Member Info for TheMadStork

And having doubts and questioning one's investments and positions is absolutely necessary to succeed in this game. Blind faith leads to big losses, as quite a few head-in-sand posters here are finding out.

I do have some sympathy for those who are down having bought in on the back of the massively sustained ramping that's happened both here and across social media. It's difficult to resist that kind of pressure.

My views are well known, but I'd simply urge anyone on the fence here to do some research into other PGM companies and their relative valuations, especially for resources in the ground. It's not difficult to see the truth if you spend a while looking.
Best of luck all.

Lancerman:

TMS your "edison report" figures were debunked comprehensively before. As were your Marothan figures. "

They absolutely were not. Quite the opposite. If your contention is that undeveloped in-ground PGM prices have more than doubled (let alone gone up 2500% as they would have to have done to justify the current mcap) then it is down to you to show it. I asked for an example of a valuation or sale that achieved even 5% of EUA's current mcap/oz. I asked several times. Nobody replied.

I then gave an example of a far more developed and advanced project being valued at a tiny fraction of EUA's mcap/oz, one that in fact bears out the Edison figures entirely. It's a similar story for every other undeveloped PGM project in the entire world.

I've posted my reasons many, many times on both here and ADVFN. Basically:

-Undeveloped PGM resources in the ground are worth very, very little. 0.35% of spot price historically. This is because there is absolutely no shortage of JORC PGM resource in the ground. NN has 120moz, SSW has 350m, the majors together have over 1bn. Even assuming prices have doubled recently, that still only makes MT's 1.8m JORC worth a max of $24m

-Projects that have no proven economics (no DFS, no BFS, not even a PEA!) are worth obviously much less. This goes double for those located in a hostile juristdiction like Russia.

-Russian P2 resources (ie the 13m oz on the flanks) are literally worth zero on the market, as in nobody has ever paid over $0/oz for them

Given the above, MT is almost certainly worth nothing on market, and certainly not more than $24m

The trouble is, there's not a lot they *can* release. I'm sure at some point there will be something about the Rosgeo JV, probably the Nyud license, but that is not what the vast majority of hot money is here for. It is here for an asset sale and quick riches. Any RNS which does *not* contain concrete progress on said sale will simply cause a very temporary spike and then get sold into.

And, of course, they can never actually provide that concrete progress as in my view there is a zero percent chance that MT is worth anything remotely close to the current mcap.

We shall see what they come up with. Best of luck, all.

Complete piffle. These sort of finger in the air tea leaves attempts to chart AIM stocks are always total nonsense. And I say that as someone who is short!

The SSW sale was a working, producing mine. Undeveloped in situ resources attract a *huge* discount compared to those with an existing, working mine. Any examples of *undeveloped* in-ground PGM project sales?

Layla: I do apologise for that minor typo, I know it's clear that a small child could have worked out what I intended there from context but still, I accept that that has completely ruined my point about ACF being a paid-for unregulated advert, the paying-for of which should raise major, major red flags for holders. I'm truly sorry.

Partypooper: Glad you asked!

I'll use Generation Mining's Marathon project as it is the clearest example, however there are *hundreds of millions* of undeveloped JORC oz in projects owned by SSW, AAL, NAP, THS, etc etc

https://www.genmining.com/site/assets/files/3885/gen_mining_pp_-_july_21_2021-compressed.pdf

It has 8.66m oz of Pd equiv JORC resource. It has a PEA and DFS proving it's economics, with an NPV of £500m. It is in a safe, secure jurisdiction with no history of doing over foreign-owned businesses.
Generation's mcap is c£65m.

MT has 1.8moz pd equiv JORC. It has no PEA or DFS, and therefore no proof it is economically viable. It has no NPV, IRR, AISC or anything like that, due to having no PEA or DFS. It is in Russia.

EUA's mcap is c£500m

mcap/JORC oz in £:

Generation Mining = c£7.50
Eurasia Mining = c£277

Notes:

Yes, EUA have more than MT, but Gen have more than Marathon. In both cases, it is by far and away the major asset.

"But what about the 13moz on the flanks"? Those are Russian P2 resources which are worth literally zero on market, as in nobody has ever paid more than zero for them. Feel free to provide an example if you disagree.

"Marathon has higher AISC" - EUA does not have an AISC, because it does not have a PEA or DFS, which is in fact one of the many reasons why the value disparity is even *greater* than it appears, as lack of such effectively makes MT worthless.

TBB: No probs! I think good old GFD got TBTT banned from here but I'm sure TBTT would be happy to speak for himself on ADVFN.

