is 68yrs
My take on the recent RNS' is the various groundwork required to pass on the reigns in a controlled manner. Tamerlan Abdikeev is a young (43 yrs) recent addition with clear linkages into growing markets for PGMs, and dare I say potentially the direction / geography that EUA is targeting over the next 5 to 10 years. He will provide a great transition within the BoD.
The closure of the FSP, with the focus on key asset sales I feel is the prospective interested party's way of keeping the experience of BoD at the table and letting them transition more slowly away form the company, as opposed to a full sale where they could lose all that experience and relationships very quickly. The BoD are a fundamental part of the value of EUA.
Just some thoughts but I feel the transition of the long term members of the BoD is driving some of these developments.
Good luck all,