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 ??

Yawn if you like, but the AIM investigation is underway and I believe the results will show something that will surprise the majority of the shareholders.

Too many... mms play games like raising the bid a quarter and the offer a half and make nml on big winners board... therefore more people get fooled into thinking there is something going on and buy

There is obviously a mystery seller somewhere. Why can't the company be straight and say who is selling the shares... if nml are so good, what have they to fear by announcing it??

Does anyone actually understand the rns's that they release???

I see the "mystery seller" is back again - dumping in 6k blocks now - this must mean he's desparate to dump his last remaining shares because he knows bad news is on the way, isn't that right Anomalous1/ASMITH2/legend290782?

InTheDark - 24 Jun'05 - 09:10 - 2438 of 2439so anom out of the 3 things I brought up;1. The rain - The heavy rains only delayed the setup of the site there has not been delay to actual production and according to the directors it may slow down production but certainly not STOP it. which you will find is the same with every other miner in the area.2. AIM investigation - 3 months to notify the company of such a blatant error in reporting!!!! not even the AIM regulators are that slow - becuase there is no error!3. Mystery seller - and still you provide no proof, except the share price has fallen becuase someone is dumping millions - show me were there trades are!!!!

Yet once again, ITD is misleading the board, because he doesn't understand what is going on and can't grasp that he's been mislead by others.On point 1, NML is not like the other miners in the area. They are alluvial mining on a small set scale set up. Catoca is on a completely different scale and set up. They have huge fixed processing plants to enable them to produce more efficiently and around the clock:

They also have sizeable infrastructure around the mine and are building a $45 million hydro-electric project to supply the mine and the area.

When you see the scale of the pipe (and the value of the diamonds extracted), you can understand how Alrosa can afford to implement such a project.

It is on an entirely different scale to NML and as such, they are not affected by the weather, whereas NML have been and more than likely will be again. Even the NML management admit this.

Petra, are subject to the same weather systems as NML, but Petra are still in the exploration phase. So a break of a few days to a week does not pose too great a problem to them. When they set up their mine, they might find they are delayed a little. But when you consider the difference between kimberlite and alluvial mining, it is easier to understand how the weather can effect the quantity and quality of production.

Alluvial mining, as the name suggests is mining material that has been carried along by water from the source - a pipe or a dyke. The alluvial diamonds are laid down in the river course amongst the sediments and gravels. In some cases, the river has long dried up. As is the case with the alluvials that AFD are seeking in the Kalahari. But in NML's case, the River Lapi diamonds are in an active water course. The river, so mild and tame in this picture, obvious swells considerably when the weather turns.

The rainfall shown in the weather websites is obviously not accurate enough, unless NML were over-playing the weather card last year. I would think that they were not. If Shane and John both said it was bucketing down, then it does suggest that the weather is far worse than they originally thought it was. Apart from preparing a few of the areas round the processing equipment

and the tracks to the pits, the rest of the mine would be susceptable to the deluges.

Hence the pump to drain one of the pits:

So I do believe that the production will suffer, when the ore that NML is carting about (in-between downpours) is saturated in water. It means that the lorries are wasting a fair amount of fuel to move the water in the ore as well.

That means less ore is being carried = less production.

Regarding the AIM investigation, the regulators have a lot to investigate, so they may take up to a year to come back with an answer. The Griffiths investigation took well over 12 months and was eventually passed to the FSA. The Room Service investigation took 13 months to conclude and that was just for Evolution, let alone the others.

IMO the directors are going to be waiting for some time even before the AIM speak to them. On top of that, it is not certain that the AIM would send someone to Singapore or Malaysia to speak with them. They may conduct the investigation in London and then wait for the directors to come to the UK, or request that they come.

The LSE have all the records of the share transactions and from the data I've downloaded, it is quite clear where the suspicious transactions are located. It won't take the AIM long to work out who was selling to whom. The share register is going to be a major givaway as well. In view of what is likely to happen in the next few months and the clamour from the upset shareholders, the AIM will have even more of a sense of urgency to get the investigation wrapped up.

There is absolutely no doubt that someone has mis-reported their holdings. So I suspect that at least one director or maybe more are looking at a possible fine for breaches of the declaration rules.


As for the mystery seller, I do have data to support it. You see, last year, I started to monitor the overall transactions going through the exchange. I analysed the data to find out if there was net selling or net buying and if the value of these sells could be determined, to find out who was the most likely candidates for the mystery seller.

