{"ok":true,"article":{"id":73,"slug":"evraz-returns-to-moscow","title":"EVRAZ Returns to Moscow: Is Its Discount to Russia’s Steel Giants Justified?","summary":"EVRAZ trades at a discount to MMK, NLMK and Severstal. We examine whether its RUB 221bn valuation reflects risk or potential rerating upside.","body":"EVRAZ is now trading in Moscow at a valuation well below Severstal and NLMK, raising an obvious question for investors: is the market heavily discounting a major Russian steel business, or is the gap justified by the uncertainty around its newly listed structure, disclosure and shareholder accessibility?\n\n## A valuation gap that immediately catches the eye\n\nFor former shareholders of the London listed EVRAZ plc, the arrival of Public Joint Stock Company EVRAZ on the Moscow Exchange has reopened a valuation question that had been largely frozen for several years. The new ordinary shares, trading under the ticker EVRZ, began trading on MOEX in May 2026, with the exchange confirming a total of 4,042,002,366 shares admitted to trading. Based on a quoted price of RUB 54.75 per share at the time of the valuation review, the company had an implied equity value of approximately RUB 221.3bn.\n\nThat valuation looks striking when placed alongside Russia’s other listed steel producers. On the same calculation basis, using quoted share prices and verified shares in issue, MMK was valued at approximately RUB 280.6bn, NLMK at RUB 495.6bn and Severstal at RUB 622.4bn. In simple market capitalisation terms, EVRAZ was therefore valued at around 79% of MMK, 45% of NLMK and 36% of Severstal.\n\n![image](https://yakkio.com/uploads/user_uploads/u_1779511687239_p3xidu3bml.webp)\n\nAt first glance, that gap may appear to support a straightforward rerating case. EVRAZ has historically been associated with substantial steelmaking operations, railway products, construction steel, iron ore integration and vanadium exposure. It is difficult to look at those industrial characteristics and immediately conclude that Severstal is almost three times the business, or that NLMK is more than twice as valuable on operating fundamentals alone.\n\nHowever, that is precisely where the investment question becomes more complicated. Investors are not comparing four businesses with equally transparent structures, equally current financial reporting and equally accessible shares. [MOEX identifies EVRZ](https://www.moex.com/n100160?utm_source=chatgpt.com) as the ordinary equity of Public Joint Stock Company EVRAZ, while available corporate and rating evidence indicates that the listed Russian issuer emerged from a restructuring process involving the former EVRAZ framework. The market is therefore not only valuing steel plants, production capacity and product positions. It is also valuing what shareholders can currently verify, access and ultimately benefit from.\n\nThat distinction matters. A lower valuation does not automatically mean the business is smaller in direct proportion to its market capitalisation. It can also reflect uncertainty about the final corporate perimeter, the availability of current consolidated accounts, the treatment of historic subsidiaries and liabilities, the ability of investors to trade or receive distributions, and the wider effect of sanctions and governance risk. For EVRAZ, those questions sit at the centre of the valuation debate.\n\nThe most balanced starting position is therefore not that EVRAZ is obviously undervalued, but that its discount is large enough to deserve serious examination. The company may eventually prove to be worth materially more than its current RUB 221.3bn valuation, particularly if clearer disclosure and shareholder access allow the market to compare it more confidently with MMK, NLMK and Severstal. At present, however, the gap represents both potential opportunity and unresolved risk.\n\n\n[AD_SNIPPET:article-banner]\n\n\n\n## The first issue is not valuation, but corporate identity\n\nBefore asking whether EVRAZ deserves to trade alongside Severstal or NLMK, investors first need to establish exactly what they are valuing. The security now quoted in Moscow is the ordinary equity of Public Joint Stock Company EVRAZ, trading under the ticker EVRZ with ISIN RU0009084438. The [Moscow Exchange admission notice](https://www.moex.com/n100160?utm_source=chatgpt.com) confirms that trading began on 19 May 2026 and that the shares were admitted to the third quotation level, rather than the main level occupied by more established peers. That distinction matters because the equity now being priced is a new Russian listed security, not simply the old London listed EVRAZ plc share line returning unchanged to the market.