Member Info for Spikeyj

Thanks for interesting replies, appreciated. gl & atb.

As for their poor quality assets, the primary evidence that speaks loudly and clearly to me is that after years of trying to sell their russian assets, **even before the war**, and despite lengthy FSP, they still haven’t been able to rustle up even one firm bid that shareholders and the market have ever been told about.

if they choose to publish full DFS details for each of their assets, so there could be proper independent market scrutiny about their assets and mining costs/ economic viability etc etc, i might change my mind (depending on what was in ‘em!) —->. but EUA chooses not to share such data for independent scrutiny. …. to my mind, that’s a pretty big red flag.

Bfd, 19:51, you have made that false claim before. i have never posted that EUA were trading whilst insolvent.

i don’t know if you are repeating that lie because you have a poor memory, are easily confused, or just being malicious, but i don’t intend to grace it with a response again.

(you are of course welcome to report me to the FCA if you think you can prove your lie.)

i certainly have claimed though that i thought EUA would be getting perilously close to insolvency (given their own previous RNSs etc about how much cash they had left, and their lack of any evident reliable cash income stream). hence i thought unless they were able to crack on with their asset sale, they would need to organise funding pronto to convince auditors that they would still be a going concern over the next 12 months. i also posted that i doubted they would be allowed to organise a placing to channel funds through the UK to develop their russian activities. …

… so hey presto, after weeks of delayed accounts, they managed to organise a one year convertible loan to stave off insolvency. yay, rums all round!

Interesting chessmaster, tho’ as with many things on this chatboard i think i have to take that with a pinch of salt ( - no insult intended - ) since you are unwilling to name the provider, hence it’s unverifiable. ? may i ask please, what kind of size short CFD trade do you claim that are they allowing you?

17:47, Bfd seems to be claiming that anyone can short EUA with CFDs … but so far as i’m aware, there have not been any providers / platforms offering short CFDs on EUA for a long time (i think even before putin launched his war.)

… if anybody does know of platforms / providers still offering new short CFD positions on EUA, please could you advise who they are? - tia.

Bfd, i did indeed learn something from my ban.

i was already pretty sceptical about how balanced these AIM chatboards can be, but it was informative to learn just how additionally skewed the postings can be because admin will sometimes ban sceptics from posting polite, on-topic, company-focused stuff, because of organised mass reporting campaigns from rampers, while they leave IDs such as richard, dim, etc to post as disruptively as they please day in and day out. —-> there is an inbuilt pretty strong ramp bias on pretty much all lse AIM chatboards.

i also learnt that there are some good quality, informative and smart posters on advfn whose analysis can be helpful. (previously i had tended to avoid advfn because of the bad language there, but these days that seems allowed on lse anyway, despite their stated t&c.)

Re fair debate, leno, and wavering of my view; ….. i would be very happy to alter my (currently rather sceptical, obviously) opinion of EUA if others give me good reason to see things differently.

but very few people on this chatboard even attempt to engage with sensible, company-focused questions about this company’s finances and peculiar business model - e.g. per my recent posts wondering why EUA had needed to resort to a one year convertible loan, rather than selling concentrate, or retrieving cash from the subs / holding company, or not sending so much money out of the UK into the holding company in the first place. … or indeed, why they claim to have a fully operational mine that can produce concentrate they can sell, but weirdly they then choose not to mine, not to produce, not to sell, and instead go cap in hand to a lender to avoid going bust.

Hi leno, no, i didn’t make up my own chat board on ADVFN.

i mainly posted here on LSE, but for a while lse admin banned me from posting specifically on this chatboard — so while i was banned from commenting here, i shifted to chatting re EAU over on ADVFN.

there were three main boards there for EUA, excellance’s, the ‘spoof’ board and the ‘bear’ board. I was happy to post on any of those, but excellance banned me (i think he was trying to exclude sceptical views at the time) and a ramper trashed the spoof thread by spamming. that left the bear board, where the moderator permitted pro and anti views, so long as peeps avoided personal abuse and spam.

- when lse unbanned me, i returned here.

when lse unbanned me from this board, i returned here.

(Hint: ‘original or interesting’ doesn’t always have to be entirely serious … these chatboards are about companies and shares, but imv are best viewed as being for entertainment /interest around those themes, rather than investment advice / expertise per se.)

Leno, lighten up fellah! - as i suggested the other day, imo a little sense of humour can also come in handy on AIM chatboards, from all sides.

(unfortunately from my own perspective, repeated personal insults on this forum between posters about eating faeces, blow-up dolls, etc, hardly count as humour, just as juvenile abuse.)

Bfd, it’s a question that’s already been asked and answered many times before, no change.

if you have something original or interesting to say about EUA itself, then i am genuinely very happy to chat about such - i think that’s what these boards should be for. but not that interested to play along with your keyboard warrior personal stuff.

[soz, forgot to add, … ? if trump wins, is he somehow capable of turning low grade uneconomic unicorn poo into highly profitable & economically viable reserves? … personally, not convinced.]

Well done.

GLG2, out of interest, what kind of price did you manage to exit at?

“… focus on the end game…”

“… all our efforts were focused on the possible sale of our Russian assets. To date there has been interest, but it is clear that the Ukrainian crisis [= putin’s invasion] continues to hang over our businesses there.”

“During the year, a number of parties were in discussions with the Company regarding the potential acquisition of our Russian assets.”

“As ever, there can be no guarantee that Eurasia will enter into binding agreements regarding the sale process.”

… EUA has been trying to sell their ‘assets’ for many years, without success. they were already trying to sell *before* the war, and got nowhere.

… some peeps seem to be gambling that a trump win will magically bring peace to ukraine, with buyers then falling overthemselves to buy the EUA assets that they didn’t want to buy even before the war.

… seems possible that trump might not get in …?

… me, not 100% convinced trump will bring instant peace…?

… if the war ends, will it leave international investors in the aftermath overall feeling more or less confident that russia is a stable, reliable, law-abiding jurisdiction in which to do business? (i.e. compared with how they felt before putin’s war started, when they didn’t buy EUA’s assets).

Bfd, both investors and traders may take long or short positions (tho’ i think short positions in EUA have been effectively unavailable for long time now).

Just musing about use of CS shares as collateral.

in one sense it’s a complete no-brainer for him, since EUA would have collapsed this year without that one year loan, and his shares would have been worthless anyway once company in administration. so he has nothing to lose by pledging them (- different story, of course, if he had pledged some actual cash or a real property of his own as collateral).

? but i wonder if it might possibly also be about shoring up his chances of BoD re-election ahead of the AGM … i.e. might shareholders be a bit more reluctant to vote him off the gravy-train if they perceive the survival loan as dependent on the continued use of his personal shareholder as collateral?

[*kind soul]

They can’t convert any of their loan to sell before 90 days, B1ll, and i assume that is legally binding, but presumably nothing at all to stop them selling shares they already have, or shares that some other kind would might helpfully be willing to sell on their behalf before they could settle/offset with conversation shares.

(no idea of course whether they are dong that or not, just mindful of the possibilities in these situations.)

Soz, bad link, maybe better:

https://images.app.goo.gl/HmBrzMbLzdZfCnkV8