NML is due its interrim results now, last year it was the 28th of this month.

They are setting up a new site to explore/research/analyse and all the equipment to do this should be on site now, and drilling should start soon, all this extra news should be covered in the interims.

does anyone have any further positive views on this company ??

Now it was at this point that someone who had invested in Minmet turned up and posted something about Wendy D that you should see:

Business Link - 16 Apr'05 - 00:24 - 4749 of 5408

WD,

Have you recently acquired knowledge of the mining industry or are you still trading on the second hand schmooze of dodgy directors of micro cap trash like your old mate Jeremy Metcalfe from MNT - You will never be forgotten for your single handed ramping of that stock. I only hope that the Kimberlite that Metcalfe presented you at the MNT AGM (for you sterling work on the BB's) some years back actually contained some Diamonds unlike the Matto Grasso region that you ramped to heaven and beyond.

Regards
A long memory

So you see, Wendy D does have a chequered history regarding Minmet and some of the former investors of that company hold a grudge against Wendy D for the way she ramped that share. I suppose you might say that her support for NML is similar, but NML has not crashed.............................................. yet.

Then I replied with this post getting to the heart of the problem and pointing out that if Wendy still claimed that nothing was wrong, we could prove that something was wrong by making the official complaint (I've highlighted the relevant section):

Anomalous - 16 Apr'05 - 03:01 - 4753 of 5408
Quite wrong zzap, Wendy is deceiving you. Let's dissect her post to see where she has made her mistakes:

The only poster here claiming that the Badenhorsts, the Bank or the Board are selling is you.

So far I have seen Andy and Opthalmist amongst others claiming that they also think that it may be the bank. In my claims, I said it was "possible" or even "probable", but I never said "definite", because there is no conclusive evidence...........Yet.

The RNS of the bank's current holding would be proof. All it requires is a complaint to the AIM that the bank has failed to notify the market and they would face a full investigation and possible fine. The trouble is that the company might suffer into the bargain, because the bank may blame them for failing to make the appropriate RNS. They might also withdraw from any further convertible loans on the grounds that it would be too much trouble.

The only person claiming that there has been non-disclosure is you.

Wendy shamelessly lies to the BB, because Ianwc in post 4580 says:

Ianwc - 13 Apr'05 - 14:55 - 4580 of 4752
I have spoken to Chris...
He confirmed that directors of companies, regardless of where they are based are supposed to do the folowing.

1. The full name of the director
2. The number of shares acquired/disposed
3. The number of shares after the change
4. The percentage of shares after the change

However, he could no definative answer on whether reporting requirements for Australian firms should contain:

1. The full name (or company name) of the holder
2. The number of shares held
3. The percentage of shares held (of the whole company)

He said he can give no definative answer as to whether NML have made any mistakes on any of their RNS's.

So you see, Wendy is lying, because Ianwc also checked with the LSE and verified the reporting requirements for the directors. In the above post, he clearly stated that they had to report:

1. The full name of the director
2. The number of shares acquired/disposed
3. The number of shares after the change
4. The percentage of shares after the change

All of these were missing from the RNS dated 30 December 2004. You can not simply make the assumption that you add X number of shares to Y number already held and give you Z number now held, as for one reason, you don't know who the shares were issued to and how many each

because they never told you

Why is Wendy so foolish as to blindly accept the distribution of these shares? Or is she trying to deceive you? It was not one individual director, because the text said:

Additionally and as a demonstration of their confidence in the Company all directors of NML have opted to convert their outstanding directors fees to shares. An amount of A$386,857 accruing since November 2001 has been converted at A$0.10 per share (4p) resulting in the issue of 3,865,270 ordinary shares.

So you can see, that without the information on who received how many shares, you are completely blind as to the current holdings of the directors. When I first pulled up this point about a month or two ago, I let it pass because the directors would have to report their new holdings in the Annual Report. But it was assumed that the heavy selling would terminate after the mine start RNS, when if anything it has actually become worse.

The existing UKREG statements are quite adequate to meet the needs of the market and the needs of investors, although they do not meet the letter of the AIM rules.

They are most certainly not adequate for the market if they do not conform to the regulations stiplulated by AIM. Those disclosure requirements are set out in that format to make sure the market (including investors) are aware of any change of holdings by the directors and other notifiable holders. The existing UKREG were completely inadequate and if the regulations are not complied with there will be official complaints against the parties involved.