Apart from a break during December, January and February, I have the rest of the data from the transactions and I've processed it to see if the selling could be highlighted.This is the extract of the data from mid March to mid June:




I did create this data in tables, to be loaded to ADVFN, but the data was too great for their computers to handle in one post. So a reduced version had to be posted.

It is clear to see from this data that 10.2 million shares were 'dumped' into the market in a three month period. Now when one considers that the same selling has been going on for over a year, it is certainly possible that the volume of selling is far in excess of the combined placings (16 million and 21 million).

Under those circumstances, one has to question who else had access to cheap shares and who else has either admitted a reduction of their holding or who's holdings are under question by the AIM regulators.

It is quite clear to me that someone - shall we call them Mr X


Mr X

has been dumping huge quantities of shares in a pattern. As I have suggested before, the data shows that Mr X drops a million shares plus or minus 500,000 into the market. As much as the market will bare without causing the share price to crash. The NML private investors - shall we call them 'the three blind mice'


The NML Shareholders - The three blind mice

then soak up these shares over the coming days. Then MMs drop the price to make sure that every last share they have is sold. Then they raise the price on any sales after they move onto the bid and wait for the next batch from Mr X's broker. The MMs are making money on the trades, so they are not worried. Their books appear to be even, so they are not accumulating. It appears that the only 'numpties' are the three blind mice, who can't see that they are being sold 'down the river' by Mr X.

Before you try to explain that Mr X is only selling, because he needs the cash, that is a very short-sighted and inplausible explanation. This seller has been dumping for a year now. Even the prospect of imminent production news is not slowing him down. So you have to ask, if he is so short-sighted after all?

Could it be that our mystery seller, Mr X, knows more about what the company is likely to report and is waiting for the opportunity to sell into the strength and leave the three blind mice holding shares in a company that might be about to report profit warnings on poor production figures in the rainy season?


Someone like ITD is too dumb to ask these questions, because he has selective blindeness of them. Like the three blind mice, he would rather ignore the questions that have been posed for so long now. Legitimate questions about the viability of the production figures after last year's rainy season and NML's obvious in-experience and incompetence.

If the majority of you did a bit more research, you would see that there are obvious questions about the project that call into doubt their ability to be profitable.

Oh, dear - here we go again.

"Please sir, it wasn't me sir, Wendy made me do it!"

LOL!

Anomalous1,

Your table of figures is shite. Thats why you quickly removed it from advfn, and you've made it too small to read properly on here.

The only thing it proves is that you're a sad little obsessed man with too much time on his hands.

InTheDark - 24 Jun'05 - 16:03 - 2468 of 2470
anom:"There is absolutely no doubt that someone has mis-reported their holdings. So I suspect that at least one director or maybe more are looking at a possible fine for breaches of the declaration rules."
I think I'll be sending this off to the NML directors so that they can sue Anom when his slanderous rants are proved incorrect, next week, next month, next year it really doesn't matter becuase you should not be posting this sort of absolute unless you can back it up - and a poorly formulated speadsheet were you have guessed whats a buy and whats a sell and yet you admit your missing 3 months of trades isn't good enough.

I'm quite happy for you to contact the directors with that statement. Hopefully they will realise that they are still in default of their declaration responsibilities for the December issue. Quite apart from not agreeing the figures between the Annual Report and their claimed holdings now.

Regarding the figures, I've now put up a clearer version of them and repeated them here:



I don't see you putting up any evidence to back your theory that there is no mystery seller. The current share price is evidence enough, but when you check the values of the trades over the past 3 months, you can actually see close to 10 million sales. That's nearly 6% of the issued share capital in just three months. Yet do you see a declaration? No............and why not?

Sure I accept that I am missing data during December, January and February, but given the volumes of sales that were going on in September, October and November, it is quite clear that during the missing months, the same selling pattern was going on.

If anything, in preparing the data, I was more than generous on some of the figures. I took note of the fact that on many occasions, shareholders announced that they were able to purchase at below the mid price. If the data in the ADVFN trade data is out, then an educated guess has been made based on the movement in the share price, the time of reporting and the other known trades. I believe that the data is actually leaning in favour of the buys. That is, some of the sells may have been recorded as buys. However, I believe that fewer buys have been recorded as sells than sells as buys.

You can read the tables as you want to. ITD and Mclellan would prefer to rubbish them, because they are strong evidence of a concerted selling pattern amongst the trades. They don't want to accept that there is a mystery seller, because it brings up the possibility that there is some 'conspiracy'. But what they are really failing to admit to, is that someone is depressing the share price by the concerted selling and their actions can be seen from this trade data. They would prefer to ignore my prediction about the share price spiking, only to crash back down when the seller sells into the strength.

