This is the standard FCA reply. They're useless - underfunded and uninterested.
The lack of a regulator fit for purpose is one of the primary reasons why the London stock market is in such dire straits.
I still wonder about the Bunker Hill investment. It was such an obvious scam and the previous "form" of its management was public knowledge. Was there a backhander involved? Would that explain the otherwise inexplicable? I'll never know. |
Tiger. I know for a fact that specific information was sent to the "authorities" that suggested "something" wasn't right here many years ago. The well supported info posted on here by trader 465 suggested the same thing. The reply from the "authorities" was that it would be "looked into" but they were "unable to comment on specific company matters or provide updates" In other words, 4K off, we're not interested. |
 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. |
farrugia But they get away with it because they know they can. The more complaints from investors that get their fingers burnt with unscrupulous management, the more chance there is of something being done. Obviously we won't get money back but at least there would be some satisfaction. |
Same at RMM too |
its the same story over and over again. mismanagement, embezzlement, incompetence - call it whatever you like. In the end its a transfer of assets that shareholders funded and derisked to private owners. Its bad faith, greed and mismanagement all mixed up into one. Same happened with Shanta Gold - shareholders took all the risk while private equity got to take it out for spare change. |
1knocker I agree. BUT, we all invest in a company (or we should) by doing our due diligence and research, don't we? If there is a good chance that the information we have relied on to do that is flawed, there should be protection in place to prevent that.
In this case, I believe there were two main considerations:-
1. The projected deposits just were not there and greatly exaggerated by the mineralogists.
2. The gold was actually there and some of it was "lost". In other words, trader465s posts on here make perfect sense and need looking into by the authorities.
As me and many others have now said, the Ceo here had absolutely ZERO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE at running a gold mine. Why was that allowed to continue for so long? It shouldn't really be that difficult for the AIM investigation to figure out, should it? |
When your back is to the financial wall, you are not in a great position to negotiate favourable terms. That's life. Ask anyone applying for a 'payday' loan, or even someone trying to sell his house in a hurry.
Fortunately, i only had a very few shares left here. Stupid of me to have retained any at all. I knew it was a difficult jurisdiction, politically, climatically, in fact in every way you can think of, and that the management was hopeless. Frankly, I think I deserve everything I have [not] got.
Lets hope I don't forget the lesson I have purchased from headmaster Betts of the HUM academy of investment. |
21 days after 13th Jan then within 14 days so 2nd week in Feb. |
Tiger. Knowing what I know and have known for some time, I disagree and I believe trader465s latest post above to be accurate. I believe the gold was there but (as many others are now saying) it was "lost" along the way.
Proving exactly where it went is of course difficult because even insiders are often reluctant to "spill the beans" and divulge what they know in a court of law. But it isn't a completely impossible task and I still believe the AIM investigation will uncover the truth. The World is a small place. Perhaps those who were previously employed in a prominent position here can provide some answers? After all, as the old saying goes, there's no smoke without fire is there? |
FWIW, I disagree with Trader's analysis.
I believe Coris / Nioko have been reckless with their lending / share purchases and will find it very hard to avoid substantial losses. HUM is not some magic money mine just waiting to churn out hundreds of millions of dollars in easy profit. Its operations are deeply compromised - Yanfolila in Mali is probably a bust (exhausted mine, military junta on the take), and Kouroussa has failed and failed again to deliver the promised results. I think there is a serious question about the accuracy of the original reserve statement.
Yes, PIs have lost a bundle here thanks to Dan Betts' spectacular incompetence. But I don't think Coris / Nioko are about to make a killing. Rather the reverse, in fact. |
Refinancing of Coris Loans & Related Party Transaction
Why Oumar Toguyeni and Geoff Eyre Are Considered Related:
Positions in Hummingbird:
Oumar Toguyeni is a Non-Executive Director of Hummingbird Resources.
Geoff Eyre is the Interim CEO of Hummingbird Resources.
As senior figures in Hummingbird, both are intimately involved in the company’s management and decision-making processes. The announcement identifies them as "independent directors" not part of this transaction because they could have potential conflicts of interest due to the relationship with Nioko
Would you believe it Toguyeni has another corporate governance job lined up lol.....
TORONTO, Nov. 7, 2024 /CNW/ - Allied Gold Corporation (TSX: AAUC) (OTCQX: AAUCF) ("Allied" or the "Company") is pleased to announce a series of changes and developments meant to improve operational oversight, improve mining operations, advance the Kurmuk project towards operations and improve corporate governance.
