Member Info for GingerHippo

It's like a talk show where they interview a scientist with a PHD and then, for balance, turn to Dave who reckons he knows something traditional science doesn't.............

Del, you're right that no-one knows. But the BoD have left a lot of clues in RNSs. LTHs have explored different ways to interpret these, all of which are positive. Bashers don't have anything concrete to say, they just think the BoD are lying, and so say repeatedly.

You make it sound like the "continuous speculation" from both sides is equal and opposite. It isn't. Equally vocal perhaps but not equally logical.

"The negative posts lead to more ridiculous ramping and a totally polarised board. Surely everyone wants constructive discussion here?"

Unfortunately not I'm afraid. There are some who are just trying to ruin the board for genuine PIs.

Novicesamm, that is a very real possibility. Not what I think is happening, but definitely possible.

Whatintheactual, the market doesn't know anything you don't know, so it cannot be a reflection of what's happening behind the scenes.

The sp is low because there's so many doubters. The longer the process goes on the more people doubt this will happen so the sp stays low. In reality, the chances of the BoD pulling out a corker does not change with the sp, but if (when) they do deliver the rewards will be that much greater for those who trust the BoD and the info given in the RNSs.

Once again, I remind ppl that the doubters are pitting themselves against the BoD, UBS, Citic, DLA Piper, Rosgeo, Veles, Blacklrock, at least two unknown IIs and Morgan Stanley. Just let that sink in.

playingtheodds, you said you disagree but then said basically the same as me

The recent fundraise was done to develop JV. That has nothing to do with the likely sale of MT as they made it clear in the RNSs they were progressing the two projects independent from each other.

Horrendous, I agree. The boards are for people of different views to discuss things.

But with EUA the bashers make no sense at all. They have been circling for 2 years now trying desperately to pick this apart and they have come up with nothing. But that doesn't stop them regurgitating the same old garbage that's been disproved dozens of times. It's tiresome. So it's no surprise that people no longer engage with it. We've been over all this stuff already far too many times.

Noticed a significant uptick in basher activity on the board today.

Always a good sign.

https://acfequityresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Eurasia-Mining-Plc-Research-Update-Valuation-Research-ACF-FINAL-20052021.pdf

Also, John, I'm gonna take a hard pass on investing in Botswana

Exactly. The EUA multi-bagging is far from over IMO

Updated ACF report gives price guidance of 67.7-74.8p

Now, given that they admit to being "extremely conservative", i think it's probably fair to say we're worth north of that range, ie more than 75p. That ought to be the floor. And I think will be, at some point in the not-too distant future.

Let me guess, Cynder, the rampers (either the stupid or the unethical variety) kept calling you a troll when you pointed it out?

Jt you’re right. The filter button is there for a good reason.

“ If you revalue and dispose there will be no gain”

This is just beyond silly. I can’t even

Billions, I started responding but can’t be bothered. please stop being so obtuse and silly. Take a step back and think this one through again. And if you’re still convinced you look only at cost...... well tbh I don’t really care.

Intangible assets may be carried at a revalued amount (based on fair value) less any subsequent amortisation and impairment losses only if fair value can be determined by reference to an active market.

If there’s an offer there’s an active market and MT would be revalued upwards significantly.

Thank you Mrcross. The assets are shown at cost which is obviously less than they’re worth. If there’s an offer to buy MT for billions, that would be “substantially all” of the assets

The accounts are prepared to 31 Dec but obviously the assets gets revalued on the day we get an offer. If we then prepared accounts for a shortened period they would show the asset held for sale at the value of the offer. You would no more use the 2019 balance sheet than the 2005 balance sheet.

This is beyond obvious and is why several posters just dismissed what you said entirely rather than explaining it. I don’t know why I’m bothering either because I don’t believe you are being genuine. You can’t possibly genuinely believe what you wrote.