Member Info for TheMadStork

My expectation is that they will try to soften the blow by announcing that they will activate the Sinosteel EPC and mine at MT themselves. That should be enough to keep interest going and also get them out of the FSP so shares can be sold. Obviously there will be a huge drop on the announcement and I will close my short then, as the aforementioned loyal supporters are likely to 'buy the dip' in that case and keep the valuation at a bonkers level, although significantly less bonkers than it is at the moment.

Amanensia: In my view they are stuck and trying to formulate a way to word things to keep the ramp going. It does seem odd that it's being going on so long when it is crystal clear that there is and has been absolutely no interest at any stage. They have successfully raised £10m off this though, which represents a huge windfall for the company, and have acquired a large and loyal band of PI investors.

At some point they are going to have to fess up as the Takeover Panel will step in.

Also about 30% of all Spreadex clients are short as of NYE

https://imgur.com/UuE7M76

Not as big a position as I'd like, but unfortunately there is no more borrow on Spreadex, and IG wouldn't even let me open a position, despite being down as pro with both.

As I've said four times now, I am short EUA. Also, I've posted once on Twitter re EUA and nowhere else so not sure which 'other boards' you're referring to.

There is no deadline on the FSP. I'd still expect an update of some kind next week since it has been 6 months with official update on the progress of the FSP, which is unprecedented AFAIK. The Takeover Panel will eventually step in.

Literally every single one of those is an automated passive index tracker, as has been explained over and over and over again.

Maggy: I am short. As we know, the risks of shorting are such that you have to be pretty damn sure of yourself to take a position. I do far more research on my shorts than my longs (when I can get borrow that is - I have a decent sized position in EUA but I wanted a larger one -though still within comfortable risk profile- but Spreadex have closed further shorts)

Montyboz: Can't say fairer than that! Although we disagree I definitely respect the amount of sincere time and effort you have put in. Always happy to engage in a civil conversation! Best of luck to you.

The point is that index trackers are *entirely automated*. That is the whole point of an index tracking fund! The institutions that own and operate these funds (mostly Blackrock in this case) do not make an active decision to invest. Everything is automated. They are expressing no view over the value of EUA whatsoever.

Montyboz: Reading the interims I see a company burning £2m cash a year with assets of £6m. There is no value ascribed to MT on the balance sheet. To be fair this is not especially unusual as it can be difficult to value resources in the ground, especially inferred resources, which are always hugely discounted. Suffice it to say, their auditors would have raised an eyebrow at a £900m asset value!

I tried to do an average over the month of December 2019 vs an average over the last month. Calculations may have been off a bit but the burden is on you to show how that increase justfies a 2000% uplift in EUA's mcap. Also, what was the outcome of Lesego's DD again? At £100m mcap?

Ethioethio:

The board paid a fraction of the current price of their shares, haven't bought any on market for several years and can't sell due to the FSP.

I cannot be bothered to explain for the 8th time about Blackrock and index trackers. Suffice it to say that not a single fund has made an *active* decision to buy shares for at least a year.

Montyboz:

1) The price of palladium, which is by far the largest component of the PGM basket at MT is only 10% higher than it was when EUA was worth £50m. Platinum, the second largest, is almost bang level.

2) There is no defined, state approved REE resource at MT, and even if there were, prices are not much higher than when the mcap was £50m

3) Russia carries a very geopolitical high risk premium, which is a big factor in any mining company's acquisition strategy. A 5% tax break is immaterial and does not merit a 2000% rise.

4)How does this change the value of the resource in the ground? Also it's been a thing since the mcap was £50m.

5)How does this change the value of the resource in the ground?

6)The flanks license would have been granted to any successful bidder as they would have just used EUA's application.

7)Not sure what data you're referring to there or when it was granted. Happy to be informed.

gggg21: "Institutions are piling in" is utter nonsense. As has been explained over and over again, some passively managed index tracker funds have bought in a a result of EUA's mcap increasing to the point that it has been added to various indices. Not one single fund has made an active decision to buy in in the last year AFAIK.

The board have not bought any shares since the big rise started, and none of them can sell due to the FSP. The big rise has been entirely driven by PIs, except the rise at the end of november/early december which was down to the quarterly update of MSCI indices, EUA being added to them and index trackers *passively* buying in.

Also a big part of my point is that there were no offers before the FSP started. We know there were interested parties as far back as October. Any serious approach would have had to have been RNSed at some point, Rule 2.4 still applied prior to the start of the FSP.

What DD is there to complete? The c2moz state approved reserves have been know about for two and a half years. The 15moz exploration targets are based on publically available data. Any bidder has had all the information they need for years at this point.

Bergcarls: I am saying that what is for sale has not changed since the company was worth £10m. A bid could have come in at a decent premium to the mcap at any time since then but it has not. Why not?

ciminna: Under the FSP, EUA are exempt from 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)

However, they are still subject to Rule 2.2:

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;

Sorry, that came across as a little flippant.

At the end of the day, we are all betting on the outcome of the FSP. I am simply betting the other way, and have outlined my reasons for doing so. If anyone would like to respond constructively I'll be happy to engage.

Of course I am short. I could hardly believe the above and *not* be short.