Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Why am I interested in NAV - well it is maybe what the RF may dictate or suggest as maximum asset sale for EUA.

I suggest this will be bottom for EUA - if goes below NAV then possible buy point.

Aubery,

It is the decline since mid September (from 3p) that I have no reason for and is of interest - and it is so apparent to any LSE user - just click on the charts and set to 1 month or 3 months.

That's why I suggest - is it an attempt for SP to equalise with NAV.

The other decline we all know about.

Just for information, other PGM miners are down 5%

THS down 5% today - MCAP now £180m with net cash of +£100m : means company is actually valued at £80m.

Again - I need to correct myself.

Yesterday I stated

"The rate at which the EUA SP has declined over the last few weeks if extrapolated, means NAV is equalised in approximately 4 weeks time"

Looking at the SP now, I suggest this equalisation between SP and NAV shall be achieved within 2 weeks not 4 weeks.

I have a few replies to the questions raised towards me yesterday:

Mr SteJStej, The recent SP decline started around mid-late September (where it was approx 3p) and had already fallen to 2.45p at 5 October - so I would not put it on any issues within the middle east - however I am sure the issues there will make any SP recovery harder.

Mr Iknownuffin & Mr Fatlad, The Actual EUA NAV is listed in the accounts and you can see in the LSE website under EUA Fundamentals - but I suspect you already know this.

As for Projected NAV which is based on speculation (using assumptions and lots of things - and open to differing opinions) probably easier to look at NPV for the assets - but it is not NAV for EUA as EUA cannot claim ownership of minerals until after they are mined - and it is all speculative anyway (which accountants don't like but brokers and equity research companies LOV).

Here we can make reference to everyone's favourite report by our friends at ACF!! because many here are familiar with it. In their updated report dated 6 Sep 2021 - they had Implied MCAP of £2.9b - however I (and others) raised the issue that their calculations appear to have during 2023 - 2026, revenues of $2.6b, $2.8b, $3b & $3.4b, which appears very strange for a mining asset still under exploration studies at the time (sept 2021) and without DFS or mining licence or any procurement activities for mining equipment in progress or LOI for construction contractors issued . . etc.. . etc. As a lot of the NPV on the ACF valuation is based on revenues in these first few magical years of operation then for this (and other reasons), I did take the ACF valuation with the same pinch of salt I have with my chips - and rather use other realistic models/calc (this is my opinion - others will differ). I would have considered 4 or 5 years for planning, procurement and construction and another 2 or 3 years minimum for commissioning to 100% operational. Anyone reviewing the ACF report nowadays - possibly also take into account lower metal prices, apply higher CAPEX for inflation and higher CAPEX due to sanctions & possibly longer build programs (also due to sanctions).

Other projected NPV - from WA report on NKT - indicated the NKT NPV of $1.6b based on Nov 2021 prices at discount 8.33%. Again - their report is 100% their view. I have always thought 8.33% is a low discount to apply in the jurisdiction of Russia - but is my opinion. When apply different discounts into a model of the WA NKT data - it goes negative at 22% onwards (still using the higher metal price). Amalgamating a drop in metal price with a higher discount than that used by WA (higher than 8.33%) it is not long until you become negative and on the wrong side of the accountants who are the BOSS and always need to say YES.

Sorry to long!

The decline in the EUA share price over the last few weeks appear to be caused for no apparent reason (no issued RNS or major change of position within the RF).

So maybe the decline is to align share price with NAV of the company.

The rate at which the EUA SP has declined over the last few weeks if extrapolated, means NAV is equalised in approximately 4 weeks time.

Some of the companies operating in Russia, when their assets are sold, are valued at approximately the NAV by the RF.

Others don't even get that.

Mr Porsche,

I am sure some of the BOD wish they did sell some shares - however you know what happen when everyone's friend Alexei Churakov sold !!

Mr Cat,

I am sure you are just having a whiz and that you would never let posters on a website dictate your investment position.

There are a few things I would like to say from my experience being here:

1) When I read through all the historic RNS for the last 8 years from CMCL and then compare to what actually happened - I find the BOD are as truthful as possible - and I have not read anything to believe they have ever given information which can/maybe considered not accurate or can be mis-interpreted.

2) This share discussion here maybe a little civilised compared to other stock discussions you are involved in - however I am sure it wont stop you investing if you so wish.

3) Main issue I do have with CMCL to date is that unfortunately, they have had a few on-site fatalities over the last two years - which I know are a huge concern for the company and I am sure measures are actively being taken to address and improve the safety records.

4)One other point on the share discussion - there are very few posters here - and the ones that post post infrequently. If more energetic eager posters here then maybe we get more visibility on the day-to-day events at the mine - such as number of trucks delivering ore, how the rains affect the mine each day etc etc. As you know - even on EUA we often see visibility of the amount of stripping etc. I search for information and it is limited - could do with contact living near Blanket mine - however the company is still good at updating LSE with progress.

As an additional bit of information - looking at the Corporate Presentation 2023 (Slide 14) The COMPANY provide table of Gold Price v NPV for Bilboes.

Au $1320/oz, NPV(10%) $126.9m : Au $1500/oz, NPV(10%) $225.2m : Au $1650/oz, NPV(10%) $323.3m

If you then extrapolate and apply this to recent gold price :

Au $1881/oz, NPV(10%) $474.3m (today's price)

Au $2000/oz, NPV(10%) $552.2m

Mr L stated in July that he believe they still get to 80K.

This company provides gold and and the BOD provides honesty - nice to have in todays life (especially the honesty).

Yesterday I stated;

" . .the SP which is now definitely and unarguably in the mid two's. . ", even before the sun disappeared my words became out of date.

Unfortunately the SP appears to be definitely and unarguably in the low two's.

