We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hummingbird Resources Plc | HUM | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.04 | -1.51% | 2.61 | 16:35:03 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.65 | 2.65 | 2.655 | 2.61 | 2.65 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| MINING |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/2/2025 22:57 by borderterrier1 OK, I admit I'm baffled. Serious question for the more savvy investors.Why would they issue 28 million more ordinary shares on feb 6th which are now admitted to the AIM market and then say it "reflects potential growth opportunities for the company?" Hum will then cease trading on the AIM market in 2 weeks time. ????????? Trader465? |
Posted at 12/2/2025 13:55 by borderterrier1 jhpuk1 No, your shares will not become worthless, that's what the take over team would like you to believe. You will still be part owner of a private company but your shares will become difficult to trade if Hum is de-listed from AIM.However, I agree that in the past investors in situations like this are expected to take it on the chin and walk away. IMO this is different. A glance at the discussion insights on here reveals that this has been an ongoing situation "A backdrop of turbulent investor sentiment". Exactly. But not all the investors here are small shareholders and I believe the FCA now has some very positive information(some of it as a direct result of trader465) to work with. but as sid_b suggests "better to file a joint complaint." You can contact the FCA as follows. 0800 111 6768 0300 500 8082 (free phone) +44 207 066 1000 from abroad Gov.UK go to the FCA web.site e mail address whistle@fca.org.uk AS trader 465 says "this has obviously been a well executed plan." DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!!! |
Posted at 07/2/2025 22:00 by borderterrier1 Furthermore, if Betts wasn't in collusion with FSJ as many eventually suggested, why would he have said, (Post 4549) quote:- "To put to bed any talk of being paid to write these reports and tweets I can categorically I say I tweet and write reports that are 100% true and factual." So many eventually thought the same as Diane Carberry, me and many others.Sure FSJ, that's why you bailed out wasn't it? Or was it because you were getting hot under the collar about spreading "facts" that you knew were deliberately intended to entice investors as many suspected and eventually commented on? But THOSE posts were removed. Perhaps we will find out why now? |
Posted at 07/1/2025 15:49 by trader465 I'd say Prat was over exposed to HUM, 9.23 posts per day since 2018 and nothing since the 62% one day fall here. I had lots of fights with him over the years but I do hope he's ok. I dont think theres a lot holders can do to prove wrongdoing becaue the AIM rules are too relaxed, but the conflict of interest between the controling parties raise more than an eyebrow.Stakeholder Relationships Nioko Resources Corporation (Nioko): Nioko is Hummingbird's largest shareholder and a wholly owned subsidiary of CIG, giving CIG significant influence over the company's direction. CIG and Coris: Both CIG (a lender) and Coris (the primary secured creditor) are controlled by the same principal, meaning there is shared leadership and overlapping interests between these two entities. CIG has provided unsecured loans, while Coris holds secured debt, putting Coris in a favorable position to seize assets in the event of default. Implications of Control and Influence: Interconnected Interests: With control over both equity (via Nioko) and debt (via Coris), the principal behind these entities has substantial leverage over Hummingbird's financial strategies and decision-making. Debt Restructuring and Asset Security: Coris holds $90 million in secured debt tied to Hummingbird's assets, and CIG is providing unsecured funding. In a worst-case scenario (e.g., administration or insolvency), Coris would be first in line to claim Hummingbird's secured assets, potentially at a discount. Potential for Undervalued Asset Acquisition: If restructuring negotiations fail, there is a risk that the company could default on its secured debt, leading to asset seizures. Given the interconnected relationships, it is conceivable that these assets could be transferred to entities controlled by the same principal (e.g., CIG or Coris), effectively allowing them to acquire valuable assets at a reduced cost. Corruption or Conflict of Interest? While this scenario does not automatically suggest corruption, it does present a conflict of interest that could be exploited: Manipulating Liquidity Events: By leveraging Hummingbird's liquidity challenges, the principal controlling CIG and Coris could engineer a financial situation where assets are acquired cheaply, bypassing market mechanisms. Suppressing Shareholder Value: The concentration of control might lead to decisions that prioritize the interests of CIG and Coris over private shareholders, potentially undervaluing assets or restructuring terms to the detriment of minority investors. Opaque Governance: The interconnections and lack of transparency between these entities could mask actions that serve insiders at the expense of other stakeholders. Questions for Investors To ensure fairness and transparency, private investors should demand answers to critical questions: Independent Oversight: Is there a truly independent board or third party overseeing the restructuring process to protect minority shareholders? Fair Valuation of Assets: Are the company's assets being fairly valued, and are restructuring terms reflective of their true worth? Transparency in Stakeholder Actions: How are the overlapping roles of Nioko, CIG, and Coris being managed to prevent conflicts of interest? Regulatory Scrutiny: Has the AIM regulator reviewed these relationships for potential governance issues? Conclusion: While not definitive proof of corruption, the interconnected relationships between Hummingbird, Nioko, CIG, and Coris create a perceived risk of unfair practices that could harm private shareholders. Investors should remain vigilant and advocate for transparency, independent oversight, and regulatory scrutiny to ensure that any restructuring or asset sales occur at fair market value and in the best interests of all stakeholders. |
