We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
BFL: If you mean me, then I probably haven't asked it of others, as I don't spend much time in here these days, due to the tribal toxicity.
My post to Tygra is equally valid to many others who repeatedly post the same old opinions all the time with no value - both positive and negative. This board is full of noise and spite, with very little mutually informative and respectful content.
If it is a leak, I'd expect a lot higher volume than 3m traded. This just looks like a recent heavy seller is finally done, so the SP is returning to its natural market level of 3, where it has been for the last few of months.
There was a complication with the Amur sale that EUA do not have. Amur was at the remotest part of Siberia, with no infrastructure in place to actually make the mine feasible without a reportedly $1bn road, power, etc. to be built and no funding stream in place to pay for it. As such, it was extremely easy for any bidder to talk the price down to next to nothing for the mining rights once any potential for Amur to find such infrastructure funding dried up with the war.
We have one mine up and running already, and a DFS for MT that not only has NN's infrastructure on its doorstep, it also has the Sinosteel funding in place to build the mine. So EUA can ultimately walk away from any low bids and mine itself; Amur never had that bargaining chip.
Thinking on this further - and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong - but the 50% haircut rule actually says a strike price cannot be above 50% of the independent valuation. That would explain why Amur were spared any haircut; their strike price was already below 50% of the independent valuation.
If this is indeed the case, then surely we must assume we will be hit for the full 50% discount from the independent valuation (if it were applied at all).
I was not commenting on whether or not the 50% would be applied (as you say, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). I was saying that the 50% would be 50% of an independent valuation, not necessarily the strike price. In Kinross's case, the strike price may have been at the valuation (makes sense, given the absence of any other valuation).
We, however, should have a calculable valuation of the assets, based on DFS valuation (for MT), so the 50% haircut may not necessarily be 50% of the sale price. That's all I was saying.
"the Russian government will knock the mandatory 50% off the price regardless of how high or low it is"
That's not actually correct. If they are going to knock off 50% (it's not guaranteed to happen), then they will take off 50% of an independent valuation of the assets being sold, not 50% of the strike price of the sale.
EUA had not named a particular expert witness they wanted to bring to the stand, just that they wanted to find and bring one to back up one of their assertions. The judge deemed there not to be enough time before the pre-trial date of 10th October to find and validate such an expert witness, and he deemed the known facts already provided enough evidence already without needing a further witness (although I don't know in which direction those facts point - supporting or contradicting EUA's assertion).
"I haven't seen the application so how would I know! How would anyone know who hasn't seen it or attended the online hearings? I haven't attended any. I have no details of the application. "
Right. So you are indeed pontificating from a vacuum of pertinent knowledge. That should lay to rest any suspicion that you may hold an educated position on this case.
No, it was EUA trying to being in an expert witness to corroborate EUA's position that it was normal practice to acquire indemnity insurance for lost share certs. That's how I understand it, anyway. It 's all a bit of a sideshow, from the sound of it, and I guess was denied purely due to the lateness in the process, given the final adjudication is planned for November.
Nailed it. Every single promising RNS since DIVOC has been met with "yeah - but Budd, innit?". GDR have never capitalised on any promising RNS (in fact, they've usually diluted with a raise straight after), so why would this be any different?
Budd has been well and truly found out by the market. It is only a matter of time before the shareholders do too and sack him. A change of CEO/chairman is the only thing that will rise the SP significantly.
Layla: I personally agree that the favourite buyer is NN, but I'm not yet convinced the sale will shortcut the governmental process due to the personalities involved. I'd love you to be right, mind.
"yes, that party is still in negotiations with us."
If they're still in negotiations (as of July) and so not yet finalised, then the sale proposal can not have been submitted to the Russian authorities for approval yet. Given that a source from the Russian authorities (see the recent Reuters article on M&A in Russia) stated that an application to sell assets takes about six months to process, there is no way they can close a sale this year.