\n\nThe background to that new listing is a major corporate restructuring. In July 2025, EVRAZ announced plans to create a Russian public company in Nizhny Tagil, intended to bring together the value of its Russian metallurgical, mining and related assets for investors. Available rating evidence subsequently referred to the issuer previously known as EVRAZ NTMK being renamed Public Joint Stock Company EVRAZ. The current listing therefore appears to be the Russian holding vehicle created from that restructuring process, rather than a straightforward continuation of the former UK quoted parent company. ([EVRAZ announcement](https://www.evraz.com/ru/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/evraz-sozdast-publichnuyu-kompaniyu-na-urale/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) ([NKR rating analysis](https://ratings.ru/ratings/press-releases/Evraz-RA-190925/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))\n\nThat difference creates one of the central valuation uncertainties. The available evidence supports the view that EVRAZ remains a substantial Russian industrial business, with vertically integrated steel and iron ore operations, exposure to construction and railway steel products, and a significant position in vanadium. What is not yet sufficiently clear from accessible current public material is the complete post-restructuring perimeter of the listed company, including the precise ownership position of every historic Russian asset, liability and cash-generating business. The valuation report was particularly cautious on coal exposure and the treatment of Raspadskaya, which should not be assumed to belong to the current listed vehicle without formal current confirmation.\n\nFor retail investors, this is not a minor technical point. A comparison with NLMK, Severstal or MMK is only meaningful once investors know which operations, debt obligations, cash flows and dividend rights sit inside EVRZ. A market capitalisation of RUB 221.3bn may eventually prove too low for a business containing EVRAZ’s full Russian industrial strength, but the market is entitled to apply a discount while the listed perimeter, current consolidated accounts, shareholder access and distribution position remain less transparent than those of its established peers.\n\nThis is why the EVRAZ valuation debate cannot begin with a simple statement that the shares are cheap. It must begin with a more basic question: what exactly does an EVRZ shareholder own today? Until that question is answered with greater precision, any rerating argument towards Severstal or NLMK levels remains a conditional case rather than a proven valuation anomaly.\n\n\n## A serious industrial business sits behind the discount\n\nThe uncertainty around the newly listed security does not mean there is no meaningful operating business to assess. The available evidence describes EVRAZ as one of Russia’s largest vertically integrated steel and mining groups, with control over the chain from iron ore through to finished steel products. In its September 2025 credit assessment, [NKR](https://ratings.ru/ratings/press-releases/Evraz-RA-190925/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) identified vertical integration, strong positions in steel products and a diversified operating base as important strengths of the company’s business profile.\n\nThat matters because EVRAZ is not simply another steelmaker competing on undifferentiated volumes. The same NKR analysis describes the group as a Russian leader in rolled steel products for infrastructure and construction, a major vanadium producer and the country’s only producer of railway rails. Those product positions give the business a different industrial profile from peers whose investment cases are more heavily shaped by flat steel, domestic premium products or export markets. Railway steel and construction products may be cyclical, but they are tied to long-term infrastructure demand, while vanadium provides an additional specialist materials exposure.\n\nVertical integration is also important in a steel market where margins can be squeezed quickly by raw material costs. A producer with its own iron ore supply and a meaningful degree of control over inputs can be better placed to withstand weak pricing environments than a more exposed competitor. For EVRAZ, the evidence currently supports iron ore integration as part of the listed company’s industrial strength. It does not yet provide the same confidence around every historic asset once associated with the former London-listed group, particularly coal exposure and the treatment of Raspadskaya, which remains an area where investors need formal clarification.\n\nThere is also financial evidence that the business entered this new listed phase from a position of industrial substance rather than distress. NKR’s assessment referred to an OIBDA margin, effectively an operating profitability measure before depreciation and amortisation, of 18% for 2024, alongside net profit relative to assets of 9%. The agency also recorded total debt to OIBDA of 1.9 times at the end of 2024, although it expected that ratio to rise to 2.6 times by the end of 2025. These figures are encouraging in isolation, but they are not a substitute for current consolidated accounts prepared for the exact business now represented by EVRZ shares.\n\nThis creates the central tension in the investment case. On the available operating evidence, EVRAZ does not look like a minor steel company that can simply be dismissed as deserving a fraction of the value attached to Severstal or NLMK. It appears to contain a significant industrial platform, differentiated products and meaningful raw material integration. However, a large operating footprint only becomes fully valuable to public shareholders when its ownership, financial performance, debt position and distribution capacity can be verified clearly.