Member Info for Notperfect

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The LSE website says the text came from HZM itself but doesn't give a date so my guess is it is just out of date.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! ;)

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.

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.

ivor

Exactly. Below minimum threshold means anywhere from 0 to 2.99%. It does not say or imply 2.98%

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.

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.

I appreciate we were all wanting the exploitation licence from Togo so the lack of new information was obviously going to be the main talking point, but did anyone make much of the Utah update?
Firstly, crossing 1000 tonnes sold is a milestone, though since they had a 770t order by August it means only a further 242t by end September. Always a challenge to break into an existing market and we will need to see more progress but still early days.
Second point was processing. I thought (and Shard too if I read them correctly) we would process the phosphate at an existing Spanish Fork facility 30km from the mine. The new plant would also be installed there for increased processing capabilities in the future. However, it seems we have used a toll processing plant in Fillmore, 150km from Spanish Fork (180km from the mine?) Further we now seem to have secured (bought?) a site seemingly also at Fillmore to install the new plant from China. They describe the new site as not increasing the logistics cost from mine to processing. But is that not because they are already trucking to Fillmore for the toll processing and it's actually 150km extra cost over the original plan with Spanish Fork? I'd like to understand this better.
Lastly on the Fillmore processing and linked to a tweet today from Keras showing processed but not yet sold phosphate. Keras had four grades on trial so I wonder what the processed phosphate is? They describe it as <10% phosphate though I thought a USP was it was >14%. Plus, where are they storing this processed product, hopefully not back at Diamond Creek with all the trucking costs implied.
Anybody got a better handle on this?

Not sure I see the point to this debate here. It isn't a case of either ARS or HZM, of either Cu or Ni. Both metals are going to be in demand, needing new sources and mines, and both companies have great potential to do well and rerate soon.

Westie,
Two different things going on, imo, but both more to do with PI psychology than anything else.

Gaps don't get filled just because they are gaps. The news that creates a gap up may be undeniably positive but often is about potential value rather than actual value. If the company doesn't move quickly to realise that potential then sentiment fades and the SP slips back as the fundamental value of the company has not yet changed. A lot of PIs use charts and will then buy when the gap is filled, creating the self-fulfilling side of the prophecy. (Consider, if the gap was created by a recommended takeover offer then not even the high priests would expect that gap to fill.)

The indicators like RSI are showing recent investor sentiment in the share, bullish or bearish. SPs don't rise or fall in straight lines. If a basically good company's SP slips in the absence of news then people start to feel it's undervalued, especially if they are anticipating good news imminently. When that tips over into an increase in buys it can bring in more investors and create a good bounce but traders will usually see it as another opportunity to sell as the rally runs out of steam without supporting news.

All helps to create a lively market for companies where news is much less frequent than the SP moves.

dvh
As I'm sure you already know -

"This report has been commissioned by KEFI Gold and Copper and prepared and issued by Edison, in consideration of a fee payable by KEFI Gold and Copper. Edison Investment Research standard fees are £49,500 pa for the production and broad dissemination of a detailed note (Outlook) following by regular (typically quarterly) update notes. "

Debt and equity components are probably closely linked. The August RNS said the debt facility is targeted to close by the end of this calendar year

vauxhall
Could happen. My point is, if HZM drop an RNS tomorrow and do interviews to follow it up, they will publicise to all shareholders at the same time and not give Crux members a head start.

The interview might be interesting, enlightening, reassuring, and all very positive , BUT, if it is going to Crux members first then it can't contain anything new to move the SP. That would have to be in an RNS.

Hopefully we'll see the next step in the promised newsflow soon as an RNS.

Me too. I didn't even know Majorca had their own ham...

Throne
My point was, if the company wanted the SP at 7p to be in line with a raise at 7p, and was working to get the SP into that area, it would only be worth doing just before the RNS. If the RNS was still months away it would just be a waste of time and effort.

Personally I think the fall is more likely to be as AIM and others have said, people seeing day after day of rises getting nervous about their profits, a few judicious negative comments and some unfortunately timed options just help push things over. Add in a hiccup in the Ni price and a tech stock stumble and emotions take over. The MMs love these falls because they can generate huge volume - kerching! There were a lot of small trades peppering the bid so it did look manipulated to me but then on the way up there were lots of small trades peppering the ask so it works both ways.

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy - the company may well be working towards a 7p raise but because people think that's what may happen it is also where strong support kicks in.

In the end it's just noise. If HZM finalises the whole package with equity in the 7p+ area, it derisks phase 1 and opens the door to the rest of the assets. Derisking the project will kick the SP upwards because it means it will happen, and if it brings in more heavyweight backers it will make it a helluva lot dearer to buy out.

There's a difference between hint and think, Marco. The 7-10p range has been widely discussed here so it might just be wish fulfilment but who knows. It fits with the thinking that the existing core investors would not want to see the equity raise at a lower price.

If it has been walked (or run, lol) back to 7p now, then that might suggest the news is much nearer than many thought.

jd
I hope you mean before equity financing - because if we stand still and HZM adds around £90m new shares at the same price before Xmas then we get to £200m without moving...

sbk
If the shares don't end up in your ii ISA after transfer it will be an administrative error which would have to be fixed at no cost to you. Unambiguously, CAI shares are on a HMRC recognised international stock exchange so they can be held in your ISA.

monty
If the CAI shares were effectively purchased from a previous year's ISA subscription then you can just transfer the CAI shares alone. However, if you have CAI shares effectively from the current year's ISA subs then the rules force you to move all the current year's subs holdings (so that you still only hold one current year Stocks and Shares ISA and the new ISA provider can prevent you accidentally oversubscribing for the year).

D220
I agree that a major might want to act before build so that the assets are developed on a larger scale from the start. Two other factors might also encourage an early bid. The BoD will want a hefty premium to their options and that will be proportionately more expensive if shares are issued in the equity component of the finance package. Second, a major is also likely to be able to find a much cheaper way to finance what they want to do and avoid having to pay off the expected debt component after it is in place. The question is, would an early bid be anywhere near the potential value they might realise later?