How stupid are you going to look when that happens = complete numpties.


The NML Shareholders

Wendy D - 24 Jun'05 - 16:05 - 1002 of 1004
Oh, dear - here we go again.
"Please sir, it wasn't me sir, Wendy made me do it!"
LOL!

I see that Wendy the coward is still not prepared to admit that she dropped the directors in it and made them subject to an AIM investigation, by her refusal to accept that the December declaration was incomplete.

She's unwilling to admit it, because she's too much of a cheapskate to fork out the fine that they might have to pay. I just hope that when she finally does meet the directors, they tell her to get her purse out and pay back the many thousands that they are possibly going to be fined by the AIM.

Anomalous1,

Why have you only added up the net selling, and not the net buying? You will find the net buying adds up to 7,595,882. Does this indicate a "mystery buyer"?

Your figures are completely meaningless, that is to everyone but you.

The net selling indicates when a tranche was released. To see how big the tranche might be, you need to add all the sells during the net selling period.

Now although there are sells during that period that are probably unconnected with the mystery seller, there are also more than a few sells that are missed when the net selling becomes net buying (after the MMs drop the price to move on the last few shares). I believe that the amount that is added to the Gross sells is probably a great deal less than these missed sells on the net buying days.

You can't achieve a degree of accuracy without having all of the trade data (like the LSE does) and know who is selling what. But I believe that the data does indicate where a tranche was released and how big it might be.

If you add up all of the net buying and net selling, the figure should more or less equal zero. It could be out by a day's trading or so and in this case it is. I'm pretty sure that this indicates that the MMs books are balanced (as they should be) and that the buys vs sells have been attributed to the correct columns in most cases.

As I said before, when there was selling below the mid price, I counted the trade as a buy rather than a sell. Unless of course I had evidence of other trades at the same price at the same time that were definitely sells.

There's one hell of a lot of if's and but's there, Anomalous1.

Why don't you just accept that what you are saying is pure hypothesis?

mjr1234 - 24 Jun'05 - 17:02 - 1006 of 1007
Why have you only added up the net selling, and not the net buying? You will find the net buying adds up to 7,595,882. Does this indicate a "mystery buyer"?


No it doesn't indicate there is a mystery buyer, it shows the pattern of trading during the period in question.

When a tranche is released, the MMs try to move it on at the highest price they can get. However, most of the time, the PI's (like notready and takahe) are not buying unless they can get a bargain. So the buying is considerably less than the selling and there is a net sell day.

This goes on for a few days, until the MMs drop the offer. Then a few more buys come out of the woodwork and start soaking up the surplus. The net selling becomes net buying. This carries on until the tranche is fully sold. If the MMs have a few shares left and they are not moving them, they drop the offer a bit more. Which causes even more buying, and the price then restores back up to the price before the tranche was sold, because there are few shares available on the market. The cycle then starts again and another tranche is dumped.

It was noticed that sometimes it takes longer for the extra shares to be soaked up. You can see this during the 15 April to 9 May and 18 May to 1 June. But if you check the values and recognise that the buys = sells +/- 1 day then it is the periods that are important.

We are not seeing evidence of one big mystery buyer, but we are seeing evidence of a mystery seller, however many people it actually represents as selling.

If there were no mystery seller, the net selling days and net buying days would not be grouped. In fact, they would more than likely show around the RNS's.

For example, your fellow shareholders have been trying to claim that the RNS of 22 April was good news. But if you check the trade data, that does not appear to be the case. There is net selling during that period. However, on the 31 March, when the company announced the interim and said there would be a delay, there was net selling. Yet when they annonced the mine start on the 4 April, despite the good news that day, there was still net selling. It only picked up on 5 April. This indicates to me that a tranche was already being sold when the announcement was made and the seller's broker sold into the strength to maximise the profit. When the buying frenzy died away, most of the shares had been sold and the day was net buying, instead of net selling.

I should add, that it is the net selling in tranches that is causing the share price to be depressed despite the 'good' news that the company has released. How else can you explain why the share price has dropped? You can't blame the drop in the SP to the general malaise of the market, NML has dropped a good 33% in value since last November. Indeed, at times it has dropped by over 50%.

What you are seeing in the low share price is a side-effect of the 'dumping'.

So what you are saying in essence, is that any share who's price is lower now than it was say, 6 months or 1 year ago, has a "mystery seller".

Can't you see that this is not true?