\n\n\n[AD_SNIPPET:article-banner]\n\n\n## Are Severstal and NLMK really two or three times stronger than EVRAZ?\n\nThe most useful starting point is MMK, not Severstal or NLMK. At the prices captured for this valuation review, MMK had a calculated market capitalisation of approximately RUB 280.6bn, compared with RUB 221.3bn for EVRAZ. That is a meaningful premium, but not an enormous one. MMK describes itself as one of the world’s largest steel producers and a leading supplier of steel, premium metal products and automotive steel in Russia. Its official [2025 results](chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://mmk.ru/upload/news_docs/Press_release_Q4_2025_Results_RUB_RUS.pdf) release reported steel output of 10.16 million tonnes, revenue of RUB 609.9bn, EBITDA of RUB 80.8bn and net cash of RUB 79.9bn. EVRAZ may have a differentiated industrial portfolio, but MMK currently gives investors a clearer basis for assessing operating performance and balance sheet strength.\n\n![image](https://yakkio.com/uploads/user_uploads/u_1779512303234_i3ilfdetq7.webp)\n\nNLMK presents a stronger premium case because investors can currently assess both its operating scale and financial position with greater confidence. Its [official company information](https://nlmk.com/en/) states that the group has annual steel production capacity of 16 million tonnes, with its Russian operations including flat steel production and raw material businesses such as Stoilensky and Altai-Koks. Its official [financial statements](https://nlmk.com/ru/about/governance/regulatory-disclosure/financial-statements/) centre lists the audited disclosed consolidated statements for 2025, published in March 2026. Those statements reported revenue of RUB 831.4bn, operating profit of RUB 75.4bn, net profit of RUB 63.1bn and a year-end net cash position of RUB 45.7bn. That degree of documented scale and financial disclosure supports a premium to EVRAZ today, although it does not prove that EVRAZ is economically worth less than half as much.\n\nSeverstal is the most eye-catching comparison because its calculated market capitalisation of RUB 622.4bn is approximately 2.8 times that of EVRAZ. Like EVRAZ, it is a vertically integrated steel and mining business, which makes it a relevant upper comparison point. However, Severstal’s recent financial performance does not suggest a business currently operating three times more strongly. As reported by Interfax from the company’s [first-quarter 2026 announcement](https://www.interfax.ru/business/1085076), Severstal’s EBITDA fell 54% year on year to RUB 17.94bn, while free cash flow was negative RUB 40.37bn. Its revenue also fell 19% to RUB 145.3bn, according to the same results announcement.\n\nThe Severstal premium therefore appears to reflect more than short-term earnings alone. Investors are looking at an established listed company with a longer reporting history, clearer current financial disclosure and a more familiar route to ownership and trading access. EVRAZ may eventually support a substantially higher valuation if the newly listed company can demonstrate comparable operating quality, financial transparency and shareholder accessibility. Until then, Severstal is better understood as an upper rerating reference than as evidence of EVRAZ’s present fair value.\n\nThis is why the simple question of whether Severstal is almost three times bigger than EVRAZ, or whether NLMK is more than twice as strong, cannot be answered by market capitalisation alone. The available evidence does not establish that EVRAZ is economically inferior in anything like those proportions. It does establish that MMK and NLMK currently provide clearer operating and balance sheet information, while Severstal remains a better understood quoted equity despite a difficult start to 2026.\n\nThe comparison therefore supports a cautious conclusion. EVRAZ appears too substantial an industrial business to dismiss as naturally deserving only a fraction of the value attached to Russia’s larger listed steelmakers. Yet the current discount is not clearly irrational. Until investors can confirm the precise listed perimeter, current consolidated profitability, debt position, distribution capability and practical shareholder access, MMK remains the most credible immediate comparator. NLMK and Severstal are better regarded as conditional rerating benchmarks than as proof of present-day undervaluation.\n\n\n## The discount is not automatically a mistake\n\nThe temptation with EVRAZ is to look at a market capitalisation of RUB 221.3bn, compare it with Severstal and NLMK, and immediately conclude that the market has priced the company incorrectly. That may eventually prove to be the case, but there are genuine reasons why investors might currently demand a discount. The security has only recently begun trading on MOEX, and the [official exchange record](https://www.moex.com/ru/listing/securities-list.aspx) places EVRZ on the third quotation level, rather than alongside the more established first-level listings of its largest peers. For a newly traded equity emerging from a complex corporate transition, liquidity and investor confidence matter alongside industrial scale.