Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
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 ", even before the sun disappeared my words became out of date.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.
Mr OfficeCat, I don't acknowledge the term "genuine holders", my simplicity allows either people are shareholders or are non-shareholders. But if some (shareholders) find what I said patronising (they can state so - but nobody has yet), I am sure others may not - and maybe these others may like to read and suggest opinions.
Mr Bill, you stated " . . there is no reason for W.K not to be a decent money maker. . . ", I wonder if anyone at EUA also know this ? (rhetorical question)
Back in 2020 - EUA indicated target production of 64kozpa - but never indicated what decade this would be achieved.
Mr BobbyBingo,
Please also bear in mind whoever buys EUA - are buying now ("very hopefully" before end of 2023) and not in future years - we not yet in Terminator talk yet I hope.
I would suggest every accountant for any buyer are using the most pessimistic values for metal prices - and have limited view of future price speculation.
In addition - if such a company stating they have "very hopefully" thoughts of selling assets in 2023 - then they have already put markers down to any buyer.
EUA position is totally naked to all potential buyers - and EUA have made it clear to them.
The question is - if everyone who own (or will own) shares also acknowledge this position !
(risk v probability)
SHAREHOLDERS are the only ones who do not know the FACTS (unfortunately) as they do not have visibility of the value of the company they own.
Mr_Wolfe,
You asked Lenoman, but if you allow, maybe you ear my thoughts.
I think you also need to review various shareholders buy-in price:
For shareholders who bought-in from Q2 2020 and Q1 2022 - my thoughts is that for them - the BEST is for EUA to hold out through this dark period and take the RISK, holding out for a possible resolution to all hostile activities and THEN wait to see if Russia becomes an acceptable investment opportunity in the years to come. Problem is half the assets (platinum palladium) will lose value probably more than that of nickel gain. Probability (?).
For shareholders that bought in at Q1 2022 and after - I would consider most wanting quick return or else knowledge of 100% loss - just need it sorted quickly. Probability (?).
Its now all about the risk (and probability).
If any shareholders like to disagree with the pigeon holing above - please feel free to express your thoughts.
Which bet would you consider best : Luton to win Premier League at 1000-1 : bet £1, £100, £1000, £10000.
?
Mr Lenoman,
You stated you " . . thought all would have been done and dusted by end of Sept 2023. . . ", may I ask on what reason you had this thought.
For information - I take reason based on what's happening with other companies - and some have been "done and dusted" relatively quickly - however more importantly is what EUA themselves state in official release. They have not yet indicated anything to change from the "low visibility" as stated a few months ago.
As for your statement ". . . This place has become a farce. . . ", I think many would agree and that is probably why few now bother here (unfortunately).
Mr Chessmaster1234,
If your comment is valid and have basis - then why you worry if it makes people angry.
Answer to your question - don't know - sorry. However they should add further positive value on the RF evaluation assessment for asset sale (which I am sure will happen) - even the RF must accept these - and any buyer would not disagree.
Mr Shares,
I may have missed this - but you stated the BOD said "they were optimistic to finalise it this year".
It be interesting to read - as I still understand they are hopeful - or very hopeful, but it be encouraging if they now optimistic.
Mr Factory,
The COMPANY has stated it is " due to the sale process being Eurasia's main priority" that is causing them not to mine at WK - therefore not the sanctions.
Maybe fully true!!
" . . The Group leases certain of its plant and equipment. The average lease term is 4.5 years, expiring in 2025. . . . . Interest rates underlying all obligations under finance leases are fixed at respective contract dates ranging from 21.9% to
23.5% per annum."
"Present value of minimum lease payments £245,848"
Not generating "revenue" will make 2023 the critical year - as they stated.
Mr Pompal,
Are you not concerned that a mining company cannot mine?
". . . all the Eurasia Board members are engaged in contributing towards a successful outcome to this process. . . "
As DS is senior officer (not BoD) then this wording does not rule out earlier proposal that DS may be part of takeover.