The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
"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.
I'm not arguing with you further, you'll spin it how you like, because GFD and a few others, probably yourself included, are now well and truly stuck in the quagmire. To keep deramping this when there's nothing to deramp it with, is really quite deceptive, and it's been going on for some considerable time. It's best if everyone remains quiet until the High Court case of Mispare and Queeld is heard, see what the judgment is on that, and then whether the losing party attempts to appeal. My views.
I, on the other hand, see a difference between value and price. The sale price of Amur and Kinross were at a price far lower than their longer term value. EUA is also currently priced far lower than its real value, which is only increasing due to Nyud, MT DFS approval, WK production increases, etc.
Basically, a company can either sell on the extreme cheap to just get out, or they can bide their time until the share price realigns to the company value. That is what is what today's RNS tells us; the company are biding their time to sell at the right price.
So the only thing I've needed to come to terms with is the additional time it will take for the SP to level back up to the correct value.
I don't believe the Western mainstream media at all. I also do not trust the tin foil hatters like you who refuse to name their sources of information (apart from the back pages of Smash Hits!). Ultimately, all sources of information can be discredited with enough effort. In this age of ChatGPT, social media bots, psyops, dark forces and Morrissey, there is no one to fully trust. So one must look everywhere, at all contradictory information, nice or ugly and try to distil one's own most likely truth from what seems the most rigorously and logically researched and argued points, irrespective of the objectively disputed reputation of the source. To discount any information source is to refuse to see the whole picture.
"Plus, the markets definitely have little to no confidence in the company and its assets."
I disagree with that. The markets care not about the company or its assets specifically - they care about the potential share price value, which in their eyes is governed by the BoD's ability to realise profit, be it from an asset sale or other means. The word "realise" has two meanings here: to be able to precipitate a binding deal with a buyer, and to be able to get the proceeds back to the shareholders. Firstly, history has shown that being able to precipitate a deal is not a proven ability of this BoD, nor is the market looking particularly acquisitive in Russia anyway. Secondly, the only proven route out for sale proceeds to UK shareholders is via Cyprus, a la Amur, who have yet to actually prove they've done it.
So in short, I think the market is seeing two unproven and anecdotally tricky routes to shareholder payback. And that is why they won't pay a higher share price.
Nothing to do with the fundamental value of the company or its assets, and everything to do with being able to realise that value.