\n\nThe first reason for caution is the corporate structure itself. In July 2025, EVRAZ stated that it intended to create a Russian public company whose shares would bring together the value of the group’s metallurgical, mining and other Russian assets for investors. That [official announcement](https://www.evraz.com/ru/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/evraz-sozdast-publichnuyu-kompaniyu-na-urale/) established the broad objective, but it does not by itself give retail investors a complete, current and easily comparable picture of every asset, liability and cash flow now attributable to the listed EVRZ shares. Until that full perimeter is confirmed through current consolidated disclosure, the market is likely to remain cautious about applying peer valuations based on the historic EVRAZ business profile.\n\nThe second issue is the quality of current financial evidence. The [NKR assessment](https://ratings.ru/ratings/press-releases/Evraz-RA-190925/) provides useful support for the industrial case, identifying a vertically integrated steel and iron ore business with leading positions in construction and railway products, as well as vanadium. It also referred to operating profitability and leverage metrics that suggest a substantial business rather than a distressed one. However, investors evaluating EVRZ against MMK, NLMK and Severstal still need current consolidated reporting for the listed vehicle itself, covering revenue, EBITDA, cash flow, net debt and dividend capacity on a comparable basis.\n\nThere is also a practical difference between owning exposure to a strong industrial business and being able to benefit fully from that exposure as a shareholder. EVRAZ’s restructuring, its newly established trading history, the third-level listing and the wider restrictions that have affected the former London-listed structure all create uncertainty around liquidity, accessibility and potential distributions. Even if the operating assets are competitive, a listed equity can remain discounted where investors are uncertain about governance, ownership rights, market access or the route by which operating cash eventually reaches shareholders.\n\nThis is why EVRAZ’s present discount cannot yet be described as an obvious valuation error. The available evidence suggests that it is a serious industrial company and that the gap with Severstal and NLMK may contain meaningful rerating potential. It also shows why the market may rationally apply a discount until the new listed entity publishes fuller financial evidence, clarifies its exact operating perimeter and establishes a more normal investment case for ordinary shareholders. In that context, the current valuation looks less like proof that EVRAZ is fundamentally weak, and more like a market price that still carries a substantial charge for uncertainty.\n\n\n[AD_SNIPPET:article-banner]\n\n\n## The rerating case, from modest recovery to bullish convergence\n\nThe valuation gap does create a rerating argument, but the sensible starting point is not immediate parity with Severstal or NLMK. EVRAZ currently calculates at approximately RUB 221.3bn, based on RUB 54.75 per share and the [4,042,002,366](https://www.moex.com/ru/listing/securities-list.aspx) ordinary shares identified in the official MOEX security record. The closest first-stage comparison is MMK, whose clearer disclosure, current reported results and net cash position support a premium today, but whose valuation is not so far above EVRAZ that a move towards its range looks unrealistic if the new listed company improves transparency.\n\n![image](https://yakkio.com/uploads/user_uploads/u_1779513539480_pbk0mfcakje.webp)\n\nThe most credible initial rerating case is relatively modest. A move towards RUB 250bn, equivalent to approximately RUB 61.85 per share, would still leave EVRAZ below MMK’s calculated value of RUB 280.6bn. That would not require investors to assume that EVRAZ is already comparable with Russia’s highest-valued steelmakers. It would simply require a greater degree of confidence that the listed company owns the operating platform described in the available evidence, with clearer current accounts and fewer concerns around accessibility, liquidity and governance.\n\nThe larger middle-ground scenarios require much more. NLMK’s premium is supported by a disclosed integrated business with 16 million tonnes of annual steelmaking capacity, audited 2025 financial statements and a year-end net cash position. Its official [financial statements centre](https://nlmk.com/ru/about/governance/regulatory-disclosure/financial-statements/) provides the sort of accessible, current financial evidence that EVRAZ investors still need from the newly listed vehicle. A valuation of RUB 421.3bn for EVRAZ, equivalent to approximately RUB 104.23 per share, would still apply a 15% discount to NLMK, but it would only become credible if EVRAZ publishes comparable financial information and demonstrates that its industrial strengths translate into competitive cash generation and balance sheet quality.