Lancerman: Well at least we agree on ACF. If I was long I'd be seriously questioning why the BoD felt it neccessary to pay a flim-flam man to big up the stock.

Anyway... riddle me this:

Which do you think is more likely?
1)Every single other undeveloped PGM project in the world is wildly mispriced (if you dispute this show me another that has been sold/is valued at anything remotely close to EUA's mcap/oz)

or

2)EUA has been bid up by a PI frenzy fuelled by wild claims of billions of pounds worth in the ground, and indulged by a BoD who have used this to raise £20m, in the time-honoured fashion of dozens of other AIM hype stocks.

TBB: I told you no such thing. You are confusing me with TigerByTheTail, who *did* make such claims.

The ACF report is an unregulated advert. It has the same legal and investment status as a random LSE ramp post, except with less credibility as the author (a one man band who has zero mining expertise and has never written about PGMs before) is specifically being paid by EUA to write his fantasy nonsense. From the disclaimer:

"A marketing communication under FCA Rules, this document has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements
designed to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of
the dissemination of the investment research. ACF Equity Research Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority. However the contents of this research report are produced as if ACF Equity Research Limited is
unregulated and consequently this report does not contain investment recommendations or ratings.
ACF, its directors, employees and agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of
the use of all or part of these materials. The information in this report is provided with the understanding that ACF is not
acting in a fiduciary capacity.
"

It contains a number of laughably basic errors and the fact that this nonsense advert has been promoted by EUA itself should be a massive red flag in itself.

"Can the stork explain why 2p is substantial divi?"

2p would have been 9%ish of the prevailing SP at the time. 9% could certainly be argued to be 'significant', in fact I'd say that the vast majority of dividend-paying companies would describe it as such, which would be good enough for the Nomad to cover themselves. Note the conditions attached - "*could* allow", etc. I don't believe that RNS broke the rules even if a dividend of any size was extremely unlikely. Certainly, I believe the chance of nothing ever being paid is far, far greater than even a 2p payout.

"In fact, find me a single undeveloped PGM project or sale anywhere on the planet at any time that has achieved even 5% of MT's current market valuation per oz."

Anyone? If you can't find one, perhaps some thought might be order?

^Probably sooner rather than later, that should read

Well, we'll see who is correct. I don't expect to change any minds.

My predictions remain:

-There will be no dividend paid, ever, or if there is it will be an absolute max of 2p. This is because EUA's assets are simply not worth very much.

-There will be another placing at some point before the next AGM, probably sooner.

-The share price will be sub 10p by 18/02/21 (ie 6 months from now).

Best of luck.

SB: In order to lend $200m a detailed cost-benefit analysis needs to be done, the PFS that was done 4 years ago at MT *is not that*. Nobody will lend without a DFS. Nobody. Again, if you disagree, please find an example. You absolutely will not find one as it would be an absurd financial risk for the lender. You'll note that in none of the RNSs do they say that all the conditions for activation have been fulfilled.

"In fact, find me a single undeveloped PGM project or sale anywhere on the planet at any time that has achieved even 5% of MT's current market valuation per oz."

Anyone?

"you are of course completely missing out our very low mining costs being open pit. You can also go back and listen to DS and the type of deals he was referring to. Try something like Sibayne and again compare costs and PGM increases."

There are no "very low mining costs". There has been no work done to prove the economics of MT. No DFS, no BFS, not even a PEA. There is no NPV, no IRR, no AISC. To think Sinosteel (or anyone at all, ever) will lend without those is just delusional, I'm afraid.

"Why does the State owned Rosgeo value the JV resources at 100B +? Maybe they should defer to the knb known as TMS?"

EUA do not own any of this. They have a $500k option to farm in to these licenses. It is worth $500k. Even if they did, as I said before, Russian P2 PGMs are worth zero on market. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Again, if you disagree, please find an example of a sale.

"TMS liar! How do you think MT has a mining licence and plan? "

If you mean the Sinosteel EPCF, please point out a single example of a mining ECPF that did not require at least a DFS to be activated. You will not find one. The Sinosteel deal *cannot be activated without a DFS*. Nobody will lend money without one. It's just a stone cold financial fact.

"Marathon has double the predicted AISC of MT. If I wanted to compare apples and oranges I'd pop down to the market."

MT does not have an AISC as it has no DFS or PEA.

In fact, find me a single undeveloped PGM project or sale anywhere on the planet at any time that has achieved even 5% of MT's current market valuation per oz.