If you continue to argue the toss of the rights or wrongs of the UKREG already issued, there is a way to settle the matter. An official complaint can be made to the AIM against each director that received shares in that issue. I tried to ask Mc to remind the directors to get their house in order. I even asked the AIM team to remind them without getting them into trouble. But if Wendy persists in denying that they have done anything wrong, maybe we should let the directors suffer an investigation and/or possible fine for failure to declare. I'm sure they would appreciate that Wendy was only provoking us to make the complaint, because she was trying to conceal the fact that they had failed to carry out their AIM obligations. Maybe she will support them further by offering to pay part or all of their fine when the AIM decide that there was a breach of the regulations. Maybe the other shareholders will be able to tell Wendy to 'wind her neck in' over this issue, before I go ahead and chop it off! After all, an investigation into the directors would also hit the share price. I don't mind it, because I don't have that many shares, but someone like notready or any of the other major holders might lose out because Wendy was defending the impossible. Defending a market offence.

After all, can you not calculate that x number of shares out of a total of y = z? Can you not calculate that if a director is owed x, and is given 10 shares to the dollar, he must now own z?

As I've pointed previously, you don't know the quantities of shares received by each director. So how can you possibly calculate Z if you do not have the value of the fees that were converted. It does not mention the distribution of the fees, so it is therefore impossible to calculate how much was issued at 10 cents each. All you do know from the RNS is:

An amount of A$386,857 accruing since November 2001 has been converted at A$0.10 per share (4p) resulting in the issue of 3,865,270 ordinary shares.

So you know 3,865,270 shares were issued,

But who received them?

If existing large holders have been selling shares, NML can do nothing until they are advised of such sales.

As I pointed out yesterday, it could be construed that NML has already received notification, by virtue of the fact that they issued the shares to the directors. The directors could therefore argue that it is not them that should pay the fines for failure to notify, but the company. Which means that you. me and every other shareholder would have to foot the bill for the failure to make a properly formatted RNS.

What's even more daft, is that the company did make a properly formatted RNS for a director issue earlier in the year. So it is not as if they do not know how to do it, or have even forgotten what it should include. Check it out for yourself and you will see that it does include all the data:
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200408111234528589B.html

One might even think that the reason the company did not include the full data on the 30 December 2004, was that the directors HAD already sold shares without notifying the market and that the inclusion of the full details would expose this. There is no proof that they have sold any and I am not accussing them of selling anything or indeed that they broke the regulations. I am merely stating that it could be a very good explanation for the company's lapse of memory of the AIM regulations after their previous RNS earlier in the year.

You might benefit from a nice little chat with Donal Douglas. He could teach you a bit about the real world.

That statement is arrogant beyond belief. I do live in the real world and also realise that market abuse is far more common than most investors know. It's a pity that Wendy chooses to hold herself in such high esteem that she can't recognise that she fell off her 'perch' a long time ago.

But if you really want to start tossing around accusations of being "wrong", should you not remember Conroy? How many people lost how much money because of your constantly reiterated advice to buy THAT little beauty? In spite of the cautionary tales from mining company CEOs whom you rubbished!

Well the people that know you from Minmet have turned up to tell us a few home truths about your conduct in that case. So that seems to be Pot and Kettle to
me.

Grow up Wendy, you are only making it worse by fighting the truth

Here, exasperated at Wendy's posts, I pointed out to Mclellan that the company had two days to put their house in order before the official complaint was filed with the AIM:

Anomalous - 16 Apr'05 - 13:23 - 4762 of 5408

mclellan - 16 Apr'05 - 10:51 - 4758 of 4761
Anomalous- apparently the phenomenon of 'externalising guilt'is well-recognised these days among psychiatrists.(Professor Raj Persaud) That is, nothing is ever the fault of the perpetrator...the 'fault' MUST be because of something or someone else.
How can you possibly blame Wendy or Ian for this latest debacle? It is simply ludicrous and if that is truly what you think, then I doubt your sanity.

You miss the point Fiona. As I have explained to you elsewhere, it is not Wendy or Ian that caused this 'debacle' as you put it. The cause of the trouble is the mystery seller and the missing RNS's.

