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 ??

mjr1234 - 13 Jun'05 - 17:08 - 807 of 808
"The overall cashflow is positive to the value of $379k, but they have to make a expenditure of $605k to get the $984k back"
Thankyou for contradicting your earlier post. I see you now agree with me, that NML will easily be cashflow positive, so therefore you agree your earlier posts were rubbish.
Thanks for being so honest.

Hang on a sec...... I never denied that the company would not be cashflow positive, only that they might not be able to fulfill their promise to be

CASHFLOW NEUTRAL AT YEAR END

You see the subtle difference is that to fulfill that promise they have to find income of more than $2.35 million. At best, they will have income of only $984k before the end of the year. Assuming of course that they've only found 10,000 carats.

In all liklihood, they might have been able to mine at most 17,000 carats so far:
April 3,000
May 6,000
June 8,000

Even with that revenue, they probably wouldn't be able to fulfill their statement of being cashflow neutral at year-end IMO.

It just goes to show how the company has made yet another misleading statement. If they had actually received revenue, then they've missed out on announcing this (and the export license) to the shareholders.

Given that it's not year end yet, and they have obviously not announced the figures yet, how can you say they have made a misleading statement? You are just speculating that they won't be cashflow neutral, none of us can possibly know until they give us the figures in a few months time.

GIVE THEM A CHANCE!

Oh, dear me. I unfiltered him, and wish I hadn't.

So now companies have to announce their revenue receipts to shareholders? Oh dear, imagine the BT news pages.

And they don't need an export licence as long as they sell through SODIAM - which they are probably obliged to do at the moment.

But with one statement, I do agree. Due to the delays in commencement of production, being cash flow positive by the end of June is unlikely. Whether that was a "misleading" statement or not is open to argument. You can't judge forward looking statements in retrospect. If a company makes such a statement, and events overturn it, that is not misleading. That is not a lie. That is the truth as the company saw it at the time.

Anomalous takes a statement made months ago, works out with his little brain that events have not turned out the way the company expected, and brands that statement as "misleading". It is only misleading if the company were perfectly well aware AT THE TIME THEY MADE THE STATEMENT that it was not going to work out that way. When will he ever realise that shit just happens? You can't forecast it, and at the moment, UK listed companies are not obliged to end every release with a comment such as "well, this is what we think now, but we could be wrong, because bees could sting the lorry drivers and some of them could die from anaphylactic shock, and tigers could eat the plant operators, and it might rain again, and some nasty disease could wipe us all out totally, and we might run out of biscuits, and there might be an attack by terrorists, etc etc ad nauseam."

But then it only seems to matter if they are called "New Millennium Resources" or "African Diamonds". European Diamonds can "mislead" investors all they like, and Anomalous just fawns upon them.

That's it - back to the filter. I can't deal with crap like this.

Same here WendyD, I thought he was worth arguing with, but he will not be deterred from his almost fanatical negative bias.

takahe - 13 Jun'05 - 16:24 - 798 of 810
Anomalous1
'The company has said that the kimberlites were being explored by third parties (unknown). ' they are not actually unknown. They are being tactful here, because it is all rather political.

This implies that you might know who the third parties are. How do you know that the company is withholding this information for 'political' purposes?

It might actually suit NML's purposes for them to announce that a specific major is looking at the pipes. It might actually encourage one of the others to get their skates on and make preliminary talks on the JV.

That news alone would add a considerable amount to the SP. Which in turn would benefit the company and the shareholders.

Come on speak up, how do you know the company is withholding this information because it's all 'political'?

This isn't really getting us anywhere. I really don't care who wins the argument, but perhaps you could bear in mind that there are others who use this thread to post current, new, informative information.

I have previously expressed my own doubts about NML which I continue to hold (both shares and doubts!) and I would welcome any fresh evidence for or against. But these prolix, argumentative posts constantly going over old ground (sic) just get in the way of clear thinking.

The thought that they "accelerated" the kimberlite exploration as an excuse recently to raise more funds actually needed to continue production work on the alluvial areas did cross my mind immediately - an indication in itself that the directors, if nothing else, have failed to create an aura of trust amongst shareholders.

What we all need to know is:-
how is alluvial production proceeding?
have they found any diamonds and to what value?
when can they start to turn these into revenues?
do they have enough cash to sustain the operation?

If you have concrete answers to these current and future questions please let us know. But I have no further interest in how, historically per se, we arrived at this point.

sd

Stockdog -

You asked:

"What we all need to know is:-
how is alluvial production proceeding?
have they found any diamonds and to what value?
when can they start to turn these into revenues?
do they have enough cash to sustain the operation?"

1. "According to plan" is the latest information
2. Don't know - but as they are mining a proven reserve, it is likely, tho no value is known
3. When they can sell them - which at the moment, in common with everyone bar Alrosa, is via SODIAM
4. Probably not in the short term - I can see them needing another half mill or so to take them through to revenue. Could be wrong, but it seems possible.