Posted at 05/1/2025 14:30 by 1knocker BT, I agree that misleading the market is an offence and anyone guilty of that should be punished.The real lesson here though lies in your final point - the CEO had no experience running a gold mine. The rest of the management team did not bring much to the table either. Those are not matters for regulation. They are matters for potential investors to consider before buying the shares. For a long time that has been obvious. Well over two years ago several posters pointed out that the management was making serious mistakes. Others said 'Oh, they are inexperienced, they are learning, they won't ake the same mistakes again.' To which I well recall that my reply was that their education had been and would continue to be very expensive for shareholders as they had made every mistake in the book, and were writing new chapters. The responsibility for any loss which any shareholder has sustained over at least the past 3 years, and arguably much longer, lies at the doors of those shareholders: they could see the problem and failed to get out. I put my hands up. I made an initial small purchase years ago at 36, hung on in the face of all the evidence that I had made a bad purchase decision, eventually sold most of the holding at about a quarter of the price I had paid but STILL retained a (very small) holding in the forlorn hope that perhaps HUM was turning the corner, and now stand to lose even more than if I had acted decisively and sold the loss when (far later than I should have done) I sold the bulk of my holding. For that I have only myself to blame. I hope I remember the lesson. As for anyone who has been buying more over the past 2 or 3 years, 'averaging down' (a sure fire way to increase your losses on a duff stock), or fooling himself that an incompetent management would miraculously become competent, such purchasers should seriously reflect on whether they are competent to manage their own financial affairs, let alone invest in stocks. The stock market is designed to transfer the money of such people to others, and does so very efficiently. Quality of management is crucial. If the management is bad, it does not matter how good the opportunity is. That is specially true of explorer and mine development miners where (taking the sector as a whole) net losses are made, and the very few winners are invariably run by top class managements. It is difficult to learn anything useful from our successes, but at least marginally easier to learn from our mistakes. The opportunity to do so from our losses in HUM should not be allowed to go to waste. |
Posted at 01/1/2025 15:15 by trader465 It's a regular occurrence on AIMCrooked company directors aiming to exploit a company and its shareholders often target the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) instead of the Main Market for several reasons: 1. Lighter Regulatory Framework The AIM operates under a more relaxed set of rules compared to the Main Market, which is governed by the UK Listing Authority's Premium Listing Standards. AIM companies face fewer requirements for transparency, corporate governance, and financial disclosures, making it easier for dishonest directors to hide questionable activities. 2. Lower Initial and Ongoing Costs Listing on AIM is cheaper and faster than on the Main Market. This makes AIM attractive to smaller companies, but it also appeals to directors with bad intentions, as they can avoid the higher costs of Main Market compliance while still raising funds. 3. Weaker Oversight AIM-listed companies are not required to meet the same strict standards for audits, independent board members, or shareholder rights. This lack of scrutiny allows unscrupulous directors to manipulate financial statements or pursue self-serving deals more easily. 4. Easier Access to Capital AIM offers relatively easy access to investors, especially retail investors who might not have the expertise to identify red flags. Unscrupulous directors can use this to raise significant funds while planning to misuse or misappropriate them. 5. Limited Investor Protections AIM provides fewer protections for shareholders compared to the Main Market, leaving investors more vulnerable to mismanagement or fraud. For example, AIM companies can issue shares or undertake reverse takeovers with less shareholder consultation, facilitating dilution or questionable transactions. 6. Higher Risk Appetite AIM is marketed as a platform for growth-oriented, higher-risk companies, which attracts speculative investors who may overlook governance issues. Directors can exploit this "high risk, high reward" narrative to distract from their fraudulent activities. In summary, the AIM's reduced regulatory burden and oversight, combined with its focus on smaller, higher-risk companies, make it an easier and more fertile ground for crooked directors looking to exploit both the company and its shareholders. |