Quite a few investors now accept that there has been quite a few sells that add up to a large volume. It was assumed by many last year, that these sells had to dry up sooner of later. But they haven't. It's certainly possible and plausible that there has been a whole series of sellers for the past year. But the problem still remains that the share price is being artificially depressed by tranches of shares being intermitantly sold.

We know for certain, without doubt and conclusively that RNS's have been missed. What's to say that the seller has also missed their RNS's as well? I think it highly likely. Do I accuse Wendy or Ianwc of this offence - NO.

Ianwc has bothered to check that there is information missing. He's done nothing wrong. Wendy on the other hand, is denying that an RNS is necessary, when we know (from the AIM) that it is. But denying that there is an offence is not an offence in itself. It is merely an indication of Wendy's refusal to accept the truth and her ignorance of the relevance of that RNS to NML's current predicament regarding the share price.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by her failure to accept what Ianwc took the trouble to confirm. So the company now has two days to get those RNS's out during next week. If they fail to, then an official complaint will be made to the AIM and they can properly investigate the situation.

Then maybe Wendy can apologise to the people who are charged by the AIM, for her being responsible for encouraging the denial of an obvious market offence.

5 days after this post, the first RNS was released.

To which Wendy D responded thus:

wdurham - 16 Apr'05 - 19:31 - 4774 of 5408
Before I abandon the crock of excrement that this thread has become, and seek the company of relatively intelligent beings elsewhere I just have one thing to say:

*I* am a liar? ME?

Ludicrous.

Lots of people here on ADVFN don't like me, because I am evenhanded and straight, call a spade a spade, and can often seem to be actually down on a stock I hold, if things are not as they should be. But no-one has ever - EVER - called me a liar.

And you bozos can raise the spectre of Minmet all you like - I never, ever told anyone to buy the stock. My enthusiasm for it turned out to be horribly misplaced, and I have been apologising all over the bloody internet for 3 years.

Unlike certain folk who ramped Conroy, and NML and EPD to the skies, and in some instances are still exhorting folk to buy (with Conroy he ramped first, told them all to buy, got it all TOTALLY wrong, rubbished the advice of folk who actually RUN mining companies in Ireland = and then told them all to sell once he discovered all the "director's lies" - LOL!)- and all of that in spite of not being regulated to give financial advice. But Anomalous doesn't make mistakes, and then admit them and apologise for them as I have done so often. He blames the management for lying, or other investors for lying, or - or - or - anyone and anything you care to name.

Cheers, chaps and Fiona/other ladies. I may meet the saner inhabitants elsewhere, but I can't be doing with this asylum for paranoids, grandeur-delusionists, self-styled investment advisers and FSA-fetishists any longer. Particularly those who call ME a liar.

Which then resulted in the following two posts:

5carobDVS1 - 17 Apr'05 - 13:42 - 4782 of 5408
On another thread:

Anomalous - 17 Apr'05 - 12:59 - 114 of 114
They are not the only ones. That was just a couple of them. There are more, but I don't have all the data on them at the moment.

OT - I noted that post 49 showed that The Bank of Islam (Kuala Lumpur), which is different to the UK Bank of Islam. CSmyth indicated that they held 40% of the share capital of NML. If this is the case, then there is a serious concern that the biggest shareholder in NML IS the mystery seller. That's why the RNS would be useful to show the current situation. I'm visiting the LSE to discuss other matters. If the company hasn't regularised its affairs by then, the LSE will be asked to look into the matter and discover why there's been a lack of properly formatted declaration RNSs from the company.

Anomalous - 17 Apr'05 - 14:01 - 4783 of 5408
Quite so, Wendy's refusal to accept the truth and attempt to deny that anything is wrong, has prompted me to take matters further. The share price is being artificially depressed by someone selling large tranches at irregular intervals. We ought to find out if this seller is one of the major shareholders of NML, as it would seem that someone does not have the confidence in the project that the rest of the shareholders have.

If the share price continues at these prices, it will only serve to upset the investors and might actually put off other would-be shareholders. The lack of a up-curve to the share price is going to put off quite a few of them and could be one of any number of reasons why the institutionals have not invested
or the share has not been tipped by the tipsters.

So you can see that finally I gave up trying to convince Wendy D and wrote an official complaint to the AIM in the hope that they would get something done to convince her that she was wrong.

But the main reason for pushing for the RNS's, was to find out if we could locate the person selling shares, who was responsible for artificially depressing the share price.

