Member Info for Brookkers

Hi A1ex
That would be very interesting !
Given that MT is publicly up for sale, I do think the licensing authority will be asking .... who are we actually issuing this license to ? What is their production plan etc?!
GL

Dealer - fwiw I would guess that EUA intend to stay suspended until the flanks license is issued. IMO EUA may have suspended to avoid large stakes being built at low sp.

Impossible to know how close the license may be of course, but the original MT license took around 6 months from MoD approval and it is now around 6 months from the MoD approval for the flanks in Dec-19 .... so maybe it is about due, assuming no delays due to Covid impacts. Having said that I think there could well be some 'complications' with the license issue or 'clarifications' required in view of the prospective buyers circling ...

what drivel

Using discounted cashflow calculations, ACF derive GBP values for EUA assets as follows (see page 12 of the report):
West Kytlim £33m (1.11p per share)
Semonovsky £12m (0.40p per share)
Monchetundra £192m (6.47p per share)
Monch. Flanks £1,476m (49.75p per share)

The risk-adjusted WACC values (WACC = cost of capital or annual discount) used by ACF in their discounted cashflows are 10% for WK, 12% for MT and 30% for MT Flanks. ACF note that the 30% discount for MT Flanks is higher because there is no license and no EPC in place.

Once the MT Flanks license is issued, the risk factor is obviously reduced and the value is obviously increased. For example, applying a discount factor of 12% to ACF cashflow figures for MT Flanks, I calculate a revised valuation of £4,430m for EUA's 80% share which equates to 149.3p per share, assuming £/$ of 1.30 and 2,967m shares.

Obviously these valuations don't translate into sale prices as the buyer will be taking the risk of getting into production but they do provide some idea of the parameters for negotiation ....

As usual all IMO and DYOR

I would recommend anyone genuinely interested in EUA to read this report as it sets out a transparent calculation of the asset values. Base data and assumptions are all stated so that anyone can make adjustments to the calculations if there is something they disagree with. This is in contrast to the usual style of broker notes, which tend to state a price target without any detailed backup to show how the figures have been calculated.

I think the point about the ACF report is not really who wrote it but that it provides a totally transparent calculation of asset values. All the numbers and assumptions are clearly set out so that anyone can follow the calculation and adjust any assumptions that they disagree with to get to their own valuation. Similarly the assumptions can be updated as things develop - e.g. the very conservative discount factor for the MT flanks can be updated when the license is issued.

The statement about the report being intended for professional investors is surely just the equivalent of saying - this is not investment advice ...

... and that is based on 2m ounces

Listed companies are required to file annual accounts to Companies House within 6 months of their year end ... EUA year end is 31st December so their deadline is 30th June ...

1 Across - Insulting remark (4,3)
Hmmm, let me think ...

Stix - I believe the EUA filing deadline for annual accounts is 30th June although CH have made a 3 month extension available for companies that have suffered Covid-19 delays ..

... note there is a 3 month extension to filing deadlines available for companies experiencing delays due to Covid-19.

We must be in the Doldrums ... waiting to pick up the trade winds !

Jonesy - yes could be modelling MT deposits in more detail or could be connected to the Feasibility Study work for the "entire mining license area at West Kytlim" (as described on page 1 of the 09-Apr update) ...

Afternoon GFD
The key question I suppose is what happens in the event of a default? If the short seller fails to replace the shares, is the broker still responsible to keep the original shareholder whole ...?

There were a few posts yesterday on exposure to lending of shares by brokers to short sellers. Checking some terms and conditions is revealing ...

HL Ts and Cs state: "Investments will not be lent to a third party and we will not borrow money against your investments. "

Barclays Smart Investor terms state " We will not engage in stock lending for any Asset in your Account."

Interactive Investors seem to have a different policy. Their ISA terms state:
"You agree that we may act for other customers in a wide range of transactions with interests that differ from, or conflict with, yours. You also agree that we will not be required to disclose to you information known to us (or another member of our Group) that is confidential to those parties and may be relevant to your interests."

Clearly it's worth checking !

Evening DarkEnergy
Tbh it never occurred to me that my broker could be lending my shares out !
I wonder what I will find if I check my Barclays terms and conditions...!

TBTT - wow thanks, maybe contact the BoD and let them know the big mistake they are making ...

Just checked HL terms and conditions which state that 'your shares will not be lent to third parties' ...

Let's not forget that these people are not posting all day every day here and on ADVFN to share any constructive research or give any genuine advice.

They are working, possibly together, to spin endless conspiracy theories and spread negative sentiment with the sole aim of spooking investors into selling their shares at the first opportunity. They may hold short positions but I suspect they are just day traders hoping to create some volatility in the SP when suspension ends.

Meanwhile, EUA seems to be in a very strong position with a profitable operation and a valuable asset for sale ...

GLA

You were going to take this off the board and on to email ....