Member Info for TheMadStork

I wouldn't expect anything (voluntary anyway, there's always the chance the Takeover Panel will force an update) until after they've managed to get a placing away.

Again with the personal attacks.

TBTT was off with his numbers as THR only own 28% of Great Dyke. However, his overall point is exactly correct. THR are hugely profitable, have massive reserves and 160k/oz production, yet their mcap is less than half that of EUA who have no production at 2m oz proved up at MT without even a DFS. It's completely ridiculous.

I am absolutely 100% confident that there will be no sale, have positioned myself accordingly, and would happily increase my short position hugely, were there any platform currently offering the means to do so. I have posted a few times on ADVFN, mainly because my posts here, despite containing absolutely nothing against the rules, are mass reported and removed. Always a healthy sign when opposing views are silenced.

Anyway, we shall see who is correct. I'm expecting a resolution to this shortly after the EGM, when either they will be allowed to get a placing away or the Takeover Panel will *finally* step in.

I find it interesting that you (and the other rampers on here) resort to personal insults rather than trying to actually rebut TBTT's arguments. He is spot on regarding EUA's actual valuation in my view, and when they are forced to eventually fess up and stop relying on this absurd record breaking bid-free 'sales process' the market cap will more accurately reflect the value (or lack thereof) of the assets EUA have.

The resolution calls for the authority to issue £250k worth of shares at the nominal value of 0.1p, which equals 250m shares.

If the shares are issued, the price will be whatever the brokers can raise the cash at, probably (but not absolutely certainly) at a discount to the prevailing share price at the time of the placing.

It's important to note that the resolution passing does not itself *guarantee* a placing, merely that it is a prequisite for a placing taking place.

It's to give them the authority to issue up to 250m new shares.

The lack of basic knowledge here is astounding. Blackrock's holding is entirely down to its various index trackers. These ae passively managed, ie all trades are automated. If more people buy into the tracker funds (as you would expect recently as the market is in full bull mode) then the algorithm automatically buys more shares. As part of the automated balancing act, small shorts may be opened to make sure the tracker funds stay within agreed limits.

Basically, Blackrock's holding is entirely automated and they hold no view either way. Long or short, their positions *do not reflect the view of Blackrock*. This is true for the vast majority of the non PI/board holdings; they are *automated* index funds.

As for actively managed shorts? Well we know there is no-one over 0.5% as that would have to be publically disclosed here:

https://www.shortdata.co.uk/companies-top-shorted.php

I'd be amazed if the total outstanding short position was any more than 1-2%

Actually the company had net cash of $4m as at 31 Dec, and current net cash will be considerably higher. Debt is not a concern here.

There's zero evidence any major companies are interested beyond vague talk of non binding offers from un-named parties. The fact is that anyone who was interested has had 18 months to bid, and at far lower prices than today's vastly inflated mcap, and there have been no bids. Zero. Not a single one.

Personally I remain astonished that this farce of an FSP has been allowed to go on as long as it has, but the end must surely be nigh.

mjs94:

The company was for sale as of October 2019, per the RNS which stated they were considering selling assets. Since then, the price has increased by 2000-4000% and there have been no binding offers at all, and no non-binding offers at least prior to July 2020, when EUA ceased being subject to Rule 2.4. Anyone who was interested could have expressed formal interest at any time from October 2019, yet nobody did so, despite the fact that the price was far, far lower. None of your points explain how EUA is worth 2500-4000% more than it was when it first went up for sale. The assets for sale have not changed, and anything that has changed (WK, debt, flanks license) are either immaterial to the current £713m mcap or would already have been taken into account by any buyer from Oct 2019 onwards.

This is the basic problem.

mjs94:

"The prices of the metals in the basket have exploded over the last few years, by a LOT, the value of the metals in the basket alone in the last few months has gone up by over a $1b."

Since October of 2019, (EUA mcap £10-£30m) the palladium price is up by about 20% platinum by about 15%. EUA is up by around 2500-4000%, depending on where you measure from.

