Member Info for mac4671

It will certainly be exciting if they drop things from that PFS into RNS Rowka. It might just be me, but they currently seem to be avoiding dropping figures into RNS. Current WK production volume, as an example.
But, they provided ii's and the suggestion that they're going to scale up to that full production target volume mentioned in July RNS. So, while current specific production volumes are not known, we all know exactly what they're aiming to achieve with that $10m, and because they instantly have the money, the can instantly begin the scale up to that figure.

Very exciting position to be in, even if we don't currently know some specifics.

Good suggestion Alta, i'm on it lol

GLA

At the data room, It's currently both rammed full with potential buyers and data. Bulging at the seams, so to speak ;) -

"A further area to the north and east of West Nittis known as NKT is a standout part of the Flanks. Between 1996 and 2001 an extensive drilling programme was carried out creating a valuable catalogue of drilling data now available to Eurasia."

"48,405m drilling campaign completed at NKT, a part of the Flanks area."

Should we thank the predecessors for developing areas in our flanks?. I think so, thank you predecessors, very kind gesture.

"Our predecessors also developed targets in the NKT area, and areas to the east of the Loipishnune deposit, and these work programmes in 2015-2017 resulted in pre-feasibility studies lodged with the State Cadastre of Mines in Russia."

GLA

Yes happy, but you have to ask yourself why. Did coming here and specifically targeting Rowka, provide any of us with any benefit?. It didn't did it, but then to retreat to twitter and claim that there is a troll gang here, after coming here and trolling, is simply bizarre imho.

It's almost as if the entire thing is to try and undermine the LSE chat board for some reason. Look at all that trolling there, the trolling that they themselves started.

Could it be attempts to try and stop people, who dig deep and share their research, from doing so in a public and easily accessible place?. I don't know, but something about it all is very odd nonetheless imho.

GLA

Al69, i don't think the person understands how ironic they are, i think most will agree that they created a new account simply for the purpose of trolling Rowka, but then retreats to twitter to state that there's a trolling gang here, it's all quite odd tbh -

https://twitter.com/At4rivers/status/1296749072565575682?s=20

Why create a account simply to try and target one person?

Me and Rowka have had slight disagreements in the past, but that's all they were. People think differently, everyone is an individual, so after many months debating etc, there are bound to be people disagreeing with each other over certain aspects.
That doesn't open the door for people to start attacking one another, you just accept that everyone is human and that we won't all agree with each other on everything, which we won't.

If disagreements between any people get to stage of attacking one another, i suggest that using the filter option is the appropriate solution. The reason, is because it's not really fair on other board members to be subjected to a board of arguments, when most are just here to learn and talk about the company, which is what this chat board is realistically for.

GLA

That's exactly how i'm seeing it ferg, we're definitely approaching the main course in all of this imho

Flanks and bids, then we feast away lol

GLA

It's an old poster, someone who was thrown off LSE previously. As you will have seen, they just like to constantly argue, instead of just filtering shorter types months back, they would just constantly argue with them.

GLA

I find Raharh's real life example very helpful with attaching a possible timeline to our own process here at Eurasia. Comfortably past week 5 now, next wed will have seen 8 weeks passed -

"mac - i agree in part with you. Having been involved in a four way sale of a company (to private equity - not public listed) that sold for just over £1bn we had a formal 12 week process that was run by the M&A bank. The fireside chats were happening long before that (3 months or so) lining up PE houses, so they came warm to the table.

The process basically ran as a two week entry process (we had 9 involved) with NDAs and access to data room before initial offers were put in. Anyone below 900m were rejected and we went down to 5. Then we had full day presentations from the BoD to the PE houses that were scheduled in the same week (5 days of my life I will never get back) - one dropped out and did not attend.

From week 5 onwards it was DD and loads of questions.

Closing offers were due by week 10, however one of the PE houses broke rank in week 8 and put a number on the table that the BoD and the current PE house were happy with and the process was abruptly ended much to the dismay of some of the other bidders - but the new PE house got in there with an offer that was above the target sale and sufficient enough to do the deal.

I have a twelve week window in my mind from 1st July but now we are in week 6 onwards, for me we are in the heat of the battle now if there are multiple bidders.

