Asiamet Resources Share Discussion Threads

[aim0raider] 31/10/2018 12:05

The typo would make sense too.

Whichever the case, it's up to the issuer to correct.

[the deacon] 31/10/2018 12:05

Yup, I think it's a simple typing error. An A rather than an R, hence releasing it for ARS instead of RRS

[aim0raider] 31/10/2018 12:03

It's the only reason i can see for it, (other than an error).

Easy enough for the Co to check the register, as long as it's not in nom form.

It's CCL moving on Barrick, which has ARS stock. So ARS is indirectly affected if CCL progressed with Barrick - the ARS stock would change ownership as a result of the t/a.

That's how i see it, could be wrong...

[2lb] 31/10/2018 11:55

Do they though? I dont think they own any.

[aim0raider] 31/10/2018 11:53

Don't see why the Co should issue anything, doesn't appear to be an error, ARS are just mentioned due to being a connected party. It's Barrick that's in the spotlight, who own some ARS stock.

[the deacon] 31/10/2018 11:17

I'd expect clarification to coincide with TSX news. It's shoddy from the company if clarification isn't forthcoming

[2lb] 31/10/2018 11:03

The LSE have confirmed that they can they cannot alter the release as it has come from PR Newswire so either they or the company need to amend if incorrect

[tektonik] 31/10/2018 11:01

Didn't receive an RNS notification as I normally would have for such news this morning and would explain my confusion when I saw the discussions here and else where on it and of course, the hike in share price This is exactly why investors should be vigilant and do their due diligence. I'd question whether some people within the organisation were even aware of it this morning. LSE to sort this out for me.

[2lb] 31/10/2018 10:52

Because it's materially impactful so is in their (and our) best interests to proactively sort it out , irrespective of the source of the problem

[2lb] 31/10/2018 10:45

I'm sure ARS will issue a clarification RNS soon , or maybe shortly , imminently perhaps , at the very least it will be in hours not days.......

[ifthecapfits] 31/10/2018 10:43

If the RNS is incorrect - where is the corrective one? LSE & ARS must be aware?

[gymratt] 31/10/2018 10:32

Feel sorry for the people who got spiked on the latest BS. Wouldn't touch this with the proverbial now.

[shortarm] 31/10/2018 10:06

The RNS has nothing to do with Asiamet - unless they're nine pounds plus a share???

[fbrj] 31/10/2018 10:03

Having skimmed through Rule 8 of the Takeovers Code I think the only way the announcement makes sense (ie involving ARS) is if Barrick had made an offer for ARS. It would have to be a share offer (cash offers - no need to disclose). The fund management co have to disclose dealings in either party during an offer period.

As we know, Barrick is in an offer period but for Rangold.

[shortarm] 31/10/2018 10:01

And that was the end of today's excitement Lots of people caught out by some idiots mistake!!!

[lizslave] 31/10/2018 09:55

https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2018-10/45096833-connor-clark-lunn-investment-management-ltd-form-8-3-barrick-gold-corporation-008.htm

[bmcb5] 31/10/2018 09:49

It does make you wonder why they've made that error now though. Maybe they now have a holding in ARS, and they have some terrible excel lookup in their master spreadsheet, which has picked the wrong value. I see that stuff happening all the time.

Edit: It's not even the first time they've made errors in the past month or so;
26/9 - Not Available Form 8.3 - Barrick Gold Corporation
01/10 - Barrick Gold Corporation form 8.3 - Barrick Gold Corporation
31/10 - Asiamet Resources Limited Form 8.3 - Barrick Gold Corporation

All other declarations are titled;
Connor, Clark & Lunn Investment Management Ltd Form 8.3 - Barrick Gold Corporation

[the deacon] 31/10/2018 09:47

There should be some clarification from ARS really

[bmcb5] 31/10/2018 09:46

that shows all the RNS which feature Connor Clark & Lunn. Looks like an admin error on the latest notification. It should not be ARS related, imo

[Edit: shortened the url]

[sithuk] 31/10/2018 09:44

Looks like either the fund bought the stake from Barrick or the other way around?

[fbrj] 31/10/2018 09:40

DSQ - you are correct it's on LSE. I'm still puzzled by it though. Hope I'm wrong!