Member Info for TheMadStork

Also, I have been seeing some insane valuations for the Rosgeo JV. Not sure how people are working that out? All EUA have is an *option* to develop these assets. They do not own the assets themselves. How is the option worth any more than the $0.5m that EUA paid for it, and if it *is* worth hundreds of times more, as people here seem to believe, why on earth would Rosgeo give away hundreds of millions of dollars to EUA?

Fair enough. Maybe they got too good a deal. My question stands though: can anyone provide an example of a mineless PGM deposit being valued at anything close to 10% of nominal value in the ground?

"But you are right, there is a big difference with a development resource and a turn key cash/profit generating operation purchase like Stillwater or NAP."

Not only that, but I would venture to suggest that there is a big difference in political risk discount between a development resource in Australia, Canada or South Africa vs one in Russia.

Apologies for the treble post. There really should be an edit function.

By "valued higher" I mean anything over 10% of the nominal value in the ground, as that is what it will take, by my calcs, for MT's resource to even come close to justifying the current market cap.

Also, I disagree that the deal "does not make sense" at that valuation. It seems to me that minerals in the ground -in the absence of a mine- are heavily discounted. If anyone can provide an example where a deposit in the ground with no mine was valued higher, then please post it and I shall be happy to stand corrected.

"The project contains the largest intrusion in the West Pilbara and hosts an estimated 1.14Moz of palladium, 830,000oz of platinum, 152,000oz of gold and 76,000oz of rhodium."

Looks to be roughly comparable to MT in terms of JORC-compliant resource. Obviously the bulls here will suggest that MT actually has 15moz but that is speculative, non -JORC compliant, not a state regonised resource and requires further drilling to prove up. That 15moz would therefore be worth considerably less.

It is your responsibility as a taxpayer to calculate and pay whatever you owe. HMRC will not do it for you. They will, however, take a very dim view if they have reason to suspect you've been "getting away with a little bit". It's not worth it, trust me.

HL has a handy 'tax centre' feature which will allow you to easily complete the required CGT forms on your tax return:

https://online.hl.co.uk/my-accounts/tax-centre

Shouldn't take you too long, unless we are talking dozens and dozens of trades. If you do want to get an accountant, I would suggest going local, as you will certainly want to meet them face to face on occasion. Obviously everything can be done online these days but personally, if someone is in charge of my money then I want to meet them in person first.

I don't think it's wise to talk about EUA here given the likelihood of attracting its rabid fanbase. Suffice to say I expect to make money both here and there. Hopefully far more here though, as my THS holding is pretty substantial now.

Have accumulated a fairly large position here over the last couple of weeks or so. Seems clear that THS is materially undervalued given the surge in PGM prices which should go straight to the bottom line. If my calcs are correct then it's currently trading on a forward P/E of 1.5 - 2 vs 4-5 for peers. The price is obviously being held here by Fidelity's selling, but they should be done soon and I see no reason why that shouldn't spark a rerate to fairer value.

Ethio, as has been pointed out to you:

1) That video was recorded in Oct 2019, 9 months before UBS were appointed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not UBS are being paid a retainer for their services.

2) As I and others have pointed out, with references, it is almost unheard of for a reputable IB to work on a "no sale no fee" basis. As stated in the RNS, UBS are working on a success fee basis. This does *not* mean they are not being paid a retainer as well, as is overwhelmingly standard practice in the industry.

You are flat wrong.

...dozens of times *a* day, rather. And yes I am aware of the irony given I have posted on here a fair few times in the last couple of days. Such is life. Still, I have never once been abusive to anyone and never will be.

Be thankful you are not short! The abuse is non-stop. Comes with the territory though; people do not like being told they are wrong and I completely understand. It does make me chuckle though when I read about how desperate the bears supposedly are, when the bulls here post dozens of times and day and fly into a frothing rage every time someone posts something out of line with the fantasy-land consensus.

Value disclosure issue makes total sense... which is one of the reasons why (assuming MT/WK are worth anything close to their current implied valuation, which I heartily dispute) there will not be a separate buyout.

As Billions correctly points out, anyone buying EUA would also be buying out the other stakeholders in MT/WK, in cash. Why on earth would there have to be a seperate buyout in shares? Like many ideas posted on this board, It makes no sense if you think about it for even 10 seconds.

You cannot include the flanks. *Reserves*, ie stuff that is mineable right now with no further drilling, amount to 200koz. There is another 1.8moz in the Resource category which requires further drilling to make it a mineable reserve. However, nobody is going to build a mine without a DFS at an absolute minimum so it's academic anyway.

As for the 15moz? Not even in the resource category and therefore functionally worthless to a buyer.

By that I believe they mean "when we've raised as much cash as we can and the FSP is no longer needed to keep the market cap inflated"

This EGM was called with one purpose: to allow them to issue more shares to raise more cash. The resolution will absolutely pass because the shareholder base is either board members (who will benefit from their salaries being guaranteed for years to come) or a vast number of retail punters who have all been convinced that this is necessary for an impending mega-sale.

Nttg2: It is the longest ever FSP by quite a long way. If I had to guess, I'd say they've been pleading Covid delays to the Takeover Panel. Surely not long til Put Up Or Shut Up, although I seem to recall saying that back in Jan, so who knows? The EGM and subsequent inevitable attempt to raise cash will be key IMO.

They will be looking to do a placing before being forced to fess up about the FSP. Dreams of a mega sale is the only thing supporting the current bonkers valuation and the higher the valuation at the time of the placing, the more cash they can raise. Will the Takeover Panel allow it is the question? I'm definitely leaning towards 'yes' given how willing they have been to enable this farce of a record-breaking bid-free 'sales process' thus far. We shall see though.

I told myself I'd derisk at 400p, but iron ore looks so incredibly bullish that I'm holding for the moment. Don't see Russia making a serious move, but it would certainly help if those troops were stood down!