Thank goodness I found the filter button before that lot!

My own take on this company can be expressed in just a few words.

1. The present execs, both in post for just over a year, have had a very steep learning curve.
2. The plans for how production would be implemented were changed on at least 2 occasions last year, leading to delays in acquiring and transporting equipment, and the unfortunate coincidence of its arrival on-site with the onset of the rainy season. Management had no concept of the impact the rains would have on the preparation of the site for production.
3. Substantial infrastructure was required to be built, which had not been allowed for in the plans. This work was also hampered by the rains.
4. A conformation prospecting period of 3 months was required by the terms of the licence - this, although again hampered by rain, has now been completed sufficiently to allow production to begin.
5. Endiama have now approved all aspects of the project and given it the go-ahead.

Most of the foregoing implies a management style which I have referred to on more than one occasion as shambolic. I am still of that opinion. However, although many of the delays were - or should have been - avoidable, a great deal of work has been achieved in the last 12 months. Healy and Cross are the only execs on the board, and effectively run the entire company in 3 separate locations - London, Australia, and Angola.

On the corporate side there have been lapses. Over-optimistic (and sometimes just plain silly!) statements were made to shareholders by new and over-enthusiastic management. I do not believe any deliberate deception was intended. There is a muddle over director shareholdings and interests. I do not believe it to be significant in the only context that matters, i.e. directors secretly dumping large amounts of stock - or not, as the case seems to be. The company now has a lousy reputation in the city and with the regulators. No-one wants much to do with them. That is largely not their fault.

But at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is this: whatever the failings of the management, is it going to be possible for NML to pull an average of 10,000 carats of diamonds a month, with an average selling price of $180 a carat, out of the red gravels of C9? Will they be able to achieve an approximation of the forecast profit?

There will not be a definitive answer until about 12 months-worth of production, including another rainy season, has been achieved and an average output can be assessed. Unlike some, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt until likely success or failure becomes plain.

Seems to me that for one who holds no position, the Lone Haranguer puts in an awful lot of time on 'research' and posting. What is the truth ... or the agenda?

bundu,

agreed, but at least he took the time to prove Wendy D wrong, rather than just trade insults!!!

you notice there was no reply, just the normal bb respnse of 'i can't be bothered' from the person just proved wrong...

seems like there are a lot of questins to be answered here...



anomolous1,

you must be a WORLD RECORD TYPIST mate!!!

Wendy and Anomalous - can we please conclude the history lesson and apply your evident in-depth knowledge and strength of feeling to an analysis of the current prospects for the company and the SP.

I have my own concerns about the holdings/disposals by directors and Badenhorsts and about the confusing RNS's around beginning of April about supposed start of production linked with some very volatile SP movements.

I emailed Alistair Cade at Daniel Stewart, the NOMAD, on 23rd April (posted here on that date) with my concerns. Having received no response to date, I emailed John M. Cross, CEO, last week with a copy of my original enquiry.

If I get no response, I will forward my emails to FSA and LSE. Whilst I am quite open-minded to there being reasonable explanations, no response and continuing lack of news on the production front suggest (from experience) that there may be trouble at t'mill (or should that be trouble at till!).

I will report progress (or lack of it).

sd

Stockdog,

I believe John Cross is in Angola, although he should still be able to receive email there, but just in case, I suggest you repeat your mail to Shane Healy.

Having said that, I emailed him recently and failed to receive a reply.

Like you, I found the two RNS at end of March, and begining of April, a few days apart to be contradictory, and confusing.

If I had sold (I currently don't hold) as a result of the first RNS, I would not have been happy to read the second one.

Pease keep us informed of any progress.

Willco, Andy

The arrogance indicated by failure to reply is anti-correlative with other good companies in my experience.

sd

It could just be that they have not got time to reply to shareholder queries as they are too busy mining the diamonds.

Having said that, they could hire a secretary or just set up some auto-reply stock answers.

Aimtrader -

If you read what Anom actually wrote, he did not prove me "wrong". The facts of that particular case are not at issue - Anomalous' own posts show what he said and did.

Anyway, I REALLY can't be bothered to go through it all again for your benefit. And the reason I couldn't be bothered in the first place is that the argument has already been done to death on other BB's and I have lost patience with both him and the issue. If he chooses to raise these issues in a new forum, that's his affair - I am not obliged to restate all the same old arguments yet again, beyond an initial attempt to show him as not totally competent to form the opinions which he presents as gospel truth.