\n\nA comparison with Severstal is more ambitious. Severstal’s current market capitalisation of approximately RUB 622.4bn is an obvious reference point for a vertically integrated Russian steel and mining company, but its recent results also show that valuation is not simply a reflection of current short-term profitability. Its first-quarter 2026 EBITDA fell 54% year on year to RUB 17.94bn and free cash flow was negative RUB 40.37bn, according to [reported company results](https://www.interfax.ru/business/1085076). For EVRAZ to justify a valuation of RUB 466.8bn, representing a 25% discount to Severstal, investors would need evidence that the structural discount has narrowed substantially, that the listed perimeter is clear and that shareholders can access the value of the operating business in a practical way.\n\nThe RUB 600bn scenario is therefore possible to discuss, but only as a bullish and conditional outcome. At approximately RUB 148.44 per share, it would place EVRAZ close to Severstal’s current quoted valuation. Such a rerating would require far more than recognition of EVRAZ’s historic industrial importance. It would require current consolidated accounts, clarity over assets and liabilities, a credible balance sheet position, improved market liquidity, clearer dividend capacity and substantially reduced concerns around shareholder access and sanctions-related restrictions.\n\nThe proposed RUB 800bn valuation is much harder to support. On the price basis used in the review, it would place EVRAZ above MMK, NLMK and Severstal, despite EVRAZ currently having the least transparent post-restructuring financial and corporate evidence of the group. It is possible that future disclosure reveals a stronger business than the market currently recognises, but that would be new evidence, not an inference investors can safely make from the existing market-cap gap.\n\nFor retail investors, the valuation ladder is therefore reasonably clear. A limited recovery towards MMK’s range could become credible with improved disclosure and confidence in the listed structure. A move beyond RUB 400bn requires evidence that EVRAZ can be assessed on broadly comparable financial terms with larger peers. A valuation near RUB 600bn is a bullish convergence case, while RUB 800bn remains speculation unless the company produces information that materially changes the present investment picture.\n\n\n## Five disclosures that would materially change the valuation case\n\nFor EVRAZ investors, the next stage of the story is less about watching the share price and more about waiting for the company to fill in the gaps that currently prevent a confident comparison with MMK, NLMK and Severstal. The [MOEX security card](https://www.moex.com/ru/listing/securities-list.aspx) verifies the legal issuer, ticker, listing level and 4,042,002,366 ordinary shares now in issue, while the NKR credit analysis identifies a large vertically integrated steel business with strong positions in railway steel, construction products, iron ore integration and vanadium. What retail investors still lack is a sufficiently complete, current and easily accessible picture of the listed company’s assets, liabilities, earnings and shareholder rights.\n\nThe first requirement is formal clarity on the perimeter of the listed business. EVRAZ needs to show clearly which steel mills, mining assets, processing operations, subsidiaries, debt obligations and minority interests now sit inside EVRZ, rather than leaving investors to infer ownership from the historic structure of the former London listed group. This is particularly important for any historic coal or coking coal exposure, including the question of whether and how Raspadskaya is attributable to the newly quoted company. Until the listed perimeter is beyond doubt, investors cannot know whether they are comparing EVRAZ with its peers on a genuinely like-for-like basis.\n\nThe second requirement is current consolidated financial reporting for the listed entity itself. NLMK and MMK currently have a clear advantage because investors can examine recent reported revenue, profitability, cash generation and balance sheet position through their official disclosure channels, including NLMK’s [financial statements centre](https://nlmk.com/ru/about/governance/regulatory-disclosure/financial-statements/) and MMK’s [investor information](https://mmk.ru/ru/investor/). EVRAZ needs to provide comparable evidence for its current listed perimeter, including revenue, EBITDA, operating cash flow, free cash flow, net debt or net cash, capital expenditure and any dividend framework. Without those figures, the argument that EVRAZ deserves to close the gap with larger peers remains plausible, but unproven.\n\nThe third issue is shareholder accessibility. EVRZ is admitted to the third quotation level on MOEX, and it has only recently begun trading as the newly structured Russian equity. Retail investors need clearer information on liquidity, free float, ownership allocation, the practical rights of holders whose economic interest originated in the former London listed structure, and whether future distributions can be received without unusual restrictions. A business may be profitable and strategically important, but its equity can remain discounted where the path from operating value to ordinary shareholder value is uncertain.