This "selling in tranches" is something you have assumed before analysing the figures, therefore whatever conclusions you draw will obviously support your hypothesis.

But, that is all it is Anomalous, your hypothesis.

I could take the trades data of any share that has fallen over some time, and therefore would have net sells,
say EPD for example, and "prove" the same thing you are proving here.

Can't you see that this approach you are taking is completely hypothetical and neither proves nor implies anything?

I disagree with you. Just because any share price drops, does not imply that there is a mystery seller at work on that share.

But when a share price drops despite the company releasing 'good' news and the PI's buying up anything that appears to be a bargain, it shows that something is wrong. That appears to be the case with NML.

The Room Service investors spotted that they were victims of a market abuse, because the majority of them were in communication with each other. They recognised that the volumes of trades did not match with the known holdings and issued share capital. It soon became obvious that someone was selling far more shares than were issued by the company.

In the case of NML, the share price IS being depressed and the only explanation for the drop is that there are persistant and frequent large sells going through. This isn't something that was discovered recently. If you don't believe me, check back through all the threads on ADVFN and you will see that it was spotted in September last year. Nobody could work out why the share price kept dropping despite all the buying that people were doing. The moment we started to analyse the trade data, it became apparent that someone WAS dumping large quantities. Ask the other shareholders. Some of the more sensible ones that still hold NML will agree that the share price has been held down by someone selling.

The trade data I have prepared shows that there is a pattern. If you choose to ignore it, you do so at your peril, because the seller will continue to take advantage of NML for as long as they can. The biggest question is why are they doing this, despite the fact that supposedly there are diamonds there? That leads to more questions with disquieting simple answers.

The Room Service was a market maker scam where they were selling people shares they didn't have...totally different.
You really are obsessed with hatred for NML. Do you see yourself as a 'white knight' here because you certainly don't come over that way.
One of these days, the management may catch up with you. I think you should be much more careful who you accuse on public BBs.Have you ever heard of the word 'libel'?

takahe - 24 Jun'05 - 21:11 - 1013 of 1013
The Room Service was a market maker scam where they were selling people shares they didn't have...totally different.
You really are obsessed with hatred for NML. Do you see yourself as a 'white knight' here because you certainly don't come over that way.
One of these days, the management may catch up with you. I think you should be much more careful who you accuse on public BBs.Have you ever heard of the word 'libel'?

I'm not trying to be some White Knight on NML. In fact, all I am trying to do is inject a sense of realism into the blatant ramping that frequents the BBs and make sure that the new readers and prospective shareholders get a balanced picture of both points of view.

If the majority of shareholders had their way, they would convince the new people that nothing was wrong. You only have to look at NML's history over the past 8 months to see what I mean. Even you, have convinced your family members to buy NML, presumably on the promise that good times were on the way and massive profits to be made, only for the new shareholders to find out that their investment has diminished in value and the good news had no effect on the price.

People like ITD and Baughfell are giving NML a bad name, because they are trying to claim that there is no problem - there is no mystery seller - when all the evidence says there is and the more reasonable holders have believed that there is for the past 8 months. The longer they try to ignore this, the more likely that they are going to be blamed for the coming disappointment.

I've already stated that I believe the share price will spike on the good news, only to fall back again when the mystery seller starts selling into the strength. The recriminations that will come afterwards are likely to be harsh. Many will try to blame me - for de-ramping the share. But the fact is that my opinions and views had no effect on the price whatsoever. No one individual can effect the price, except by trading substantial quantities of shares. The seller is the cause of the share price currently being depressed, not some BB disagreements.

If the NML shareholders are so secure in the belief that NML will rise in value, why do they attack any detracting post so vehemently? Are they so insecure in their belief in the share and the company that they think that my posts could seriously damage the companies prospects. It is absolute rubbish to suggest that my posts would have any effect on the share price at all.

The reason the other shareholders (and yourself) attack my posts, is because they contain a lot of legitimate questions about the project and common sense answers that the others have failed to look for. Because it upsets the cosy little picture they have painted of the companies propsects. Where I can I have tried to provide data to support my case. You rarely see that from the others. They would rather attack the contrary view with words and sometimes abuse, than do a bit of research and find out the answers for themselves.

Last year (and this) Wendy stated that she thought the analysis of the trades that I did was valuable to seeing how the trading was progressing. It did (and does) provide an insight into what may be transpiring. I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the questions......but at least I am asking them.

