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.
Dmitry 'Moses' Suschov moves to close the M&A deal -
"The Directors have agreed to release Dmitry Suschov from the Board in order to allow him to focus as the Company's Chief M&A Officer on the M&A work streams with Eurasia's professional advisers."
It is a move in order to have someone in the correct titled position to deal with the appropriate people on the other side of the table -
Example of similar role, but for the other side of the fence. Whoever is acquiring will have someone like this appointed -
https://www.therecycler.com/posts/xerox-names-chief-strategy-and-ma-officer/
NN have a guy, different title, similar job to the lady in the last link -
https://www.nornickel.com/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/nornickel-announces-appointment-of-alexander-grubman-as-senior-vice-president-for-strategy-and-business-development/
Just as each side have their own legal team, each side also have a senior M&A representative. We didn't need one until there is the M&A to do, similar to how we did not need the legal guy, IAIN RAWLINSON, until there was the legal work to do.
It is very close imho
GLA
I wish the negotiations could be recorded and we could watch after. That would be some film. Edited obviously, not in real time.:-)
It sure would be interesting. I wouldn't want to come in with an insulting offer, I've seen DS karate moves!!
We are close , but I can’t understand why markets have us still at 18p when we know value of assets , placement price of 22.5p and a previous independent valuation of around 56p, all seems a bit crazy
Don't forget Shorters are like gamblers.
Peter47 - it does all seem a bit crazy ... but I think you must consider two factors causing the sp to stay below 22.5p.
First is that Suschov is having to do an awful lot of haggling to get the right proportion of the "future" gains to himself / existing shareholders / institutional investors / Russian Government and the ultimate buyer(s)
Second is that the "private placing" has shown that existing shareholders can be side-lined at a whim by the BoD if necessary. The next "accelerated book-build" reserved for "preferred institutional investors" might be 10-20% of share capital at 15p to "grease" the right wheels. Until the first offer price is announced there is no valuation on this stock.
My own view is that any private investor (who isn't over-exposed) should hold out for 50p+ ... but since my personal holding has grown in value to more than twice any other single name stock I have in my SIPP I'm not prepared to add.
The current mining operation has a stated 64k oz capacity ... this is valued way above that level. But if the flanks licenses make the prospects of a 640k oz miner within a few years realistic then so is 70p ... and if we're genuinely mining 1000k oz for 25-40yrs to come then why not 200-350p !
On reading over the RNS regarding the change in duties of the Directors, I get the impression that thing are progressing very nicely and most notable is that the disclaimer that points out that EUA has the right to withdraw from the FSP has been removed.
Why would that be significant? Dmitry Suschov (Moses) made it quite clear (In the proactive interview, see link below) that this sort of disclaimer is always used by Directors of companies involved in potential sales so that they cover all bases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_YMY6yiMDE&t=2s
(@27 min DS explains the importance of a disclaimer).
So I conclude and off course it is just my opinion that EUA are already happy with what offers are already on the table.
Once the fine details have been checked and all parties are completely happy we should expect the big RNS.
In the meantime we can also expect other information that could boost the SP before an offer is revealed.
Still looking for multiples of todays SP, and £1+ could be achievable after a bidding war.
If Rowka is correct about a Mega offer of £3+ then even better. I for one will not disagree with him and the in depth research that he has provided this board with. There is a mention of working on multiple streams with potential buyers, so maybe Rowka will have the last laugh at the doubters.
GLA DYOR.
Sharegar.
Agree Sharegar, and the disclaimer regarding 'no guarantee of a sale' has been removed from the last 2 RNS's also, as has the direct reference to NN processing facilities being close by to MT, these things are not excluded for no good reason, they have to be carefully considered to be put in any communication, and equally considered to be taken out IMO.
Maybe the 'other' possible buyers were unhappy that NN kept getting a direct mention...just a thought.
It is also clear we have 'several' interested parties, and at this stage, some 12 weeks in, not one has removed themselves from the process, if they had I believe, like with AA, we would have had some form of notification.
As has been mentioned numerous times, maybe that is because they are ALL involved in some way, each taking a bit of the pie!
GLA
Originally I thought a bumper offer wasbinlielt iro Rowka's suggestions. However, if being sold in different parts then it may aggregate to a bumper offer. Also, maybe sp being suppressed as offer/s will bemultiple of sp??
earache - saying DS has been 'demoted from the BOD' is just silly and you are clearly trying to drive negativity.
There is no suggestion at all that this is the case, yes of course his role has changed and he has come off the Board and relinquished some responsibilities but to suggest this is a forced demotion as you do is frankly ridiculous.
He is the largest share holder in EUA with massive skin in the game, you reckon interested parties do not consider him worthy of talking too, or that he is not up to the job, come on...!
DS undoubtedly already has, and will continue to have, a huge say in what happens here.
Earache, I think you're forgetting that DS owns over 20% of the company. It makes no difference if he's on the board or not in terms of seniority because the clout he carries comes from his ownership not from his directorship.
His counterparts at other companies may have been promoted up to that level, but are nowhere near being his peers since none of them own 20% of the companies they represent.
earache is an absolute fool, i have no idea why people bother responding to him. Poor chap wriggles around in that green filter box spouting gibberish.
GLA
All true shareholders know what's going on, it's in RNS. NDA's were signed by parties wanting to acquire MT, it's in RNS -
"All existing non-disclosure agreements interested parties have already signed with the Company in relation to the potential acquisition of the Monchetundra asset remain valid."
