Member Info for Montmuzard

"I sold out at 28p because of 2 things, the actions of AC"

Good, so you are Rowka then, that's good to know. Also, there is no way whatsoever that you sold out at 28p "because of the actions of AC". Either (a) you sold out at 28p *beforehand* without knowing AC had sold (or, rather, moved) his stock, for the simple reason that it would have been impossible for you to get a sell quote for any amount anywhere near 28p; or (b) you sold out lower (and probably far lower) than 28p *because of* AC. It can only be one, not both. The fact that you still haven't properly explained how your original calculation of £3.50/share could be so far removed - 200 times! - from what you're saying EUA is worth now suggests the latter. You're clearly trying to get a buy-in at 14p where you were stopped out. You have no credibility. Just rehashing the same nonsense lines from the chumps on ADVFN to justify your new-found bearish stance only diminishes that credibility further. FWIW I reckon you'd have been best off buying in this morning: can't see 14.5p presenting itself again any time soon.

Or, perhaps, dispose of assets resulting in a "significant [AKA massive] dividend"

https://www.griproom.com/fun/10-signs-your-company-is-about-to-be-acquired

Number 7: "Bizarre price action prior to upcoming milestones"

"Companies must report earnings every three months. These events are expected. Earnings can be a blowout, or they could be a bust. Both will affect the stock price. But there might be other more important events on the horizon. Drug readouts, important contracts, product launches, major world events, etc. Milestones can be almost anything that will might vastly affect your stock price. If you’re invested in a company, you must be aware of all its upcoming milestones, because Wall Street will play games to mess with your head.

If a big event is coming up, Wall Street might tank the stock prior to it. This creates the illusion that they have insider information and they know it’s going to be bad. They’re abusing the efficient-market hypothesis. You see the stock dropping, think that something is wrong with the business, and you sell.

“I’ll just wait on the sidelines,” you say. “See what happens with the big event. If it goes well, I’ll get back into the stock because it’ll probably only jump a few percent.”

But what actually happens is the buyout comes before the big event. You see this in biotech all the time. Companies have an important phase 3 trial coming to conclusion soon. They’ve seen the initial data and they know its great. They’ve also shared this data with the companies bidding to buy them out.

The bidders know that once the data is released, the stock will jump huge. So, they need to act quickly. Before the milestone is reached, the company is bought out. Thinking you were being smart, you waited to buy. But that’s what they wanted you to do. By waiting, you left more stock on the table for Wall Street to gobble up. This is why if you believe in a company, you must buy it, hold it, and avoid looking at it on a day-to-day basis. I find this easier if you own a lot of companies. It’s impossible to keep an eye on 30 businesses. There’s just not enough time in the day."

THEY WANT YOUR STOCK. They think they have every right to it. Don't let them have it. They're messing with your mind.

Number two: https://www.griproom.com/fun/10-signs-your-stock-is-being-manipulated

"There are two different types of negative posts. The first is well thought out negative posts that show why a company isn’t doing well, or isn’t going to do well, usually backed up by data. These are fine. Usually posted by real people. Some companies are bad, and they rightfully deserve to tank ... But the second type of negative post is one like: “This stock is garbage!” This is nonsense. These are posted by paid manipulators or inexperienced investors frustrated by the direction of the stock price. You can ignore these. Just mute the accounts and move on."

ONLY TWO sorts of people making un-evidenced negative posts: paid manipulators or inexperienced investors worried about the share price. Ignore them. Hold long and strong.

I don’t think that million was a sell.

There she is. Someone feels confident:

27-Aug-21 11:58:54 15.40 467,930 Buy* 14.50 15.50 72.06k

Half a million kipper inbound….

Unlucky Rokabozo: looks like we've bounced off 15 and the tree shake is over. You're not gonna get your 14p buy-in and opportunity to become ramper in chief again. Shame.

As far as I can tell, no director dealings announced since November 2019. Which is unsurprising given that the amount of inside information they've all been privy to since then will be off the charts.

RE: Roger's post below, interesting theory doing the rounds on the Telegram group today that, since Rosgeo still controls Nyud, they could have commissioned Wardells months ago, and therefore the reason why we got yesterday's RNS was because the licence transfer might actually be imminent. Would be an amusing and clever bit of work by Dmitri and the gang if so. It could also explain why TW, Motley Fraud and all the disruptors on here and on Twitter are pulling out all the stops to get PIs to part with shares. Could well be their last chance. All LTHs surely expected the most brutal of treeshakes (now 14.75p allegedly) as we enter the home straight, so could we be on the home straight now?

Also the share muppets - AKA TW’s soggy biscuit mum in the middle crew - are at it again. You’d have thought they would have learned after getting jubbed last time. Still, at least this laughable dross is behind a paywall so you don’t have to read it:

https://www.*************.com/views/57645/eurasia-mining-surely-time-for-a-sale-update-as-shares-continue-to-slide

On the plus side, the fact they’re getting so desperate suggests we’ve bottomed out now and they can’t find any more sellers down here.

Oh, but Mac, that was an "accidental short". They didn't mean to lose four hundred thousand pounds.

If it's so simple, why did you change your valuation from £10bn to £30-50m, around 1/200th of the original amount? Why were your calculations so laughably out the first time? What has happened since to change your opinion?

Third time I've asked you now.

@Judge - That's a very good point. We're all assuming Nyud is part of the asset sale, but what if it isn't, or at least not directly? It's not beyond the realms of possibility that we're waiting for something else to happen for MT to be sold and the Nyud transaction is separate to it - even assuming it's the same buyer - coming down the line afterwards. Toasty!

You keep going Rowka: I hope for your sake that you get your 14p buy-in. I'm looking forward to you becoming a ramper again.