"- The development of WK over the last 2 years including the DFS which now all revenues are 100% Eurasia's."

WK is completely immaterial to the share price. Even the absurdly rampy ACF report only gave it an NPV of £33m, or around 4% of the current market cap. Realistically it is probably worth far less as it has consistently burned cash. Regardless, WK is simply not material in the context of the current valuation of EUA.

"-- Reduction of all debt."

This added about £1m to the value of the company. Current mcap £713m. Not material.

"- EUA had to receive a mining permit at MT from the office of the Prime Minster to even get to this point, a process which began 'over 10 years ago'."

Unsure how this is relevant. Any buyer in October 2019 would have inherited the license and EUA's flanks application, which presumably would have been unchanged and therefore granted.

"- Putting a deal in place to develop MT with SS."

This was done in 2017. It was already in the price as of October 2019.

-"- Obtaining the Flanks for MT, which has mind blowing resource potential backed up by tons of historical data."

See above. Not only would any Oct 2019 buyer also have been granted the flanks license, the resources there are completely un-minable until the have been proved up to the satisfaction of the state and are therefore functionally worthless at present.

I can believe there was interest when it was originally RNSed and the market cap was £20-40m or so.

What I cannot believe, and what nobody has explained, is why, when the price was hugely lower than today there was no formal start of negotiations (which would have had to have been RNSed per Rule 2.4 and certainly no binding offer (which would have had to have been RNSed per Rule 2.1).

I seem to recall spending far too long arguing about this before. It is an extremely simple argument and I have not heard any explanation sufficient to change my mind. I'll therefore leave things there and in the fullness of time we shall see who is right.

Hector: I did close half my position on the Churakov dump, as I posted at the time.

"So you open a short, then close half of it, now you're complaining you can't open a new position?"

Yes? I closed half at 17p or thereabouts. That doesn't mean that I'm not confident in the final outcome, merely that I thought the price was likely to bounce from there, as it in fact did. I was hoping that Spreadex would allow new shorts but that doesn't appear to be the case. I would be comfortable with a far larger position if I there was anywhere offering new shorts in EUA, which AFAIk there isn't.

denby: I meant that you are unable to add to spreadbet positions on Spreadex or IG. If you know of anywhere else it is possible to open a new short position in EUA then please let me know!

I wish it were a larger position as I am 100% confident in the eventual outcome of the FSP, but like I said, it's impossible to add.

https://imgur.com/a/wGAsDsf

My average on the short is 40p.

I closed half of my short on the afternoon of Churakov's share dump. The other half is still open and the only reason I haven't added to it is that Spreadex is not accepting any new trades in EUA, short or long.

The fact that Churakov is still listed as a strategic advisor -and therefore heavily involved in the sale process- when clearly he can't be as otherwise his dumping of shares would have been illegal, is just one of the many, many red flags around EUA as a company. Quite apart from the fundamental problem that nobody bid on the assets when they were 1/20th of the current price, EUA simply does not act like a proper business.

I remain short and am expecting the takeover panel to put an end to this farce soon.

That's the right decision IMO. Focus on filling the capacity they have before attempting more empire building. Accugas is a cash machine and I think the market would have looked dimly on SAVE punting on marginal fields with possible further dilution/debt instead of focusing on the cash-generative core business.

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said? Obviously if there is no news then they don't have to release anything.

The idea that AZ can pick and choose when to release market sensitive news, even while suspended, is total nonsense, however.

Market sensitive news is absolutely required to be released whether the stock is suspended or not. Ordinarily a standard list company might have a bit of leeway due to no Nomad, but the FCA are clearly looking closely at SYME, so the chances of them sitting on significant news are zero IMO.

They had $274m cash in the bank and $270m debt as at 31 Dec, meaning *net cash* (cash - debt) of $4m. So they had debt, but it it was entirely covered by cash on 31 Dec. By the time of the next update, cash should have increased by approx $200m, meaning they will have c$474m cash - $270m debt = $204m *net cash*. Needless to say, this is an excellent position to be in.