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.
James, yes you took the time to read the policy and highlight 4.6 which I hadn't fully understood in the context of a special divi (as 4.7 then discussed interim divis, which distracted me), that's what I was looking for. But also your first explanation on cash in the bank made sense as one way or another (special or regular, or both) then 80% is achieved.
Also, 100% agree its the asset sale figure that's the important part - that's what will cause the SP to rerate almost immediately, the divi payout will be weeks after that.
I've also been here almost 2 years, I recall trying to buy through HSBC at ~6p and it not going through, then the next day buying in via Fidelity ISA at 7p and cursing losing out on ~1p per share profit.
James - I've actually thanked you for the explanation! and I haven't disagreed! I take your point. 4.6 doesn't make specific reference to a 'special' divi but has the mechanism in place for such an event, and in such a context the 'target' of min 80% divi can be applied. Sorted.
On others post regarding fees, expect WA fees to be around £200k to £300k.
Thanks James, I follow your answer.
I often read contracts as part of my job, so I take the words as printed, contractually you can't read between the lines and make stuff up that's not in the text. The EUA policy only discusses regular divi payouts based on the 12 month financial period, but as you reference between a special divi and regular divi should still see it being min 80%, based on cash (profit) in the bank.
Btw the EUA policy states the min 80% divi is a 'target', so there's no obligation.
Why does everyone think the dividend policy applies to special dividends (i.e. distribution of proceeds from an asset sale), when the dividend policy doesn't discuss such scenarios? The policy only discusses regular dividends based on the distribution of profits based on a net income, the results at the end of a financial year in a 12 month reporting year.
@Bobrad. Whats the current market cap? what do you think MT (or MT + Flanks) is worth? Special divi is on asset sale, the questions are what will be sold (MT plus what else?), and how much cash from asset sale EUA keep in reserve (which will still be reflected in increased SP). All estimate puts MT at least £2b, market cap just below £800m.
A special divi will be great when it comes, but whatever EUA hold back as cash in reserve still reflects in an increased share price - which you will see quicker than the divi payout which will take weeks after being announced, to voted on, to being paid out. So, if MT sells for £3B you will see it reflected as a split between divi and SP rerate.
Its a special dividend based on an asset sale. Guessed is the sale of MT, guess is for between £2 to £3 billion. Circa 3 billion shares in issue, less costs, fees, taxes, keeping cash in reserve etc. My guess is about 40 - 50p per share, that's just for sale of MT. Then cash kept in reserve results in SP rerate. Happy days. Again, this is just for MT.
Rowka in one post stated he did a NEBOSH, which is a route after leaving armed forces.
Yesterday in a response to my post, Montyboz confirmed he did the NEBOSH. It grates with me as NEBOSH is about HSE, so he shouldn't be getting worked up about dust.
Oh c'mon Rowka, some of us recall how you were flipping out over the dust and that it was going to result in the licences being revoked.
Dust emissions is an issue with all heavy industry - again, continue your research into how it is managed (it was in your NEBOSH after you left the SAS).
I can't be @rsed to trawl through all your copy and paste posts which reach no conclusions, can you remind me of the negatives in EUA you have been posting? I recall the one about dust. Did your NEBOSH not include some modules on environment?
btw - like many others I'm a LTH, no loss incurred.
Monty/Rowka etc etc - you're copying and pasting from the internet again without making any points or conclusions. What's your point? You've brought me out of LSE retirement.
So EUA are looking to develop mines in an area which is already contaminated (both soils, surface water and groundwater), in that context you can expect Russian regulators to accept a local betterment of the conditions taking into account local conditions i.e. there is no point achieving a drinking water standard local to your site when you are surrounded by contamination, but you will be expected to not make the situation worse.
Perhaps all that dust you were concerned about killed the trees? But perhaps not.
So are folks buying EUA based on the past, or based on its potential if a) its sold (big pay day) or b) going on and developing mines with Rosgeo etc, huge already funded expansion. I thought you were all here for its potential, which looks good in any scenario. If not, then sell up, move on, get some sleep.
Operating loss - amongst all the new plant they have bought for the expansion, it needs to be accounted for the various running costs (not purchase cost), even if its standing or not 100% productive while opening up a new face/seam (you will all have seen how the mines are opening up THIS year from satellite images), which skews the production cost / ton when properly accounting. It looks odd, but really it isn't, it just shows adhering to accounting rules.
Monty - perhaps look into it rather than ifs and maybes. Didn't you cover environment in your NEBOSH?
Large spill of diesel occurred, associated with a power plant operated by NN ( = not a mine, and I don't think EUA will be needing their own power station).
Licences wouldn't be granted if there was a remaining environmental concern that couldn't be mitigated against. Licences granted taking into account what happened at Norlisk, even while no doubt still a heated topic in the area.
As I've said in previous posts, all the environmental protection measures will be costed for in the setting up, operation, decommission and restoration of the mines.
Spill occurred due to permafrost melting, easily fixed for future fuel tanks by using a bunded concrete slab with a level alarm fitted, or doing proper stock reconciliation on the volume of fuel in the tank.
Murmansk is certainly a larger settlement that Monchegorsk, but looking on satellite view I can see probable quarries much nearer to it on the E105 at Kola. Also the distance from 2km south of Monchegorsk to Murmank is 140km, making it a very expensive sand when adding in transport costs. Also, if needed, someone would just open a sand and gravel quarry in Kola to meet local demand.