@MrYFronts:

"If someone else bought into any of the Rosgeo areas before EUA got the JV then EUA's first mover advantage doesn't add up to much."

But they didn't... Now Eurasia controls them as part of the JV, so it adds up to a lot.

Wouldn't surprise me if most of the wafflers are the same person sat in TW's mum's seedy basement in her knickers covered in days-worth of sweat and surrounded by half-eaten soggy biscuits that the others have jubbed over, spamming away on a couple of big-screened PCs with half a dozen different IP addresses. Like a creepy (or creepier) Dominic Cummings.

Give up guys: you're not getting my shares!

"Where would a fair place be for the SP decline to stop? My thoughts are £150m MC, I think that's about right."

Make your mind up: this morning you were saying £30-50m. So you know think that, in the space of two hours, the company is actually worth 300-500% more.

I noticed you haven't answered my questions, so I'm happy to repost them: how can you go from a valuation of up to £10bn (your infamous £3.50/share) to £50m in just a few months [or £150m two hours later] when the company has (a) only added value, most strikingly with the approval of the MT flanks, West Kytlim resource increase and then the massive Rosgeo JV, and (b) they've pretty much delivered on every single development milestone they've promised? Seriously, please explain to us the logic of how you now value Monchetundra at 0.5% of the value you attributed to it previously? Why were your calculations so out at that point? Were they inherently faulty or has something changed that outweighs both your original view and the implications of (a) and (b) above? If the latter, what is that thing? Is it, as we all suspect, you got stopped out and are just trying to get your buy-in at a decent price again?

Wouldn't it be funny if Wardell was actually appointed to do this work ages ago - perhaps when they first announced the requirement of a CPR - and the report is actually already here and being digested? And today's news is just to suck a few more rainbow chasers and shorters in before they drop the big news tomorrow at 6pm in advance of the bank holiday? That would warm my ****les no end.

Nice of you to say Juney, but not sure that's true!

One other thing rarely discussed, which I posted about a bit a few months ago, is how the Russian state views what is happening here. In the early 1990s, the IMF regularly advised China to follow the "shock therapy" policies that Russia was following, which they sensibly ignored. The result: Russia ended up with firesales and oligarchs, and a deep-seated dependence on resource extraction (and excessive exposure to commodity booms and busts) rather than cutting-edge industrial development; China, on the other hand, which protected a lot of its nascent industrial sectors while they were developing, ended up with the fastest and most rapid industrial revolution in human history, such that it now has all manner of firms - rail, cellular tech, automotive, petrochemicals - operating right at the innovation frontier. One way they've done this - contrary to how it's viewed in the west - is by developing extremely competitive markets in key sectors. Those markets have a lot of state-controlled companies, but they never allow one powerful company to become completely dominant (which, ironically, contrasts with the supposedly "free" private markets in the US, where Amazon, Facebook, Uber etc. have increasingly dominant positions that actually stifle competition and lead to political corruption).

Anyway, the point I'm making is this: Russian policymakers have spent 30 years watching China's economy double every 6-7 years (similar growth in the UK takes 50+ years now). I wonder whether one of the lessons they've drawn is that, to dampen the influence of certain oligarchs and generate greater competition in their key sectors, they need to do everything they can to nurture well-run, sensible, professional outfits like Eurasia. This would go some way to explaining the win-win relationship with Rosgeo.

"Why would any potential buyer of all the JV areas not buy them from Rosgeo for peanuts and wait until EUA wanted to sell them for billions."

Simple: because they'd have no guarantee they could get both. Nyud is the add-on here, not MT. If the buyer bought Nyud from Rosgeo - assuming Rosgeo wished to sell, which of course they might not because they might see a vested interest in having Eurasia be the ones to fatten all nine assets up for sale over many years - then Eurasia might decide to take MT to production themselves, so the synergies would be lost.

It's all pretty clear in the RNSs: "first mover benefits" is the key phrase. Eurasia has the keys to the entire kingdom, so it can determine how things unfold specifically because it controls MT. Of course, the buyer could maybe get MT and then try to get Nyud afterwards, but if it were playing that game it would be pretty obvious, so EUA could react negatively, and, even if it did get both at a knockdown price, Eurasia could at that point decide to leave the area, meaning Rosgeo would, once again, be sitting on eight remaining assets that it can't shift (because whoever buys MT/Nyud is not an exploration company, and would not have an interest in proving them up and getting them to production).

EUA MK2 will be a company whose entire raison d'être is doing precisely that, which is what Rosgeo wants it to do through its partnership. This is the whole point of the JV: different skills; different capacities; different interests. The same, in fact, will be true of whoever mines MT/Nyud and the other: they don't want to muck about with exploration and proving up; they want to mine and get a return on their assets. This is why I'm perpetually chuckling at those on here talking about hard bargains and lowball offers: NN, Anglo and the rest don't care about that. All they care about is that the asset on their balance sheet is on their balance sheet and not someone else's and its $XXX value is the correct ratio of the $X they paid for it.

@Montyboz - serious question: how can you go from a valuation of up to £10bn (your infamous £3.50/share) to £50m in just a few months, when the company has (a) only added value, most strikingly with the approval of the MT flanks, West Kytlim resource increase and then the massive Rosgeo JV, and (b) they've pretty much delivered on every single development milestone they've promised? Seriously, please explain to us the logic of how you now value Monchetundra at 0.5% of the value you attributed to it previously? Why were your calculations so out at that point? Were they inherently faulty or has something changed that outweighs both your original view and the implications of (a) and (b) above? If the latter, what is that thing? Is it, as we all suspect, you got stopped out and are just trying to get your buy-in at a decent price again?