Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
When the Board issued the RNS for the EGM it was that they needed the ability to issue shares / raise funds in order to strengthen their position.
An II purchasing shares other then through a placement clearly doesn't raise any money for the company, so a placement of some description had to take place.
The purchase price was market value and they also received the warrants which essentially doubles their potential stake. So yes, the II does get something in return, especially if the share price rises from here.
Whether or not we ever know the identity of the investor shouldn't really matter. It could be someone's mother for all I care. The point is that without it the company doesn't have the £14m they say they need to strengthen their position.
Suggestions that the board have kept the price low are frankly absurd. A high share price at all times clearly assists them in fund raising. Suggestions that the II might get an invite to the board's next venture as a kickback are also ridiculous. If the II has the money they can join that venture without being any part of EUA, and also our board have a fiduciary duty to EUA and its shareholders, they appear to be complying with that and I don't see anything to suggest they are simply out to line their own pockets.
Would it have been better if shares hadn't been issued? It depends what the money is spent on and what the next steps are. (Obviously).
I trust the Board because I believe the information provided in RNS is accurate. Does it leave information that I would love to know? yes. However they and any potential purchasers need to know the information. The market can wait as far as I am concerned.
Some of the comments are mind boggling. We voted to strengthen the Board's hand by allowing them to issue shares. They chose to issue said shares and says it strengthens their hand. What more needs to be said?
Because I know this thread is going to be lost soon to a lot of the other weirdness on here today, I just wanted to point out that this is the sort of thread which really helped me when I first started reading these boards (waaay before I invested, and waaay before I ever posted).
Without being condescending (and apologies if that is how I come across here):
It is good to see proper questions. People who genuinely want to know and expand their knowledge, and it is great to see proper responses.
So thank you Lucando and Tigra for keeping this board useful to all.
(I sound like a sanctimonious pillock. Not intended but yeah, it had to be said).
To be fair many men say "Massive" when they in fact mean "distinctly average".
In all seriousness though, Massive on its own is a hard word to attribute any value to. A 30% dividend is arguably "massive" and I don't think many would be that delighted if it were as low as that. (I am not expecting it to be this BTW).
All fun and games until someone gives us some figures.
I found that interview a bit weird.
Sounded like he both knew quite a lot and the sort of values the board expect, but at the same time seemed to be a bit all over the place and clueless as to what would actually transpire.
Not sure what I make of that.
He sounded incredibly bullish on the value point though which was reassuring.
Billions - Are you as critical of those that doubt EUA and peddle valuations of 12 mill for MT?
Surely their claims are likewise blown out of the water?
OR.... the ACF report is just an opinion piece which forms part of the jigsaw investors should consider before or during investment decisions. It states it is conservative. I am sure some here will argue that the contrary must be true as they dismissed the initial lower valuation as ramptastic.
The ACF report clearly changes little. The share price hasn't rerated because of it, so clearly it is about as compelling for the market as a Motley Fool article. It may or may not be better researched, but it is clearly not conclusive either way.
I didn't post here last night, although I read the RNS and a lot of the posts.
Initially when I saw the title of the RNS I viewed it as a negative. Then, when I read the RNS I felt more positive but not blown away.
The price action today is disappointing but not particularly surprising.
The update hasn't clarified any figures for a sale. It hasn't given us a timescale for a sale. It hasn't really told us anything we didn't previously know, other than the end of the FSP.
I remain optimistic and confident that the board know what they are doing. They have a good track record with this company and I trust the process.
The RNS can be read either way and will be subject to confirmation bias. If you think it is all smoke and mirrors you point to the end of the FSP with no sale, the similarity in wording now from 10 months ago etc. If you think this is only the beginning you point to the first (I think) official mention of a "significant" dividend. You point to progressing with a credible bidder.
So yes, I wish this had taken off and there was a new wave of confidence, but I understand why it hasn't.
I retain my full holding. I remain "in the red". I remain hopeful of a positive outcome.
My own view? I think progress has clearly been made. I don't think the board would have made the comments they did about a dividend unless they genuinely believed at least a partial sale was more likely than not to proceed.
I also think it is worth noting the absence of any reference to Sinosteel. To me that means one of two things:
1 - MT is being sold and therefore can't trigger the Sinosteel contract.
2 - The board didn't consider the news contained in the RNS as negative and therefore didn't feel the need to reference the "fallback" position.
I have stated before that I struggle to see MT sold without the JV rights. Likewise I struggle to see MT being retained without the JV rights. They are, in my opinion, greater than the sum of their parts.
To me that would suggest we may potentially be keeping WK, and / or the other minor things the company has which rarely get mentioned. That would satisfy the need for a shareholder vote, and would also explain why a dividend rather than a full company sale.
All my opinion and rambling.
Does anyone check the previous price movements these days before bleating on a bulletin board?
The share price (generally) has been in a fairly narrow range. It goes down to 24ish p and up to 29ish p. Bounces around in between.
At least that is the pattern since the sharp drop to 14p which took everyone by surprise.
If we are "guessing" about the share price in the next week or two surely the range has to feature in your analysis? Why does it bounce of 24p? Why doesn't it go above 29p?