The others are ignoring the facts, because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs and faith in the company. Wendy said that 'faith' shouldn't be a factor in making investment decisions, only research and information. The trouble is that to the majority of NML shareholders on this BB and ADVFNs:

FAITH IS EVERYTHING

because they don't have evidence that supports their belief that the companies share price will rise. In fact, the only 'proof' they have is that the share price has DROPPED over the past 8 months and that the management's promises have been repeatedly broken. As Wendy put it, the management are inexperienced and incompetent.

It would be interesting to see if the others could come up with some data (on their own), that supports their belief in NML. The only figures they've seen so far are the spreadsheets that I came up with using Wendy's and NML's figures. Even these spreadsheets have been rubbished by the other shareholders. So you can see, apart from the statements made by the management and the company, whose credentials have been tarnished by Wendy, the others have very little to support their beliefs.

When I make statements about the company, I am careful about what I say. It is a pity that the management do not follow the same course. They have made frequent statements about the mine start, especially those that said they would be producing in October 2004, that later turned out to be rubbish.

If the management want to try and sue me for libel, they are welcome to try. However, as the lawyers would point out to them, it's bad enough to be labelled as inexperienced and incompetent on a Bulletin Board, but it is quite a different matter to be labelled as such in a Court of Law.

If the management are stupid enough to press the matter, they might find that they do more damage to their own company, than they could possibly do to me. Besides, I have been careful to qualify statements or merely to repeat what others have said. I wonder if the management would like to sue Wendy for calling them inexperienced and incompetent? They might hold a grudge against her for dropping them in it with the AIM regulators and sparking the complaint about the missed declarations. If Wendy hadn't claimed that nothing was wrong, just as ITD claimed that there is no mystery seller, then the directors would not now be under investigation and possibly facing a fine for failing to declare transactions correctly.

One of these days, and soon in my opinion, the management will have to face a number of very angry shareholders, when their investment does not multiply as they believed it would. The directors may have their options, they may have their fees, but they can not promise that they will manage to meet the share prices that would enable them to take advantage of these options.

The sad fact is that the majority of shareholders accept what the management say as gospel truth, when in actual fact, like any company, they should only believe what they can prove with independent and corroberating data.

If the management said that white was black, the shareholders would believe them.......................... then get run over on the next zebra crossing!

For those that are still bothering to read Anomalous, he is as usual being economical with the truth.

What I actually said, (amongst many other similar things), on Energyi's "Charts and Fundamentals" thread on ADVFN, was this:

"wdurham - 13 Apr'05 - 11:46 - 4541 of 5408 edit

" What we do know though, is that there has been some missing RNS's. The bank for one and the directors (that converted expenses) for the other."

I'm getting fed up with this. Why are these UKREG statements "missing"?

The full number of shares issued for the convertible drawdown was announced by the company on 20th January.

The full number of shares issued to directors in lieu of accrued fees was announced by the company on 29th December. Those accrued fees were spelled out, by named director, in the Annual Results published in November. They relate mainly to the non-execs. Shares were issued at 10 to the A$ on the outstanding amounts.

The full number of shares issued to the Badenhorsts has been announced by the company, on 4 August and 29 December.

The AIM rules state that the AIM listed company must disclose such information, insofar as they have it, without delay.

They did.

Where is the problem?

-----------------------------------

wdurham - 15 Apr'05 - 19:14 - 4743 of 5408 edit

< <>>

And the equally interminable harping on about missing RNS statements is equally silly. The UKREG announcements were made as required - they merely lacked the fine detail required by the AIM rules. The purpose of the rules is to try to ensure that shareholders are kept informed about major shareholders' buying and selling activities, and directors dealings.

Tell me, as an investor, that you don't know how many shares the lending bank now hold? And you don't know how many shares the Badenhorsts hold? And you are equally unaware of the directors' holdings following the issue of shares distributed to them in lieu of the accrued fees stated in the last Annual Report?

There was indeed inadequate disclosure from the point of view of the AIM rules, but there was definitely material disclosure, and no shareholder who has two braincells to rub together is in any doubt as to who owns what."

-----------------------------------

I did NOT say there was "nothing wrong". My opinion and what I said is clear from the above.

The only person responsible for reporting NML to AIM and the FSA was the person who actually DID it - Anomalous.

The only person responsible for continuing to nag the AIM team and the FSA over this matter is Anomalous.

If the directors of NML are fined or in any other way punished, the only person responsible will be Anomalous.


And now I shall once again filter him. His ongoing drivel is increasingly irritating.

Wendy - he is also taking your name in vain on ADVFN!

Why is so much rubbish put about, why not wait for an RNS.