Anomalous1- my reference to third party(unknown)..I queried this at the time..months ago..it relates to the past, a few years ago, not the present
Also, no matter what you say...I know that LD offered to look at the kimberlites in January, to a group of shareholders

stockdog
how is alluvial production proceeding? - no information yet, but going to plan, according to their PR person

have they found any diamonds and to what value?- no information yet

when can they start to turn these into revenues?- they may already have started to do that. They can sell diamonds. They are a producer..they do not have to announce that to the market, unless it is something exceptional, as I understand it

do they have enough cash to sustain the operation?- don't know, but probably especially if they are able to sell diamonds

takahe - thanks for the honest attempt to answer my questions with what little info there is. Patience required and not a little faith until they choose to make an announcement.

Wendy D - 13 Jun'05 - 17:30 - 812 of 814
And they don't need an export licence as long as they sell through SODIAM - which they are probably obliged to do at the moment.

Yet more drivel and rubbish from Wendy D - she obviously didn't read NML's Project Summary.

Are you going to pay the directors' fines for getting them reported to AIM. After all, you were responsible for provoking the complaint. If you hadn't denied that anything was wrong, the directors wouldn't be under investigation. I expect that if the AIM fines the directors, Wendy D will crawl into her hole to avoid responsibility.


NML received permission to export the diamonds themselves. Not through SODIAM. So they do need the license in order to export the diamonds out of the country.

It states that NML intend to export and sell the diamonds in the NML Project Summary:



If you look at the bottom it says so.

The granting of the license would be price sensitive news and it also shows that the company managed to mine the representative parcel. Again that parcel would be price sensitive news.

Anomalous1 - so, BORING! Can't you conduct your silly fight with Wendy by private email. We do not need you to tell us what to think of everyone else's posts - we can make up out own minds.

SQUELCHED.

Wendy,

J. Cross said they need a FULL mining licence to sell the diamonds, I don't believe they have yet obtained this.

He added they needed to prove competence by assembling an initial 5000 cara parcel.

If they have, IMHO there should have been an RNS IMHO.

>stockdog

If you simply accept as gospel what other people tell you, how are you going to know if they've misled you or deceived you?

Wendy D has very conveniently told you several half truths to back her claims, but avoided giving you the full truth, because she knows it would work against her.

For instance, she claimed that the Badenhorsts and the directors accepted shares. But what she didn't inform you was that the company couldn't afford to give them the cash because they wouldn't have had enough working capital.

She conveniently told you the convertible loan note holder accepted shares now and forewent the interest, but she knows full well as I proved in previous posts, that if the NML share price dropped (as it has) then the convertible loan note holder could be issued with less (in value, after 12 months, even with the interest) than the amount he loaned the company in the first place.

The deal was agreed at 4p per share. If the NML price went as low as say 3p per share, this would mean that the lender would be losing $312,500. That's a serious significant loss. The only way that the lender could reduce their risk, would be to convert the loan to shares now, then to sell some of these shares into the market at greater than 4p.

For every 0.24p over the 4p, the lender would recover the 6% interest that they had foregone. It's worth noting that in the April RNSs, Al-Wakalah stated that they held 13,333,333 shares. They were issued with 16,666,667 shares. So you have to ask where the other 3,333,334 shares went and whether they were sold into the market and were responsible for artificially depressing the share price?

These shares were issued in January, whilst the share price was still above 5p. So it could be that the lender sold shares and gained 24% interest on the portion he sold and reduced his risk.

However, since the person that has since stated he has an equitable interest in the Al Wakalah issue is Datuk Fung-Chee Lim, one of the directors, you then have to ask if the statement about "no director having sold" is correct?

If you simply accept as gospel what other people tell you, how are you going to know if they've misled you or deceived you?

...how very true!

At least I have given you evidence that you can check for yourself. By all means, doubt what I tell you, but check it out for yourself.

You didn't see Wendy D providing proof that I didn't give her every opportunity to accept the directors' discrepancies, before we went to the AIM. She obviously couldn't because it is there in black and white.

You didn't see any proof from Wendy that shows why the Badenhorsts accepted the extra shares.

You didn't see any proof from Wendy, proving her claim that there is nothing wrong with the directors' declarations - because she couldn't.

The simple fact is that the investigation into the directors' dealings is not 'minor matter of no consequence'. It goes to the fundamental reason why there have been so many shares sold, at such a low price and that (as a result) has artificially depressed the share price.

The figures in the 22 April RNS do not explain the discrepancies between the previous holdings and the issue in December 2004. So the statement about there being no director sales can not be taken as a statement of fact. Until this has been resolved, there remains the possibility that the directors have sold or transferred shares in NML and that as a consequence the statement is incorrect.

From the prices of the transactions, it certainly appears that the 'mystery' seller was one of the placees that purchased at 3.7p in 2004. However, if the company is supposed to be worth so much more in such a short period of time, it is a pertinent question to ask why the seller should be dumping such huge quantities of shares at such a low price?

You can not simply explain (as some fools have tried to) that this is some 'forced' sale due to probate or bankruptcy. The number of sales and frequency suggests that the holders have been consistantly and persistantly dumping shares. They may very well have placed an order to sell a larger number of shares and their broker is selling as much as the market will bare, without depressing the share price below the purchase price.

But the question remains, why would someone want to dump the shares if they are likely to be so valuable in such a short period of time?

One wonders why you feel the need to repeat this over and over again?

He is a one-trick pony.

Hopefully there will be news from the company soon and then we will be in a better position to judge what the prospects are.

takahe,

Exactly!