Harvest Minerals Share Discussion Threads

[kreature] 28/12/2016 17:50

Just have to wait for the drilling results now, and funding clarification. If there's nothing interesting in the drill results (like diamonds in the kimberlite) then personally I would sell. I'm off to focus on Wall Street falling. Good luck.

[charles clore] 28/12/2016 16:45

kreature
28 Dec '16 - 12:44 - 1723 of 1736 0 0
I don't like this apparent $2.7m of revenue broker forecast by the end of June 2017. I think it's irresponsible and could be considered misleading.

As far as I can tell it's a reasonable forecast that doesn't readily encourage short selling. But maybe that's why you don't like it.

[cottoner] 28/12/2016 16:37

Clearly an error in the latest RNS. The before and after transaction figure is the same.

Buffy

???????

This is quite normal for a RNS, if the number of shares in issue has changed which means that a holding has gone below or above a threshold.

In today's RNS , it was issued because although the number of shares held has not changed, but because the number of shares in issue has increased the % holding has edged below the 21% threshold to 20.9%.

(In fact a replica of today's RNS was issued by HMI on Sep 22nd , with exactly the same holding , but on that occasion the 23% threshold was breached)

Simples.

[whl2] 28/12/2016 16:29

The 6 million shares issued were introduced on the 23rd, which was basically a dead day as the market shut at 12:30 Could be that they're cashing in and selling some today rather than hold all of them long term like us. Just a thought

[buffythebuffoon] 28/12/2016 16:17

Clearly an error in the latest RNS. The before and after transaction figure is the same.

Buffy

[janestone] 28/12/2016 14:46

The disinformation is whether shares have been sold. You've been around for long enough, and you usually do enough research to not make schoolboy errors, unless it suits you to.

[cottoner] 28/12/2016 14:38

RNSes are more reliable than websites IMO.

[andy] 28/12/2016 14:23

ieh fan28 Dec '16 - 13:39 - 1726 of 1729 0 0

Hey the bully's back!

I'm quoting the company website and the RNS, where's the "misinformation"?

If you can be bothered to check, you'll see I'm right!




janestone28 Dec '16 - 13:02 - 1724 of 1729 0 0
Andy,

You're peddling disinformation..


I'm quoting the company website and the RNS, where's the "disinformation"?

[charles clore] 28/12/2016 14:16

I didn't see HMI holders as nervous but it seems some are selling today. Some buying too it has to be said. Good volume for the holiday period.

[kreature] 28/12/2016 14:08

just a mistake on the website then

[cottoner] 28/12/2016 13:56

Not sure if this has already been pointed out.

RNS issued on Sept 22nd indicated EFH held 22,041,000 shares.

The same number as indicated in today's RNS - so they have definitely not sold any shares recently.

[ieh fan] 28/12/2016 13:39

So today we're down and, blow me down, would you believe who's back?
Alright Andy, you miserable, misinformation machine.

[kreature] 28/12/2016 13:22

So more that 8m shares gone walkies between 20th and 23rd Dec 2016 ? Nope, probably just a mistake on the website by the look of it

[kreature] 28/12/2016 12:44

I don't like this apparent $2.7m of revenue broker forecast by the end of June 2017. I think it's irresponsible and could be considered misleading. Could they really remove 45kt of what looks like an extremely picturesque area without far more permits and public consultations? 45kt is the size of a cruise ship, and that's a nice looking area on the Serra do Maxixe ridge. imo only etc dyor

[ieh fan] 28/12/2016 12:35

PI's have no patience/bottle.
That's another 50k for me :)

[andy] 28/12/2016 12:33

janestone28 Dec '16 - 10:36 - 1711 of 1720 1 0
If you look through the RNS's there was no notification that the Edwards family went to 30%,

-------

On the website it states that the Edwards family hold 30,399,990 28.9%.

In today's RNS it clearly states they now hold 22,041,000 shares, or 20.9% of the company.

So the website says they had 30 million, and RNS says they now have 22 million, I would say they have reduced their holding, I can't see any other possibility.

[shakeypremis] 28/12/2016 12:15

whl2, it absolutely doesn't have to be anything other than today's RNS. Lot's of people could have misinterpreted it and the MM's do like to capitalise on situations like this.

[kreature] 28/12/2016 12:08

Would it be worth importing some organic fertiliser to put on the stockpile area to grow vegetables while we wait ? It's huge area of around 4 acres

[shakeypremis] 28/12/2016 11:21

If that is the case, why is that second holdings company not on the HMI website list of significant shareholders?

[shakeypremis] 28/12/2016 11:08

If there are two companies with holdings then that would explain it.

[charles clore] 28/12/2016 10:45

No, it seems it is just a percentage change due to an increase in total shares in issue. They still hold the same number. The question is, will they want to regain that percentage or just leave it at the new level?

[whl2] 28/12/2016 10:40

Didn't we have this same conversation about holdings a couple of months ago? In the rns it says Edwards Family Holdings ltd which has not disposed of any shares but has had its holding diluted due to the issue of shares just before Christmas (now 21% instead of 23%) On the website it states Edwards Family, and not Edwards Family Holdings ltd. Other family members may have the other 8 million shares and presumably still holding. I find it hard to believe that they have disposed of 8 million shares in the space of a week ?