\n\nThe final issue is whether EVRAZ can establish a normal public company relationship with investors in spite of the wider sanctions, governance and access questions surrounding the restructuring. Clear financial reporting, confirmation of distributable cash, a coherent dividend policy and evidence of dependable shareholder communication would all reduce the structural discount. By contrast, prolonged gaps in disclosure, uncertainty over asset ownership, restricted access to distributions or weak liquidity would make the present discount easier to justify, regardless of the scale of the underlying factories and mines.\n\nThis is why the rerating case cannot be settled by comparing RUB 221.3bn with the values of NLMK and Severstal alone. The key question is whether EVRAZ can replace uncertainty with evidence. If it confirms a strong listed perimeter, produces current comparable accounts and demonstrates that ordinary shareholders can participate in the value of the business, a move towards higher peer-based valuations becomes easier to support. Until then, the discount may be frustrating for shareholders, but it is not without a rational foundation.\n\n\n## A visible discount, but not yet a proven mispricing\n\nEVRAZ has returned to public trading with a valuation that immediately invites comparison. At approximately RUB 221.3bn, it sits only moderately below MMK, but at a substantial discount to NLMK and Severstal. For a business associated with integrated steelmaking, iron ore, railway products, construction steel and vanadium, that gap is large enough to attract serious investor attention. It is reasonable to ask whether a meaningful part of the company’s industrial value is not yet reflected in the share price.\n\nThe available evidence does not show that EVRAZ is fundamentally only half as strong as NLMK, or barely one third as valuable as Severstal on operating grounds alone. What it does show is that the current EVRZ equity is harder to assess with confidence. The listed company is newly structured, the full attributable asset and liability perimeter remains insufficiently clear from accessible current disclosure, and investors do not yet have the same quality of comparable financial information available for MMK, NLMK and Severstal. Those uncertainties are not minor technicalities; they affect what shareholders own, what the business earns and whether that value can ultimately reach them.\n\nThat leaves EVRAZ in an unusual position. A modest rerating towards a valuation closer to MMK could become credible if the company improves disclosure and removes some of the uncertainty surrounding the new listed structure. A much larger move towards NLMK or Severstal requires more: current consolidated accounts, clear evidence of profitability and balance sheet strength, confirmation of the full operating perimeter, improved trading accessibility and confidence around future distributions. Without those developments, a RUB 600bn valuation remains a bullish conditional case, while RUB 800bn is not supported by the current peer evidence.\n\nFor retail investors, EVRAZ is therefore not yet a simple recovery story built on a cheap market capitalisation. It is a significant industrial business trading with a substantial structural discount, where the potential upside and the reason for caution come from the same place: uncertainty. The market may eventually have priced that uncertainty too severely, but the case for a major rerating will only become convincing when the company replaces unanswered questions with current, comparable and shareholder-relevant evidence.\n\n## Disclaimer\n\n_This article is for information and discussion only and is not investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. EVRAZ is a newly traded Moscow listed security with material uncertainties around its post-restructuring corporate perimeter, current consolidated financial disclosure, liquidity, shareholder access, sanctions-related restrictions and potential distributions. Market values and comparisons are based on publicly accessible information available at the time of writing and may change materially._\n\n","thumbnail_url":"https://yakkio.com/uploads/user_uploads/u_1779514127264_afbpagcx65g.webp","published":true,"created_at":"2026-05-23T04:48:45.228Z","updated_at":"2026-05-23T06:09:57.830Z","linked_topic_id":null,"manual_topic_slug":"evraz-ntmk-shareholder-support","linked_article_slug":null,"linked_topic_slug":"evraz-ntmk-shareholder-support","linked_topic_title":"Evraz NTMK Shareholder Support","linked_article_slug_actual":null,"linked_article_title":null,"linked_article_summary":null,"linked_article_thumbnail_url":null,"linked_article_created_at":null,"linked_article_author_handle":null,"author_handle":null,"article_type":"analysis","channel_id":14,"channel_slug":"evraz-shareholders-discussion-support","channel_name":"Evraz Shareholders","display_author_handle":"Yakkio"}}