Now Dmitry is concentrating on our side of that acquisition -
"The Directors have agreed to release Dmitry Suschov from the Board in order to allow him to focus as the Company's Chief M&A Officer on the M&A work streams with Eurasia's professional advisers."
But wait, James is to also focus on the sale -
"Christian Schaffalitzky, Eurasia's Executive Chairman commented: "This reorganization is designed to optimise our execution team. We are delighted that James has agreed to take on the CEO role. James's focus will be to work with our advisers on the sale process. "
The sale of what, Monchetundra and West kytlim, like he states -
James Nieuwenhuys, Eurasia's CEO and Executive Director: "In my new capacity as CEO and Executive Director I will continue to work with our advisers on the sale process of the Company and its world class assets, Monchetundra and West Kytlim, leveraging my relationships made over more than 40 years in the mining industry and securing a deal beneficial to our shareholders".
SALE SALE SALE time.
Dmitry 'Moses' Suschov will bring it over the line, it's what he's very good at!
GLA
Dmitry’s the dogs danglies
Earache, ill-considered comment my friend. The reason a shareholder of 20% of the business takes a role on the board is to protect their investment. Clearly Dmitry feels the business is in safe hands and can concentrate on helping finalize the deal. If he thought they weren't capable he would be in a position to enforce changes given his level of ownership. Just chill and get some Earex
I raised a point earlier - because of the sheer size of his holding, is there anywhere in the Code that suggests that such high holding could give rise to conflict of interest when putting any deal to the shareholders and for that reason DS has now moved aside? It seems to me that this move might enable the company to show that the offer price which may be put to shareholders is not influenced by the size of DS's holding. Is this a non - point?
Non point professor he only has 20% not 51%
He could have a mumble and a grumble but if the man from UBS say yes well that's it unless of course he leads a shareholder revolt
Prof, I think this is a point that anyone who loves a good conspiracy theory is going to really get their juices flowing. We’ll never know the answer to it, but if it helps to pass a few minutes my theory is as follows;
I think there’s been a bit of a falling out in the boardroom over offers and they mutually agreed that DS should become M&A officer to stop the argument. I of course offer this purely to keep the conspiracy going.
ATB, Pete
Hi Earache,
If I held as many shares in EUA as DS then I would want to be highly involved in any deal.
The fact that it's well known that he is off to start his next venture when the deal is done here is well known and would be well known by all involved at UBS, Citic and potential buyers.
EUA's assets also include anyone working for the company that could be seen as getting it to the position it's in and potential buyers would want to know who from the EUA team will be staying on board after the deal.
Clearly some members of the EUA team have been brought in specifically to help broker a deal and so would be expected and known to be moving on once the deal is concluded.
The fact that DS may not be able to sign off concluding deal documents is immaterial, he is there to have a say in a deal and help broker it. That is the most important part and the sign off is unimportant in relation to negotiations.
DS is the largest shareholder. He is effectively the man the BoD need to convince on any offer.
Having him at the table so that the big decisions can be taken in the room is a good thing.
GLA
Tr1ck
earache - no rose tinted spectacles here I can assure you, however you stated "He's been moved out to the side - demoted from the Board - and is now the Mergers and Acquisitions Officer" furthermore you go onto close your post by saying "DS is out to grass" - forgive me but I take those comments as rather negative in the context in which you write them and it certainly suggested you believed it be 'forced'.
You yourself are asking for 'balanced opinion' - does that allow for opinions out with your own personal view? To merely respond in the way you have to my own opinions suggests perhaps you do not actually seek what you suggest.
I agree with the facts you have stated, and not contradicted them in any way, they are as you say, it is the interpretation of those facts where we perhaps differ.
Contrary to your view, I think it is also a fact at this stage that no one has thus far left the process unless of course you know otherwise. That is as much a fact as you stating that DS has asked to come off the Board, that is not stated anywhere, do you know that to be fact?
The RNS actually says that "The Directors have agreed to release Dmitry Suschov from the Board in order to allow him to focus as the Company's Chief M&A Officer on the M&A work streams with Eurasia's professional advisers." It does not state he asked for this you have assumed that to be the case.
My point is we clearly have differing views, that is fine, it is why we are here, we will likely not agree but it does not make you any more right or wrong than me.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do, I am here to the end.
Interested parties, more than one, 12 weeks in and they're still here and still very much interested. This will be after doing their own thorough due diligence at this stage. The competition looks intense, but it's only a matter of time before it concludes -
"James has got detailed knowledge of Eurasia's assets and he is of immense help both in terms of the sale process and in terms of demonstrating to the interested parties the strength of our own management team and its capacity to execute."
GLA
Happy Scott
Yes there are several interested parties. All you need to do is look at the latest RNS
Hi Earache,
You say "once again mac misleads and others follow".
Are you sure you're not trying to mislead hoping others will follow ?
DS's interest is in getting as much for his shares as he can. An FSP is in progress with more than one interested party and was started because parties were approaching EUA to buy their assets.
As such DS's focus need be on nothing other than a deal and then moving on to his next, known about venture, so why not ask to be moved off the BOD to focus on what matters to him (and all other shareholders), the best deal.
Why try and spin it as a negative.
UBS, Citic and VTB wouldn't be interested parties unless a deal was to be had, they would be wasting their time.
If they have been lieing aBout citic then I’m pretty sure citic would have taken legal action by now.
Your a one post wonder, a shorter or looking for cheap entry. Don’t be tight, just pay the 17.5p it’s at now