Member Info for Spikeyj

Mizman, if a company makes money by mining stuff and selling stuff, why would that company not want to keep on making money, whilst still being engaged in negotiations about a possible sale? (B1ll’s hire car analogy not a bad one.)

… but EUA is not making money, so in some senses makes perfect sense that they should just give up mining, since mining keeps on losing EUA money.

Mizman 10:34: “Why mine and incur costs […]?”

yes, that’s a good question … but kinda gives the game away about EUA, doesn’t it.

(? why would anyone want to buy a mine that costs money to run, rather than generating profits?

Facts do indeed matter.

four years now since the game about takeovers/asset sales was started with those rampy RNS. no sale of whole or part; zero, zilch, nada.

two years since a supposedly credible buyer ‘successfully completed’ their due diligence. but then no sale or whole or part, no offer put to holders, not even any information at all about what sale price was supposedly being mooted, and what exactly was supposedly going to be sold.

AC dumped all his shares during the main pump, and left the company, supposedly recruited as M&A specialist but then it turns out the company doesn’t need an M&A specialist after all.

options get awarded, and near expiry, and get extended, and approach expiry, and get extended, and ….

EUA has raised fresh money three times since this four year game began … where’s the money now? — and what did it actually buy for shareholders?

EUA has a small, loss-making mine. overall, it costs ‘em more to dig up the stuff than they can sell it for, even when they try to sell.

no mining now, and no published mine plan for 2024.

they seem unable to sell that pile of ‘concentrate’ - ? sanctions? - and the book value keeps dropping.

… cash running low. - unclear if current sanctions regime would permit a placing in london to remit money to ruskie operations.

… putting it another way, why do you think the money was ‘lent’ to those subsidiaries in the first place? - presumably, they were intending to use it / spend it on something / somebody, not just put in under a cushion until london asks for it back, pretty-please?

? do you think the money is just sitting unspent in tidy bundles in a nice tin box, untouched and ready to come back at a moment’s notice?? — that money’s gone walkies long ago, imo, probably enjoying a nice daiquiri somewhere on a cypriot sun-lounger. money knows how to party!

Summit, but share price is not yet zero, so there is still an endgame to watch,

“… payable on demand…”

? really? - what makes you think that?

pis holding the london based shares in this russian operation ain’t never getting a sniff of that money again, imv - the cash was shuffled off but it ain’t shufflin’ back.

Tiffin, i can assure you that i am not worrying about any EUA pis. all are adults, all took their own risks, caveat emptor. some will learn from it.

EUA - heading for a big fat zero pence within the next 6-12 months. stunning how long they managed to keep this game running, but very little now left in the tank. eventual 100% loss looming for those who stay in, imo.

16 likes so far for stretch … beyond parody.

… shilling as a verb, not as currency …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Why do certain posters on here keep shilling?

One of the interesting things about the this share’s history has been the extent to which rampers have relied on things said, or reportedly said/done, outside of the official RNSs.

(such as ACF report, such as twitter / telegram chatter, such as puff talks on social media channels and sites, such as ‘leaked’ broker reports supposedly only intended for circulation to professional investors, etc. )

EUA BoD seem to have had plenty of enthusiastic fellow travellers willing to ramp by proxy, as it were.)

Whether or not someone is carrying a ‘paper loss’ or not is irrelevant (other than tax planning purposes for some individuals).

question should always be, is this one of the very best available investments that i can see on the markets available to me? [note, one of the very best, rather than the best, because for most folk it will be wise to have a diversified portfolio rather than eggs in one basket only].

if not, then it would make sense to sell and reinvest in one of those better investments, irrespective of the original reason(s) someone bought into a share, and irrespective of the original price they bought in at.

… the important question is always, what does one think is going to happen next, not whatever the historic reasoning was.

“… we have to trust what the board says”

no, you don’t have to.

“The average of hundreds of guesses a long time ago was about 130P.”

? so what? - that was a metric of retail pi stupidity and greed, not value.

“Would you deny someone electricity because you disagree with their politics, or water?”

… interesting resonance, given the current situation re IDF & gaza.

Only two years, eh? - newbie! mac’s ramping history goes back way longer than that.

B1ll, to be fair to seamus, i think he only got ramped into EUA relatively recently, and may not have taken the trouble to familiarise himself with mac’s oeuvre / back-catalogue.

Careful now B1ll, they don’t tend to like it when people get factual about mac’s history.