Allied has strengthened its Board of Directors by adding a new Board Member, Oumar Toguyeni. Mr. Toguyeni is a highly experienced global mining executive, with over 35 years of mining expertise. His career has included senior leadership positions at major international mining companies such as BHP, Alcoa Inc., IAMGOLD Corporation, and he has also recently been appointed to the Board of Directors of Hummingbird Resources. He very recently joined the board of that company in connection with the restructuring and recapitalization of the company initiated, and financially supported, by its largest shareholder |
When is the pay-out? |
As of the interim report for June 2024, Hummingbird Resources PLC (HUM) had total assets valued at $610.2 million. Their net liabilities, including borrowings and other financial obligations, amounted to significant sums, including $153.9 million in total borrowings and a net debt of $153.5 million. The company's net cash was reported at $0.4 million |
It's a regular occurrence on AIM
Crooked 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. |
Yep, pants down, bend over shareholders, well and truly shafted. Come on AIM, do your job. |
Gold Price Impact on Hummingbird Resources (HUM)
Annual Gold Production: 150,000 ounces.
Current Gold Price: $2,600/oz.
Annual Revenue:
150
,
000
oz
×
2
,
600
USD/oz
=
390
,
000
,
000
USD
150,000oz×2,600USD/oz=390,000,000USD
Profit Margin Analysis
Operating Cost Estimate: $1,300/oz.
Net Profit Per Ounce:
2
,
600
−
1
,
300
=
1
,
300
USD
2,600−1,300=1,300USD
Total Net Profit:
150
,
000
oz
×
1
,
300
USD/oz
=
195
,
000
,
000
USD/year
150,000oz×1,300USD/oz=195,000,000USD/year
Nioko’s Cost to Acquire HUM
Share Purchase Price: £12.6 million ($17.5 million).
Loan to HUM: $35.6 million.
Total Cost:
17.5
M
+
35.6
M
=
53.1
M USD
17.5M+35.6M=53.1M USD
Return on Investment (ROI) for Nioko
Annual Profit After Acquisition: $195 million.
Time to Recover Investment:
53.1
M USD
195
M USD/year
≈
3.3
months
195M USD/year
53.1M USD
≈3.3months
HUM Shareholders’ Loss
HUM shareholders sold the remaining 58.19% stake to Nioko for £12.6 million, valuing the company at just £21.7 million.
Actual Value (Based on Net Profit Potential):
With $195 million annual profit, HUM’s fair valuation could exceed $600 million (£470 million) at a modest P/E ratio of 3.
Summary: Who Benefited?
Nioko Resources (and Idrissa Nassa):
Acquired control of HUM for $53.1 million.
Gains a gold mining company generating $195 million in annual profit, representing a return of over 350% in under a year.
HUM Shareholders:
Sold at a massively undervalued price.
Missed out on the benefits of rising gold prices and operational recovery.
This deal heavily favors Nioko Resources and Idrissa Nassa, leaving HUM shareholders with minimal returns while Nioko profits immensely from undervalued assets. |
Mr Idrissa Nassa is the man who will end up with the gold mines.
Nioko Resources is not a mining company. It is an investment vehicle and a subsidiary of Coris Invest Group (CIG), which is owned by Burkinabe businessman Idrissa Nassa. Nioko Resources primarily focuses on acquiring strategic stakes in companies within the mining sector rather than engaging in direct mining operations.
Key Points About Nioko Resources:
Focus on Investments:
Nioko Resources specializes in acquiring mining assets and shares in mining companies.
It is part of a broader strategy to invest in resource-related businesses, leveraging financial and operational opportunities in the sector.
Recent Activities:
Hummingbird Resources: Nioko has been involved in acquiring a controlling interest in HUM, a gold mining company operating in Mali and Guinea.
Orezone Gold Corporation: Nioko acquired a 19.99% stake in this Canadian mining company, reinforcing its focus on gold mining investments.
Parent Company Support:
Nioko is backed by Coris Bank International, which provides financial leverage for its acquisitions.
Comparison to Mining Companies
Unlike a mining company, which engages in exploration, extraction, and production, Nioko Resources operates as an investment and holding entity. Its role is to provide financial backing, strategic oversight, and capital to its mining-focused subsidiaries or investments.
In Relation to HUM
Nioko's involvement with Hummingbird Resources aligns with its investment strategy but does not involve direct management or mining operations. Instead, it is positioning itself to benefit from the future profitability of HUM’s gold assets. |
Disturbingly, on the latest update, I'm surprised that FD Tom Hill is still there? Thought he might have taken "early retirement"? |
So what happened to Plathunter did he retire? |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