All I am saying is that if someone really wants it and does not want the bidding war an offer could land that sets them apart and basically shuts the process down - which is why it could happen at any time."

GLA

It would certainly be the way forward stix.

As shareholders, we're all here for the same purpose, to support the company that we own shares of, nothing more, nothing less.

GLA

Is all that is required here, always has been and always will be ladies and gents.

Kick back, relax, sip on your favourite beverage, and wait for tge BOD to do what they do best.

GLA

I wouldn't worry about it, the holding is held by who is mentioned in disclosing positions RNS.

GLA

Kiwi, only possibly though -

https://www.instagram.com/galinabeads/?hl=en

GLA

But you're assuming everyone has those valuations, and then deeming the collective as a cult. Those are just some valuations, made by individuals. One of which didn't even originate on this board, and is a predicted future valuation from a standpoint of MT having made it to production in some years time. No cult, sorry.

GLA

I didn't think you would have any decent reply for the evident points.

Investing is about value from the point of investment, those ii's have calculated value, that's all that realistically matters at this stage, wouldn't you agree?

GLA

No such thing as cult figures here, the term is laughable, everyone has their own valuations. Some fall into a similar ball park, others do not, all pretty much to be expected when the crowd grew larger after the bank RNS.
Well done on the 1.9p entry you repeatedly mention, i also have a good entry level, from some years back.

The ii's who bought at 22.5p will have their own calculations, one thing all can agree on, is that their calculations came to a figure north of 22.5p to make it an investment that would bring them value.

GLA

Realism is valuations on known proven models, EBITDA multiple for example. EBITDA projected future, discounted back to today. I encourage everyone to do their own calculations for the figures we currently have, and then adjust if any new figures come out in further RNS.

Keep them to you yourselves if you wish, you can guarantee that the BOD, and the recent ii's joining the party at 22.5p, have all done their calculations. The BOD will have different valuations to ours, the reason, is because they have information available to them that we don't. PFS's for those flank areas, which were mentioned in that recent RNS, being a good example.

GLA

I have my calculations based on the fundamentals of the company. I would imagine that both the BOD and the ii's will also have their own calculations. This is how these things are done, fundamental analysis and calculations.

It was even released in interview, that we could compare/benchmark against previous deals in the sector. Some were even placed in RNS -

"The interest from the Banks is originating from the recent palladium acquisitions namely Stillwater for c. US$2bn by Sibanye in 2017 and NAP for approximately CAD$1bn by Impala Platinum earlier this month"

If you're stuck for calculations, see my previous post about EBITDA multiples for valuations, and then make your own calculations. I hope that helps.

GLA

Or perhaps they won't due to NDAs and the current FSP, something you may have to live with.

Tell me, why would ii's invest at 22.5p if this was all faith?

GLA

Ask Dmitry and Alexei, they will tell you, they're the professionals in all of this.

GLA

What do you think will go wrong with a comparison calamari, perhaps accidentally hit a wrong button on a calculator?.

Everything is standard mathematical equations to Dmitry and Alexei -

DMITRY SUSCHOV
Non-Executive Director
Commodities trading veteran (primarily various grades of metallurgical and thermal coals) who has successfully built a major Pulverized Coal Injection (PCI) franchise throughout Asia, Europe and America with an annual turnover of up to $100 million, therby accumulating around 2.5% of the global PCI market share. He is also an investment banker with extensive experience in the Russian resources industry having previously worked with IG Capital, MDM Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst&Young as mining & metals leader in corporate finance for Russia and CIS.

ALEXEI CHURAKOV
Strategic advisor to the board
Mr. Churakov is a former Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley senior investment banker specialized in the mining sector. He has a background in cross-border M&A transactions operating from Moscow, London and New York. Alexei brings his extensive experience in mining M&A as well as maintaining a hands on approach at operational level.

The people buying use similar calculations, a lower end landing bracket and a higher end landing bracket is calculated. When both parties landing bracket expectations are met, then the deal gets done.

GLA

No calamari, it is logic. Because previous deals done in the sector have also sold at a high price.

We compare one to another, absolutely no faith is required for the comparison.

GLA