The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Cheers WryYidTickTock
HZM has suffered from big sellers that frustrated many of us with their lack of transparency. Anything that helps us confirm where they'd reached or if they'd fully exited is worth pursuing. Thanks.
WryYidTickTock
Thinking about it a bit more and I wonder if you are referring to Investment Trusts which I agree can be much more open about what they hold compared to my oeics and unit trusts. Off hand I don't know where JPM held HZM but if it was an Investment Trust then, yes, the Annual Report for the period could well spell out what they've done and if they had exited completely at the period end date. Maybe someone here knows, though like you I expect them to have exited completely in line with the new manager's strategy.
WryYidTickTock
Not sure if I've ever seen that level of detail. I worked for a FTSE100 fund manager for twenty odd years and we went to great lengths not to reveal what we held below declaration levels and what and when we were trading. I don't remember us ever making that level of granularity available other than to auditors. It was always a more complicated picture than you might expect.
I may be misunderstanding you. Do you have an example?
AIM
I agree. Now both parties have reported crossing the threshold downwards they won't report again unless they go back up.
Neither included a holding on the threshold TR-1. So the only way for ACTUAL sub 3% holdings to be reported would be direct from JPM and Griffith which is not going to happen or from HZM's register which would be a breach of confidentiality and so is not going to happen.
I really think the 2.98% reported have to be human error somewhere.
Ivor
The LSE website says the text came from HZM itself but doesn't give a date so my guess is it is just out of date. I don't think they'd say that now for anyone who hasn't confirmed their position publicly by TR-1.
Don't know who supplies FT with all their info but since they miss out Teck it isn't too reliable at the moment.
Market Screener has identical holdings to the share for JPM and Griffith which is quite a coincidence to say the least.
It just makes no sense to have 2.98% holdings reported because there is no reporting mechanism to track them further down so they will be frozen there forever long after the holders sold to 0.
However, if you can get HZM to confirm all this is genuine and accurate then I will be converted! ;)
There are two ways one can report below 3% that I have seen.
Zero shares left
below threshold
Some companies do say they have no interest at all anymore whereas some just say below threshold, which might imply they do have some still, how many is anyones guess. If they had been selling down to get below the threshold it might be obvious to suggest they kept on selling to zero but you just don't know. It is known that JPM were getting out of the game so it would be more safe to suggest they did sell onto zero. Griffiths might have kept a few in the pot, it was not like he was short of a few of them so holding 1% would still be a tasty return from the levels he sold plenty of them at.
Where these websites get info on companies above 3% (non TR1'd) and even below 3% is voodoo magic. HZM said if its not in a TR1 they can't print anything and they will also not research if there are companies that a re holding and not reported. It would be advantageous to the share price possibly to report a few more errant holders.
WryYidTickTock
Yes. The TR-1 is the responsibility of the holder not the company. And as AIMtoDeath said it isn't a well enforced rule by the regulator.
But here we're talking about holdings below the reporting threshold. Once they fall below the threshold there is no mechanism to track them further down so the regulator doesn't ask for the detail and JPM and Griffith didn't supply it.
It makes no sense to report two identical (to the share) holdings at 2.98% when there is no reporting route to ever update them. My money is on human error.
And if you look at the LSE website they still say jpm and Richard griffiths are ii.
I've looked at all the websites, and did notice the dates, but some were also updated on the 8th Oct. And HZM did forget to update their website the last time.
So where is the FT getting its data from as they have 5 ii under 3% on their website?
No. Griffith said <3%. That is, less than 3%, which is another way of saying below reporting threshold.
You could hold 2.99% of HZM and you would not have to tell anyone.
If you increased your holding to 3% you would have to tell HZM in a TR-1 that you held 3%.
If you then sold 1 share or sold all 3% you would have to tell HZM that you were now <3% or below minimum reporting threshold - it would be the same TR-1. The point is once you go below 3% you become invisible like the rest of us. And no, you wouldn't tell the FT or Market Screener anything more.
Richard Griffith says 3%. If a number of websites are saying they still hold they must have access to other information.
ivor
Exactly. Below minimum threshold means anywhere from 0 to 2.99%. It does not say or imply 2.98%
If you read jpm rns it says Below minimum threshold.
Ivor
The definitive statement of holdings is what is contained in the RNS.
Read and understand what JPM and Griffiths actually reported in their TR-1s.
Third party websites are not definitive, ONLY the RNS is.
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/HORIZONTE-MINERALS-PLC-4006080/company/
Sorry but that is not correct. The FT is plain wrong.
Neither JPM nor Griffiths reported 2.99% or thereabouts. Check the RNS. They reported JPM - "below minimum reporting threshold" and Griffiths - "<3%". That just means anywhere from 2.99% down to zero.
We have no idea whether Griffiths or JPM hold any now. They should categorically not be on the list of holders.
Surprised and don't are still different. We can only be certain of what we know, that even means Griffith still holds. Unlikely as both might be it is possible. We have had a few outside sources declaring holdings for all manner of names we have not heard of before conflicting between those locations. I sent to HZM but was told they can only list what they have been told to list. If an entity does not declare then they can do nothing. However, if they don't declare where do these other places find this info to publish. Despite the requirement to declare, a non UK company can do what it likes as the legislation can only really punish those UK domiciled and even then they never do chase anyone, toothless bast%$^"%$^ds FCA are.
I would expect The Times information to be accurate but something in clearly wrong.
Jpm are just under 3% so I'm not sure if they are out of not.
It looks like hsbc have been buying hzm on the times website. The hsbc Market maker position has increased by a few million. Also I think the hsbc asset management is new.
https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=HZM:LSE