Member Info for oldspursfan

And where does it state that EUA can only be sold for what other companies bought for up to x years ago in different parts of the world, in an era without a surge in the PGM deficit and exponential future demand??

Why can't EUA be the "New benchmark" by which other miners reassess the value of their PGM deposits and the markets readjust to the current climate?

Depends - how much are Sibanye asking for it?

Stork where does it say that the Sinosteel EPCC contract is dependent on reaching a level of Feasibility Study?

RNS of 10 October 2016 states it had been agreed following "2 years' due diligence and evaluation" - Feasibility Studies were still ongoing at that time.

Ladderr - if it's a full sale it will need to go a shareholder vote. Like the EGM resolution that will take a few weeks to get in the diary and sort out nominee votes etc. etc.

If the above happens, the share won't be suspended in the run up to the vote - no company suspends for three weeks just for a shareholder vote on takeover. We will be able to buy and sell though the price will immediately re-rate to around the takeover price offered.

A suspension may happen, but IMO only before the FSP announcement itself (so "temporary suspension pending an announcement" followed a few hours later by "Board Recommended Offer and resumption of trading).

Hope this helps.

Tiger I will assume you know exactly what was referred to and that was a public/shareholder vote which is flatly rejected.

How many of your bids were publicised, put to shareholder vote over the space of a few weeks and then announced as a big fat rejection, via RNS or other public domain announcement?

Any you could actually point to so that we can research and corroborate your claims?

Salrum - not the point.

According to the detractors it's not JORC so it's not there, so no-one will pay anything for it.

Stop throwing RNS facts into the mix it doesn't help their cause!!
GLA

Stork and Tiger - come on!

Your answers to everything that is currently not yet known can be summarised as: "because it's sh it" , "because no-one else wants it", " because it isn't there", "because if it had any value someone else other than EUA would have been given it", "because the BoD are lying", or "because Putin's a crook and would have stolen it already" - really?

Everything that looks positive is actually a lie and only negative things can ever happen? No-one would bother do anything and nothing new could ever happen in your playbooks - certainly no point investing in AIM companies, apart the ones you both are, in which case they are by-the-book great BoDs etc. etc.

I did notice though Stork you said "if/when" the FSP fails last night - is our positivity finally rubbing off?
FFS

Think Long is implying that the Japanese are so recently to the table that this may have a lot longer to run, given other companies have been in the FSP since the start.

I think - but as the above is based on absolutely nothing, it doesn't make much sense either!

DORE check out Rosie Gaines on Youtube, your answer is there...

Morning Ian_ and appreciate your continued efforts with the game. Maybe the BoD can give you a break and issue something sooner rather than later!!

Re Stork, technically there are only two things you can do with the ability to allot shares. Either use them directly to do something in lieu of cash, or place into the market for cash. However it's what the BoD intend to do with cash (if they are placed) that counts. Something Stork doesnt care to hypothesise on and just uses the term "placing" as the ultimate negative.

Why? To use my pigeonhole analogy, reason 2 (other bods of other unrelated companies have done it to screw shareholders so ours will too). Oh and he is short, so has a vested interest in driving negativity.

GLA

Evening Ian_
Missed all that palaver thankfully, though saw the reaction when scrolling through this morning. No place for that type of comment.

TBH I'm happy to engage if there is anything of substance. I find it helps to be able to pigeonhole the negatives into one of two boxes:
- they are using other unrelated companies' bad outcomes to suggest EUA will do the same; or
- they are using other unrelated BoDs doing questionable things to tarnish our BoD with the same brush.

Once you realise that is the essence of their wisdom it helps strengthen belief that this long standing company whose BoD are the main shareholders maybe do have our interests at heart. If only because it aligns with their interests too!

Ditto Rob
As interesting as it may be in theory, I cant see myself losing any sleep over whether some related party to the bidder is currently accumulating 0.99% to save them a few quid down the line. Good for them I think, but at least the FSP brings the threshold down to 1% not 3%.

I'm much more interested in getting to that line, full stop! Next step this week I think...

I used to wonder why there hasn't been much effort to shout from the rooftops what EUA are sitting on, and drive the SP up.

I've taken to assuming that any potential buyer doesnt care much about the optics of paying x times the current price per share.

Maybe that's due to it being a consortium and they have their own way of valuing the district and compensating existing license holders for the assets they want?

Hi Tricky
Yes I remember and thanks for reminding everyone. Certainly if this is the reason it would keep our M&A officer and Piper gainfully employed!

Key for me though is emphasising that shares can be used as a currency directly, and not just be turned into cash at today's rates via a placing. And it could be a lot more desirable as a currency if its value is set to soar near term.
GLA

Hmm, phone changes winking emoji actual actual emoji. Lse changes actual emoji to 2 question marks...? Weird.

Billions, how many different parties are there? Why would a buyer want to negotiate small percentages with multiple owners? Could they not just as easily say to Dmitri "we want it all, if you want top dollar you package this all up for us with a nice big shiny bow..."?

Ah - my first paragraph should read "...complexity, alternative structures, competing interests or bidding wars!"

Thanks Kira, I must stop being so pessimistic.
??

Agree the example is way too simplistic and doesnt factor in any complexity, alternative structures or competing interests.

Its purpose is twofold: to explain simply what incentives there could be (given the parties involved may be closer to proceedings) and to dispel the myth that giving the BoD authority to issue shares, means they can only place them to raise cash, and then try to do something with the cash. Comments such as: they can raise £50m, but can't buy out interests for that amount, so that ain't gonna happen. You know, like we have seen!

Per last message. Highly simplistic, but illustrates:

EUA BoD agree a swap with the minority interest holders: 100m shares for 20% MT, 50m shares for 32% WK. No cash involved, just shares for interest stake. Buyer then puts forward an offer for entire share capital of EUA (full buyout) for £5 a share.

Those 100m shares are now worth £500m, 50m shares now £250m. Question: how many years, at what production rate (controlled by buyer), and using what discounted cash flow rate, would it take for the minority shareholder to recoup the equivalent of that amount of money, which they could have imminently?

That's incentive. Buyer pays a bit more as dilution isnt that bad, but gets full ownership without to deal with or negotiate separate buyout with multiple minority parties. More incentive.

BTW the above would value MT at 2.5b, WK at 750m, and the Rosgeo exclusive contract and access to the current/ likely conservative 100mOz+ at c.12bn. Feasible?

EUA have put themselves front and centre of the district, basically saying "You want in? You come through us". The above is simplifying things to the nth degree, but shows why I think, given the info we have, this route makes sense.

All IMO (obviously)

Just catching up, thanks for the mention in despatches Dance, though not sure I'm quite in the same esteemed group as the others! Glad to be of help.

Thinking a bit more and I'll drop an example of why I believe the shares will be used to directly acquire the minority interests. What I dont want is for you to fall into the trap of thinking the only thing a company can do with shares is place for money. Something I've seen mentioned via the "you'll struggle to buy 20% of MT for £50m (approx current value of 250m shares). That's not what I mean. Watch this space...

Think back to March 2020, we were in suspension and rumours were flying around that WHI had resigned. This was long before the company confirmed they were working their notice, but still some detractors got wind of it early, and banged on and on.

Contrast with now. Nothing, just moaning that it is taking "too long" which only shows everyone outside the company massively underestimated how complex this would be. But rumours of anyone resigning? Nada.

If you need something to latch onto, take comfort that there are people who want this to fail, and will waste no time crowing about anything bad they get hold of. They have nothing and are saying nothing. It's all guesswork, against a prescribed timetable that doesn't exist.

Have a good BH weekend.