Member Info for Spikeyj

[* soz typo, meant, recent EUA RNSs, not recent EUA assets]

BBaggins 13:02: “We had $35 million, cash, in the bank …”

and yet now the recent EUA assets show company has been running on fumes, nearly out of cash without trade load facility, or similar urgent measure … how strange …

… so where did that $35 million go (and why)?

… all very well some posters commenting that directors etc have been doing very nicely from their lifestyle salaries, but the ordinary pay and perks are rather dwarfed into insignificance by the missing $35 million — ? whose pockets is that $35,000,00 sitting in now?

Nice day, tempted to flog a couple more but held off, still looking for that 2050+ level for most of the rest.

Sold a couple, remaining long overall.

Offler, obviously it’s up to you, but my own suggestion would be not to keep responding to richard / hydro ( / other IDs he might create) … all just pure trolling to get a rise out of you, time after time, and disrupt any sensible chat about EUA by turning the board into personally abusive mush. jmho, b/w & g’night to you.

C’mon, be serious.

EUA doesn’t do any meaningful mining.

EUA doesn’t do any meaningful exploration.

EUA just squats on a bunch of poor quality licences, which it implausibly claims it can sell for huge amounts, in order to sell shares into placings. (… well, until that game dried up b/c the war.)

*If* there was some other reason the audit could not be completed on time (e.g. BoD protesting about the auditors’ interpretation of going concern or not, and BoD seeking to persuade the auditors to revise their opinion by supplying further information), then imv that should have been highlighted as the reason in the delay RNS, rather than simply make reference to concentrate stocks etc.

So if one takes EUA’s delay RNSs simply at face value, that would suggest the auditors either (a) did not think they had initially been given enough info about how much concentrate had been sold (if any), and how much retained, and how it was being valued, or (b) thought that they had been given contradictory/conflictual info about those aspects … so that they needed to seek the missing info from the BoD, or seem clarification re apparent contradiction.

Auditors would however not agree to sign off accounts if they thought that there was some significant information *missing* from the director’s drafted version of the accounts, without which it was not possible to say whether the accounts paint a realistic picture of the company’s financial health, or if information supplied to the auditors appeared to be significantly *contradictory* (again, so that the true position could not confidently be ascertained).

Auditors would not refuse to sign off accounts simply because a company’s financial position is very poor / or even insolvent. if a company’s accounts are sufficiently clear and transparent, but show the company has run out of money, then auditors would simply sign off that the accounts does indeed appear to be an accurate reflection of the company’s position, and then leave it up to the markets (and AIM regulation/nomad etc) about what happens next.

Added, small.

Kammy, if a company has headed into insolvency / is not a going concern, that’s not a reason for auditors to refuse to sign off accounts.

in such a situation, the auditor would still ‘sign them off’ but has duty to report on the insolvent situation / express their opinions about appropriateness or otherwise of ‘going concern’ basis.

auditors are essentially trying to say whether the accounts are an accurate representation of the company’s financials, *not* whether or not the company is doing well financially.

https://www.frc.org.uk/library/standards-codes-policy/audit-assurance-and-ethics/auditors-responsibilities-for-the-audit/

(An auditor might refuse to sign off accounts if for some reason(s) they simply *cannot tell* whether or not the accounts genuinely represent the underlying finances.)

Hi mr_w, wasn’t so much meaning your own game per se … i have seen a few folks venturing share price guesses for post-suspension (whenever / if ever that is). only a little holibob this time round, so back soon. atb.

Holidays are all very well, but i do find myself missing some of my favourite soaps and series (and of course some of my very favourite characters on here)..

hard to imagine how peeps (sorry, mr_w!) can make sensible guesses about share price on resumption of trading without knowing what those accounts will actually say.

at one end of the spectrum, some of the most perennial rampers here seem to expect the results and accounts will come out with an announcement of massive asset sale (and presumably news of the chunky dividend for loyal shareholders).

but at the other end of the spectrum, note that the most recent RNS from EUA does not specify whether the company will ask for its shares to resume trading or not, and it also does not specify whether or the company has achieved any solution to its imminent cash crunch.

[for example, it would be perfectly possible for auditors to complete their work on company accounts and ‘sign them off’, with a statement that the company has run out of money, can no longer be viewed as a going concern, and has become insolvent … i.e. knowing that the accounts are about to come out doesn’t tell one whether the auditors will be describing a healthy situation or a dreadful one.]

… possible that accounts are about to come out because EUA BoD has played a blinder and brought in loads of lolly …. also possible that accounts are coming out because the regulator has jogged the nomad’s elbow and told them it’s impermissible to stall any longer, for risk of wrongful trading. one of those seems scenarios seems rather more likely to me than the other one.

… and of course lots of intermediate scenarios also possible!

never a dull moment with this share.

laters.

Tim, one small suggestion …

It might be worthwhile explaining /highlighting what possible differences there might be in terms of eventual payouts, between (a) shareholders who do choose to put in that initial £100, versus (b) shareholders (such as 1984) who has previously said that he would not fund such initiatives himself, as he thinks that he could simply benefit eventually anyway from legal action that other people fund, in effect taking a free ride on litigation by others.

Cheers!

One of the oddest things on EUA chatboard is the way that so many of the most loud-mouthed belligerent rampers are often also the ones who claim to have made loads of money already / to be on ‘free rides’, etc etc.

… funny that, since on the whole one would expect folks who have already made loads of money from EUA to be the most relaxed about its future prospects…

see you guys in a week or so, many many pina coladas to ingest, and need to improve my SEAL style (in my dreams, lol) side-stroke.

A bien tot.

Me, i followed the amanda .. small add.

& no doubt pikeyK still pretends to believe in amit, tho’ that has never, ever been genuine imv.

Offler, it’s just an age old AIM game played by many so-called ‘resource’ companies.

they try to sell licences and rights back and forth between themselves and other counterparties, for over-inflated sums designed to sell freshly minted new shares to wide-eyed mug punters.

but the underlying ‘assets’ are worthless/ near-worthless, so the trick is to keep the music playing and pass the parcel round and round, without ever reality-testing what can genuinely be produced and sold profitably.

the loser is whoever is holding the parcel when the music stops, as it always, eventually, does.

… old, old game, pis fall for it over and over again.