Member Info for TheMadStork

CAW1: Cheers mate. You too.

Tommo1989: My short is £550/point, which basically means for ever penny the sp drops or rises I make £550. Total value was £22k when I opened it. Like I said, not a large position. I wanted more but as I said, Spreadex is not allowing any more short positions to be opened.

CAW1: Haha no it's to do with their risk management. Approx 30% of their clients are short and they balance positions vs client longs, plus whatever borrow there is in the market (which is not much).

Anyway, my short is still open: https://imgur.com/hCart7b

It occurs to me that I've been posting entirely too much and spending far too much time arguing with people on here for what amounts to a relatively small position. Basically posting the same things over and over again. I think my argument is a very simple and clear one but I understand that posting it over and over again is not helpful!

I shall sign out until anything major happens. I'm sure everyone is devastated!

My short is still open and will remain open until the outcome of the FSP.

To be entirely transparent, I would probably consider closing it around here as I think there's likely to be a short term bounce from this level due to people 'buying the dip' and also the DFS news (immaterial though it is, it may effect the SP short term). Ideally I'd then reopen once the bounce has happened. Unfortunately Spreadex is not allowing new shorts to be opened, so if I closed I would not be able to have it open for the FSP outcome, the result of which is the whole reason I'm short in the first place.

Yes, I have to agree with that. Another large acquisition, especially oil-dominated would be a big mistake at this point. Let's progress the cash-generating assets we have, and focus on winning new business to use up the spare capacity. No need to keep empire building!

Actually to get back to 42 from 30 requires a rise of 40%, so although Happyscot was wrong, he wasn't *that* wrong.

Bound to see some profit taking after a 50% rise in a week.

Montyboz: Can you provide an example of a company that explicitly said it was looking to sell its assets, received no bids and was subsquently sold 15 months later for twenty times the price, with no new relevant information having been announced?

I can indeed think of some oilers that were taking over for multiples in a short space of time (Cove Energy springs to mind for example), but they all had major discoveries that prompted bids. Indeed, Cove was sold through an FSP!

djm1: Do you seriously believe that there is no link between the market capitalisation, that is to say the current value of the shares of the company, and the price a bidder is willing to pay for those shares? Really?

It is true that the FSP has meant they do not have to announce if they are in talks due to the dispensation granted under Rule 2.4

However, as I keep saying, before the FSP started, they *were still subject to Rule 2.4* and therefore any serious approach *had to be announced*. They announced they were looking to sell and that there were interested parties in October of 2019. The price was far lower so why was there no interest? It would have had to have been RNSed!

fenakit: As I have posted what seems like a dozen times, EUA are and have always been subject to Rule 2.2 of the takeover code, which means any firm offer must be announced regardless of the attitude of the board. None have been, therefore there were no firm offers at any stage.

Prior to 1 July 2020, they were also subject to Rule 2.4, which means any serious approach had to be announced too. None were, therefore there was not even serious interest when the price was at a fraction of the current level.

Also, djm1 is exactly correct in that anyone participating in the FSP would be barred from buying stock without notification, and if it came out that they had been then any takeover bid would be void.

There's absolutely no way a bidder could buy the required amount of stock without tipping their hand. SEAQ stocks are incredibly volatile - the index trackers buying just 1.5% cause the price to rocket 30% recently, for example.

A better question to ask is why nobody put in a bid when the company went up for sale at 8% of the current valuation.

PartyPooper:

Please name an example of a junior miner which announced it was looking to sell its assets and that there were interested parties, received no bids and then was subsequently sold for twenty times the price 15 months later with no new information.

djm1: Prior to July 1 2020, EUA were also subject to rule 2.4:

2.4 THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POSSIBLE OFFER
(a) An announcement by the offeree company which commences an
offer period must identify any potential offeror with which the offeree
company is in talks or from which an approach has been received (and
not unequivocally rejected).
8.1.18
RULE 2 CONTINUED
NOTES ON RULE 2.2 continued
D6
(b) Any subsequent announcement by the offeree company which
refers to the existence of a new potential offeror must identify that
potential offeror, except where the announcement is made after an
offeror has announced a firm intention to make an offer for the offeree
company (see Rule 2.6(e))

I think were can say for absolute certain that nobody was seriously interested prior to July 1, when the asking price was massively lower than it is now. Why is that?

djm1: I have posted this over and over again as people seem to keep missing it. Here is Rule 2.2 of the Takeover Code, which EUA were and are subject to at all times:

2.2 WHEN AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS REQUIRED
An announcement is required:
(a) when a firm intention to make an offer is notified to the board of
the offeree company by or on behalf of an offeror, **irrespective of the
attitude of the board to the offer;** (emphasis mine)

Amanensia: Nail on head. There is no way to reconcile that a)EUA is worth £1bn+ and b) Nobody bid for it when it was worth £50m even though the information available has not changed. It's incredibly simple and I am baffled as to how many seem not to see it.

sbrace: Pd is up about 25% since Dec 19. EUA is up 1800%. That's not the answer.

The market cap was £50m and there were confirmed interested parties. There was absolutely nothing stopping any of them from making a bid at a standard premium (say 50%) or at least entering into serious discussions, both of which would have had to have been RNSed given EUA was still subject to Rule 2.4 at that time.

And I might add that of those 2m oz, the vast majority are C2, or inferred, which are always *heavily* discounted as they require additional work to move them into mineable reserves, on top of the infrastructure and extraction costs.

Montyboz: EUA have around 2moz mostly 2:1 Pd:Pt state certified resources at MT. That's it. All those other figures you keep quoting are from old data, which is publically available and has been known to any bidder for years.

As I have said before, the company and its resource was on sale for £50m in October of 2019, yet there were no bids and not even a serious expression of interest. Why not?

djm1: That's flat out wrong, in my view. The BOTB statement is vague but clearly states there are ongoing negotiations. There is absolutely no way a similar statement from EUA would prejudice anything.