And that goes for any company, not just NML.

I sold out of AFD when Anomalous started making waves with his condemnatory dossiers to the FSA. If he continues to stir up the authorities against NML and use his "opinions" to further his BB attacks upon the company, I may well do the same. I would not touch EPD with a bargepole, because irrespective of his current fondness for the management, it's only a matter of time before he will be reporting them to the FSA as well, and posting diatribes about being lied to on the BBs. Follow the pattern, all the way from Conroy onwards - it is very, very clear.

If I make a mistake, I take it on-board, admit it, shrug it off and move on. I don't lurk around BBs slagging the company off interminably, reporting them to the FSA once a week, and accusing them of lying, to excuse my own errors.

As regards NML. I believe they have a good chance of succeeding with the Lapi River project, in spite of management muck-ups, incessant (and often avoidable) delays, disruption by rain which they simply failed to predict, and a couple of relatively small discrepancies in director shareholdings. Recent evidence from an experienced consulting economic geologist and a local company - who had the support of a deBeers geologist - is clear, and by Jan 2004 C9 was one of only 14 out of many thousands of applications gazetted by Endiama after the "outbreak of peace." There are diamondiferous kimberlites on the licence area, for which NML have applied for a separate development licence. Alluvial project ops are in charge of two experienced men, who recently took shares in lieu of the final payment due to them for equipment. A number of stones were found during sampling, some of them of a good size. Directors have accepted 4 years worth of directors' fees in shares. A 12-month convertible financing was also redeemed with shares, at the outset, by the lender, who could have waited the year and drawn interest. Money is tight - revenue can hardly arrive before August, if then, and more may yet be required from the market. There may be further unforseen delays lurking of which we know nothing. Production targets are based on the original project economics and may not be correct.

These are the facts. You can interpret them how you like. At just 6 mill market cap my own feeling is that it was worth a reasonable slice of my minex portfolio.

Hi SD,

Yes if you could keep us updated with any correspondence you receive from nml it would be much appreciated.

Anomoulus

fortunately i came out with a 20 profit, god knows how. What alarmed me was when my broker rang up to sell (he tried to get me 6p) there were about 9 sellers ahead of me!!!! so i just got 5.70 or 5.75 (i can't remember) after buying this at 5.5p.

Too many questions need answering here for my liking.

Keep smiling and good luck all.

Anomolous, is what you have heard something to do with the use of nml cash or the amount of a certain persons wage by any chance??!!

legend
nice that you retain an interest, in spite of selling out. Anomalous1 chooses to believe that NML are using the kimberlite money for the alluvials.
The directors don't get wages. I think you must be confusing this with AFD, Anomalous1's other anti-crusade.

Thanks for this takahe....

I have nothing against nml or any of its holders. I really do wish people well and to make money on these.

I hope the company will be honest enough to let you all know what the hell is going on.

What would be the consequences of using the kimberlite money for the alluvials and why is it so bad?? (sorry for being thick!!)

>legend290782

It was something to do with NML cash, but not to do with a certain person's wage.

IMHO, the company was attempting something which would have alarmed the shareholders on the BBs and forced the regulators to take a very close look at the company.

On top of that I've now received more intelligence which is equally disturbing. Although I would not pass this on through a BB, I would say that if you want to find out the truth for yourself, take a close hard look at the people employed by the business.

Anomalous1
what does that mean? Are you inferring that NML are not going to develop the kimberlites and are using the new money raised, for their alluvial operations?
People employed by the company???? I don't understand what you mean.How do I find out the truth?

Chairman and Non-executive Director - Senator David Johnston
Deputy Chairman and Non-executive Director - Datuk Fung-Chee Lim
Managing Director and CEO - John M Cross
Non-executive Director - Dato Azizi Yom Ahmad
Finance Director and Company Secretary - Shane Healy
Non-executive Director - Chong-Kiat Lim
Mine Management, Angola - Piet and Neils Badenhorst
Independent Geologist - Dr Michael Harold Smith, FIMM, C. Eng, from Scotland
Consultant Geologist - Bernard Neehoff, AUSIMM, Perth, Australia

Which one of these people is Anomalous1 attempting to defame now?