We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizonte Minerals Plc | LSE:HZM | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BMXLQJ47 | ORD 20P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.325 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 0.325 | GBX |
Horizonte Minerals (HZM) Share Charts1 Year Horizonte Minerals Chart |
|
1 Month Horizonte Minerals Chart |
Intraday Horizonte Minerals Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18/4/2025 | 12:28 | Horizonte Minerals - 2018 | 1,533 |
| 17/6/2024 | 07:02 | Horizonte Minerals: Nickel and Cobalt | 15,056 |
| 11/7/2022 | 15:13 | Cannot buy more shares via my broker | 13 |
| 31/7/2018 | 11:05 | Horizonte Minerals (HZM) One to Watch | - |
| 29/12/2017 | 19:39 | Horizonte Minerals: Nickel | 140 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 18/4/2025 07:48 by rover62 Absolutely agree with you, share holders in Horizonte will get zero money back. I was just providing more info on the company. I’d previously read the fillings at companies house, they were interesting as well, so thanks for sharing. |
Posted at 26/4/2024 19:24 by impossible123 HZM was hindered with a couple of monumental world issues ie Covid and the Ukraine War which meant massive disruption and big increases in costs all round. The former could have been absorbed; Putin's madness in Ukraine was too insurmountable for a minnow miner without revenue like HZM.Just not to be, I think. Notwithstanding, senior management could have been a lot more transparent and savvy eg contingency funds aplenty for unavoidable over-runs prior to production. |
Posted at 15/4/2024 12:50 by excellance For HZM investors it doesn't matter who gets it. HZM holders will lose everything after contributing half a billion dollars.Maybe someone will bid more? |
Posted at 01/4/2024 18:03 by impossible123 'JakNife', thanks for the info. I've been in this game for over 3 decades with a break of maybe 4 years, but never shorted a stock.This was my 2nd bite into HZM (another then was BEM and BAO), but deemed extremely lucky to get out within 10 mins of market opening at 76p average; tried to unload 12.5k stocks but market size restriction meant could only sell in 3 blocks thus averaging 76p. I hope most still holding could recoup some losses when HZM is refinanced, and relisted at some stage with retail investors given a chance to partake (again). But, I'll not be amongst them. Good luck everyone still holding! |
Posted at 06/3/2024 07:06 by strow Never lied about my position Have learnt a few lessons which I would not repeat mainly about setting stop losses Have repeated for people like Nigel and others-no admin which thus far is correct Never ever said share price wouldn't drop but no one has a crystal ball and have promoted bull case based on asset value which is still more now than when BFS was done based on continued low power costs,increased nickel price and forex advantages.We will see what happens,but was not the only one not to predict the savagery of the market here. |
Posted at 24/2/2024 05:28 by amt I think one thing to bear in mind is that when the share price was 1.50 it already included a big risk premium that something would go wrong. If everything had gone to plan the share price would have been 10 quid. So there still might be value at 4p. Equally the minerals in the ground might be fantasy and only a fraction of what we believe them to be. Equally there could be a lot more in the ground. Anyway as I mention if there is a potential world nickel resource here some big company will step in. |
Posted at 20/2/2024 11:44 by jaknife steeplejack,"its a choice between incompetence or deceit." I'm a little more forgiving as there is a genuine third option - inflation has gone ballistic over the last couple of years and seemingly wasn't properly baked into the originally estimates. Back in October, when HZM first announced that there was going to be a cost overrun, they did use the phrase "an expected increase in the overall Project capital requirement by at least 35%" [my bold]. see: To the extent that there was any dissembling then it was in those two highlighted words. But even back in October, armed with that RNS, there were still plenty of shareholders who refused to accept that the cost overrun was going to be 35% of the original budget (arguing it was 35% of the remaining budget). Shareholders were too slow to take on board the new information, accept the meaning of that information and accept the natural consequences of that information. The natural conclusion now is that the probability of HZM being a zero is easily in excess of 90%. At best the existing debt providers need to write down a significant chunk of their debt and a hugely dilutive equity raise is needed. I can't see any reason why retail shareholders would need to be involved in that process. At worst it makes no sense to proceed with the project at the current cost and it should be mothballed. There is no good outcome for current retail shareholders even at this price. JakNife |
Posted at 09/1/2024 09:09 by steeplejack Well,that would be the assumption!However,o |
Posted at 03/12/2023 13:01 by jaknife stansmith1,"why would they leave anything on the table for current shareholders?" This is a really good question to ask because existing shareholders need to work out what exactly they have to offer. Traditionally this boils down to two items: 1. Retaining the existing share quote, 2. Cooperation, which could make any "process" materially smoother (eg assistance in avoiding breaches of contract, events of default, etc). In this case 2 is pretty weak because the expectation is that the key shareholders probably have more than enough votes between them to pass 50% resolutions. On 1, it's always been the case historically that *IF* the major shareholders want to retain the existing share quote then they need to incentivise existing shareholders to vote in favour of a 75% shareholder resolution so that a material number of additional shares can be freely issued. So the key question is: "Do key shareholders want to retain the existing quote"? *IF* that's the case then how much are they prepared to pay shareholders in order to retain that quote. In that respect I would note: (i) the amount that the key shareholders might be prepared to pay should be compared to the alternative cost of them simply wiping out shareholders and then relisting. At the max that's not going to be more than about £5m in legal fees. (ii) I deliberately wrote the word "historically" above. There has been a change in legislation in the UK which has yet to be fully tested in circumstances like this (and I doubt that HZM would want to waste the money being the test case). The change is the "Restructuring Plan", of which you can read more here: There's a lot of risk and uncertainty as well as legal costs associated with a "Restructuring Plan" and so it's incredibly unlikely that HZM would want to go down that route. But if they did, and won, then they could retain the quote and wipe out existing shareholders. After all that waffle the conclusion is that *IF* the key shareholders wanted to retain the existing share quote then they will need to "bribe" existing shareholders to vote in favour of a 75% resolution. Such "bribe" needs to be around about £5m and that equates to about 2p a share, which is exactly what ScepticalInvestor suggested. Of course if the key shareholders don't want the quote then the existing shares are close to worthless. JakNife |
Posted at 21/11/2023 22:04 by jaknife nigelpm/stansmith1,At this point I put the range of outcomes as: A. 50% - key shareholders walk, the project is mothballed, the bank enforces and takes ownership. Leaves HZM as a cash shell with negligible cash. B. 45% - key shareholders fund the project away from the market leaving HZM as a cash shell with negligible cash. C. 5% - key shareholders fund the project on market at a material discount to the current share price at, say, 2p a share. Do you violently disagree? Have other options? JakNife |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