I would suggest to the BOD that they expedite this asset sale process before the company vanishes completely like some magic act - lets all be VERY HOPEFUL the same BOD can pull a big fat juicy rabbit out of the hat intime for Xmas dinner.

Mr Jp1959,

The RNS issued on the 6th January 2021 entitled "Dividend Policy Adopted by the Board", and 8th February entitled "Reserves and Resources Update", I think are the ones that stands out to me that their purpose was nothing to do with the title (interesting though they are) but to ensure no mass-exit drop-off from shareholders from EUA as the news coverage from late November 2021 onwards was increasing dominating with the build-up of Russian forces in the border with Ukraine and from January onwards warnings from many countries that Russia was going to invade (6-8 weeks before they did).

The evidence was presented - but ignored by some.

If investing - don't ignore the evidence.

Mr Lenoman,

For many companies - I agree the share price often have little influence - especially when other company factors are looked at (MCAP, revenue, cash, debt etc) and some small companies can pay special dividend more than the SP if no sniff of the asset sale leaks out beforehand.

I see little value in EUA outside of its mining assets (and unsold mineral concentrate) which are all located in Russia and are being sold (or trying to be sold).

Two factors which I think make the EUA SP value important and useful in negotiations with the EUA BOD:

1) Operational jurisdiction of the assets (Russia) and the listing of the major shareholder parent company (EUA in UK)

2) EUA selling basically all its value - selling all its Russian entities

based on both the above - I suggest the MCAP value of EUA is a direct replication of the speculative value of the mining assets actually being sold (and they stated all the Russian assets) plus what cash it has plus some unsold mining concentrates.

Bearing the jurisdiction in mind and also the use of the words "critical year" and "hopeful" in describing the asset sale this year by the board - it may be suggestive to many that it shows signs of distress and vulnerability - and unless an agreed value has already been reached - I would say the proposed amounts are getting lower when SP drops.

If you disagree that the SP does not have significant leverage and that EUA are worth more than what is being sold - then maybe provide some suggestions of this if you wish.

Good morning Mr okfornow,

I think I understand the thought you have for no news is good news - but often this thought is more appropriate when the expected news is unwanted and is likely to be disastrous and cataclysmic.

I suggest for EUA, and representative in the SP which is now definitely and unarguably in the mid two's , that no news is not good news -especially when the BOD have stated 2023 is critical year and many are now counting the weeks left (not months) and soon it will be the days left not weeks - which if still no news - the SP may well be not even in the two's.

There's still a lot to be done in 2023 to complete the asset sale - and so far the COMPANY has not stated any progress:

sale to be agreed with other party, agree sale with RF, Inform shareholders and arrange AGM (minimum timeframe), count shareholders votes and identify if sale can proceed, if so complete sale and exchange.

Unfortunately - all this takes time - and requires some news to start.

Please also note - any buyer will be more aware of the slide in the current SP than some posters on here - and will use this as leverage - if they don't then they probably are as useless as the VAR from Spurs Liverpool.

Mr Wolfe,

I cannot Sun up EUA in two words - but I may be able to sum up EUA in three words (at least for today), and they not pleasant at the moment.

It'll be nicer to be into the threes but unfortunately the fact is they are "into the two's".

Maybe tomorrow brings better prospects - we all very hopeful - but facts are facts - and I assume Mr Cat shall now contribute more.

Mr Cat,

I gather this is your confirmation that you not know, its easy to say. Lets see what CHAT GPT thinks.

Mr Cat,

I have asked Mr Jamie640 to ask CHAT GPT to quantify the time period for how long a shareholder needs to hold to be defined long term shareholders. If I receive any feedback shall inform you.

Please note - you stated earlier

". . So now you don't accept the term long term holder"? are you the word Police?. . .",

I have never stated or indicated this and in fact I have been asking for clarity of what a "long term holder" is - but unfortunately however nobody knows.

Please remember why I have asked for this definition - as it relates back to Mr Stretch101 statement,

". . . I am completely convinced that long term holders will gain in the end. . .".

For YOUR clarity - I stated earlier - I do not acknowledge the term "genuine shareholders" for reasons I stated earlier.

Mr Jamie640,

It appears CHAT GBT have the ability to understand what "long-term shareholders" are according to the last words of the posting.

Maybe next time you ask them to quantify how long you need to be a shareholder to be classified under the banner "long-term shareholder".

Not many posters here that classify themselves as long-term shareholders know what they actually are.

Mr Cat,

I still would like to know Stretch101 opinions if he/she would like to contribute.

Addressing your comments and questions directed to me:

1) why you pop on here occasionally : answer - are there rules that users must post everyday - if not then I shall post when I find convenient to me rather than to your requirements.

2) with a negative, argumentative slant? : answer - if asking for peoples thoughts and opinions are negative or argumentative then I think many fall under this banner.

3) Oh and perhaps tells us when you bought in, or are you even invested? : answer - I have addressed this so please see history if you really want to know and thinks it is important

4) I would think not! : answer - Your opinion counts

Back to my two questions to Stretch101 - I will open the first question to others now Mr Cat have attempted not to answer.

Open question - What would you define as long term holders? - maybe it is people who bought-in during 2018/2019 or holders who bought 2020 or 2022 or sometime else?

The second question only Stretch101 can answer, why you are completely convinced that long term holders will gain in the end.

Mr Stretch101,

You stated, ". . . I am completely convinced that long term holders will gain in the end. . .",

Would you like to quantify what you mean by long term holders?

I ask this - as I am wondering if you mean holders who bought-in during 2018/2019 or holders who bought 2020 or 2022? It would add some clarity.

In addition - if you have any thoughts on why you are completely convinced - then it can also be useful opinion to investors and potential investors who are keen on peoples opinion.

For information - I understand gain to be you get more out than you put in.