We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
That's a good question Spikey, which I think is answered in section 17 of the same doc, which lists info that must be released without delay, and there is no mention of prior public knowledge so I assume that's the category you're referring to. However, I cannot see anything in this list that would refer to the license being granted to EUA.
"Disclosure of miscellaneous information 17. An AIM company must issue notification without delay of: — any relevant changes to any significant shareholders, disclosing, insofar as it has such information, the information specified by Schedule Five; — the resignation, dismissal or appointment of any director, giving the date of such occurrence and for an appointment, the information specified by Schedule Two paragraph (g) and any shareholding in the company; — any change in its accounting reference date; — any change in its registered office address; — any change in its legal name; — any material change between its actual trading performance or financial condition and any profit forecast, estimate or projection included in the admission document or otherwise made public on its behalf; — any decision to make any payment in respect of its AIM securities specifying the net amount payable per security, the payment date and the record date; — the reason for the application for admission or cancellation of any AIM securities and consequent number of AIM securities in issue; — the occurrence and number of shares taken into and out of treasury, as specified by Schedule Seven; — the resignation, dismissal or appointment of its nominated adviser or broker; — any change in the website address at which the information required by rule 26 is available; — any subsequent change to the details disclosed pursuant to sub-paragraphs (iii) to (viii) inclusive of paragraph (g) of Schedule Two, whether such details were first disclosed at admission or on subsequent appointment; — the admission to trading (or cancellation from trading) of the AIM securities (or any other securities issued by the AIM company) on any other exchange or trading platform, where such admission or cancellation is at the application or agreement of the AIM company. This information must also be submitted separately to the Exchange. "
Actually, not true. Here is the rule from the LSE's AIM Rules for Companies:
General disclosure of price sensitive information
11. An AIM company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge which, if made public, would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities. By way of example, this may include matters concerning a change in: — its financial condition; — its sphere of activity; — the performance of its business; or — its expectation of its performance.
"Stonk, re 12:42, if a sunday newspaper reported that Shell had made a takeover bid for BP, that doesn’t let Shell off the hook about RNS just because it’s already in the public domain."
In your scenario, a newspaper would have either sourced their info from the public domain (in which case, no RNS required), via confidential/illegal channels (in which case, Shell would have caused to prosecute/force an internal inquiry) or via a press release (in which case, as long as the press release is on the same day, they wouldn't need to RNS first). The point at which Shell would need to RNS is between the event happening and it reaching the public domain.
That horse has bolted for EUA re this license. The question that should be asked is why EUA did not RNS between the license being granted and the license appearing on the Russian government's public website. I don't know how such notifications are distributed, but it may be that the only way EUA would be informed of the license being granted is via that same Russian website. In short, there may not have been that time window in which the license was known only to EUA and not the public.
It's worth remembering that the whole point of an RNS is simply to make public any information relating to a company as practicably soon as it is known by the company. If that info becomes public via another route within good time, then the job of the RNS is already done.
Not sure I agree with that. As it is a sub, any significant change in assets affects the value of EUA as the owner, so should be RNS'ed according to AIM rules.
Of course, this is what should happen, but as we've seen before, EUA don't always RNS things they should.
I agree. Because EUA is not currently valued by the market on how much its assets are worth, but on what the chances are of realising that value due to many factors, primarily the war and associated sanctions, rouble exchange rate, etc.
This share is pretty much a coin flip on that; sell one asset successfully and that proof-of-concept should rerate the SP. Fail to sell anything (once all outstanding roadblocks are cleared) and it'll stay this low, if not lower.
I have confidence that ultimately EUA will either sell or mine via Sinosteel, I just can't tell when yet.
Not only are they able to accept the license, they already have. Here is the evidence directly from the Russian government's own website, translated into English by Google Translate:
https://postimg.cc/SYGQD9jn
That's a needless, cheap, spiteful and irrelevant swipe, Frankie. Dispute or even ridicule Toffers' assertions all you want, but ad hominem attacks completely undermine any valid arguments you may have. Let's all be a bit better than that, yeah?
"Hi Stonk, it's the funfair that arrives with the news that a person in an office has filed a piece of procedural paperwork that lets T.G group down."
That's probably a fair comment, B1ll. It does get excited there but I think that's just the vacuum of recent good news creating some perhaps too optimistic hope. It's really not as extreme as the piranha tank of doom-mongery that forms here when some bad news drops, though. Two sides to the same coin, perhaps?
I'm not sure what you think I may have right or wrong here. Are you suggesting today's fact taken directly from the Russian government's own website of registered licenses is wrong?
Woodlaker makes two assertions of note:
1. "Hasn't led to anything". Sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't. depends what you mean by "anything". For example, the TG discovery of the Nyud license being handed over to Monchegorskie caused a spike in the share price and teh discovery of the Queeld case led to a fall. So yes - the TG finds do often lead to something. It may not be of any ultimate groundbreaking value in each fact, and not to the ultimate sale, but you cannot say they led to nothing. However, I happen to agree with Woodlaker's sentiment here; recent TG research has not led to any perceivable impact on the market's view, which obviously still has a downer on EUA.
"Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them." Trust who? The Russian government license registrar's own website? There is no question of trust here at all - these are straight facts being presented raw. How does one not "trust" a fact?
Irrespective of whether you think I disagree with the market's view or not, you cannot say these facts are not to be trusted, or that the addition of this license does not increase the asset base of the company. I am only using facts, not "My views!".
No he's not. There have been multiple finds on the TG group that have not been RNSed, and even a couple that have forced an RNS. If you don't want proven, "from the horse's mouth" facts to inform your investment decisions then fine - just ignore them - but don't conflate such genuine research with the market's lack of positive response to it.