Posted at 17/12/2024 19:28 by borderterrier1 Cinoib From what I hear, the World is changing at last. The case over here about the Ceo of the health insurance company is a good example and the killer is quickly becoming an online folk hero. His actions were in response to a healthcare system that had fallen short. The AIM market is also falling short and recently I read a report "London's AIM market is dying, here's how to fix it."Just today, I read that Carlos Watson, Ceo and co-founder of Ozy media was sentenced to 10 years in prison for quote:- "securities fraud, defrauding investors and misrepresenting the companies financies." Perhaps in the future investors will be entitled to the protection that they deserve? |
Posted at 14/11/2024 17:53 by borderterrier1 Gentlemen. Approximately 5-6 years ago I was told things about Hum that I found disturbing, more or less along the same lines as the information trader465 put on here. I believed at that time that two of the "investors" had reported this to the FCA but nothing happened. We all know now that was because Hum were not registered with the FCA.They are however registered with AIM and the way I understand it, there is an on going investigation. The speculation about "what went wrong" has been considerable. Wouldn't it be better now for the long-term investors to wait for the outcome of that investigation before they cast their vote? If not, why not? |
Posted at 14/10/2024 13:12 by borderterrier1 Plasybryn You have been invested here as long as I have. Over the years some very "interesting" facts have been presented here. Most "investors" refuse to believe them and prefer instead to trust the company and accept that banana skins are inevitable....exactlInformation was posted on here three years ago, I gave you the posts to read for yourself. I know for a fact that several investors here "said" at that time that they would take things further by contacting the FCA. They either did that and (as Tiger and grannyboy said), the FCA ignored it for some reason, OR there is already an ongoing investigation here. Unfortunately, we will never know. But, here's the strange thing. If there was no truth in the information that was presented on a public forum, why didn't Hum respond? I find it hard to believe that some of the information wasn't met with concern. So, I have tried again. The instructions on the FCA web.site are easy to follow. You can e mail them yourself if you like here:- whistle@fca.org.uk I will let you know what transpires. I hope this answers your question because I'm on your side but after this length of time I believe we all need some conclusive answers. By contacting the FCA I hope we eventually get them. Finally. There are those on here that have criticized me over the years for having the balls to tell it as it is. That's OK, I can live with that. What I object to is the fact that none of you come up with an alternative solution to the obvious problems here. If you have a better one, let's hear it? |
Posted at 07/9/2024 20:13 by infinity888 Massive Upside for InvestorsHummingbird Resources (LON: HUM) Market Cap: US$90M Hummingbird resources announced that Pasofino Gold started a tender process to sell the Dugbe DFS Status Project in Liberia (Africa). Dugbe defines an open pit Mineral Reserve Estimate of 2.76 Moz of gold, planned to be mined over 14 years, with an output of 200koz per annum for the first 5 years. It has an NPV5 after tax of US$1.15B at a Gold price of US$2000. (At today’s Gold price of over US2500$, the NPV would be close to US$2B) Hummingbird own 53% of the outstanding shares in Pasofino. The ongoing Tender will close on Monday 30th of September. Hummingbird will represent as Seller in next week’s Precious Metal Summit in Canada where all Top Companies will attend as Buyer. Here the list: [...] Due to the strong Gold price, Nonproduction Assets are being sold for extremely favourite prices. Just recently Osino Gold was sold to a Chinese buyer for a whopping US$278M. Osino owns an asset in Africa which is little smaller and has less NPV5 than Dugbe. Original bid cam from an Canadian Buyer Dundee which is still looking, based on this article: hxxps://www.cruxinve Dundee Precious Metals as well Centerra Gold have each a cash position of around US$700M which would be sufficient cash to acquire Pasofino and build the Mine. Pasofino has announced that already 2 parties show interest to acquire the project and news are due in time. With the discussion the coming week on the Summit this number can only increase. With a sale of Pasofino at a similar region of the Osino Gold deal (US$278M), Hummingbird Resources would Receive ~US$150M and would be able to pay off their total debt position. At the same time their 2nd mine will get into Commercial Production, so that the company would delivery an output from 200Koz/yearly at an AISC of US$1200/oz from Q4-24 onwards. This will generate a contribution of US$1300/oz or US$65M a quarter / US$260M a year at todays Goldprice. Both events mentioned, will provide an enormous upside (multiple of today's Shareprice) for Investors in Hummingbird Resources. Good luck for those invested and those deciding to join us Investors the coming days |
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