Alternatively why not tell us why it is going to break out of this range, in either direction.
Meh, bah humbug, lazy posting is winding me up.
Our Market Cap has also decreased (fairly significantly) yet these funds keep buying.
If these funds were buying in EUA as they attract more finance they must presumably be purchasing other stock in far larger scale to keep the tracker balanced. Otherwise you would have expected them to divest as we have reduced our market capacity.
Either that or not all Blackrock funds are managed by algorithm and someone somewhere thinks we are worth backing (albeit with client's money).
I think the reason for TMS's valuation is that he is using a very very very conservative assumption regarding the resources EUA has.
IF TMS is correct on that, then yeah, what he says is correct, other companies are massively undervalued in comparison.
However, that assumption is that EUA basically has nothing in the ground of any value, something most posting here disagree with.
Trying to put a price on what is in the ground is pointless if there isn't any agreement as to what is actually there to value. This is where opinions come in as to what EUA have, what information may or may not be in the data room and how easy, or otherwise, it would be to monetarise the remaining resources (if indeed they exist).
I disagree with TMS's basic assumptions, so we will have alternative valuations. Hence why he is shorting and I am not.
Question for TBTT & TMS & Billions etc...
If we assume that most people here want to make money.
If we assume most people research to at least some extent before investing.
If we also assume that bulletin boards are unlikely to significantly alter the share price.
How do you account for the current market cap given your concerns for the company? What has driven the price to be what it is?
Or do you attribute the price to bulletin boards and pirate ships?
I have seen the light. The future is darkness. There is no point in trying to improve anything. If it isn't efficient in 2021 then just stop. Give up. There is no point.
EUA don't have anything worth digging. It can't be used for anything. The huge increase in price and demand is a fallacy.
-----
Honestly? The above is how this board reads at times.
I encourage people to question, to take a contrary view, to research both the positives and the negatives of an investment. However... please, please, please, please change the record. We have heard this one. It sucks and there is no substance to it.
If you want to contribute post something thought out, referenced and logical. I am sure that would be a better way to get a proper discussion than the ridiculous hyperbola that escapes from orifices unknown.
I appreciate the responses to my query.
I am just struggling to reconcile in my own head how to value this share. In some respects it feels like a bet on the company's ownership of Bitcoin and Bitcoin going up, but in order to generate longer term return is really comes down to what the Company does with it or how it chooses to diversify.
I struggle to see how the price of the share can continue to rise and sustain that if the Company continue to collect Bitcoin indefinitely. There has to be a mechanism somewhere for a return to the investors. I guess I will continue to monitor things here, or possibly gamble a small position.
I say gamble simply because I can't work out the long term intention of the company. It isn't like a product manufacturer who sells the end product. The company is based on accumulation which in itself doesn't benefit shareholders.
If the right investment decisions are made down the road I can see Argo becoming a huge success (even more so than it already has been). If it becomes an inflated Bitcoin wallet... then I dunno.
I'm not invested here, but it is a stock which I have been monitoring for some time.
My question, which I have been unable to answer, is what the long game is here. I understand accumulating Bitcoin in the hope / expectation that it increases. This means no dividends for shareholders at present and an ever increasing capital held by the Company.
Do we have any idea if there is a point that the company would sell / use those bitcoin? would it be to fund new projects or for dividend payments?
It appears, not unreasonably, that expansion to date has come from issuing shares. I am just curious if people are expecting this to become a dividend share or whether this is something that you hold then sell once you reach your own target price?
If any of us could accurately predict the future we wouldn’t be on this BB but would be buying our next guaranteed lottery jackpot.
Not predicting the fall from 40p or not knowing the FSP would continue for as long as it had is not something that can be changed. Someone posted why they are pleased with their investment. Fair play.
Clearly you aren’t.
If you want to say trade or short term trade I’m sure there are better candidates than EUA. Perhaps Argo for one? Please take a look and save us from your constant drivel.
Rainbow chasing is all well and good... if you succeed.
Surprisingly few people willing to admit when it goes wrong.
Sure, could sell here and buy the next get rich quick share. It may crash in value and you may miss the boat here. These are the decisions we all take daily.
I'm not surprised to see another slight dip in the SP (still within a range) after yesterday because it appears to me that the FSP is ticking along but no imminent sign of conclusion. So yeah, folk will abandon ship to chase rainbows. I sincerely hope they succeed, in the same way I sincerely hope that me staying put with my current holding is the safest investment choice for me with the continued prospect of a good return.
Any suggestion that everyone is better trying to trade is dangerous, most will lose money and I have many doubts about the claims made by numerous posters on these boards when they claim to time things to perfection, yet are still trading and still on BBs and never seem to call anything else right....
Course they do. They have the same issues getting a loan as everyone else. If your completing a house sale this week you don’t have time to get a mortgage because that takes weeks.
We have no idea about Anders’ portfolio, income or anything else. So telling him what he can and can not do seems a bit weird.
Either you take him at his word and accept his posts as explanation, or you think the worst and everything is a conspiracy. I can’t help you if you think the later.