Anglo Asian Mining Share Price (AAZ)

Trade Now

 Capital at risk Advertisement
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Anglo Asian Mining Plc LSE:AAZ London Ordinary Share GB00B0C18177 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
Upgrade Icon
  -1.00 -1.41% 70.00 134,573 16:35:15
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
68.00 70.00 71.50 69.00 71.50
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 68.40 9.31 4.75 12.5 80
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
17:42:54 O 16,270 69.997 GBX
Related Shares
Glencore (GLEN), Rio Tinto (RIO), Shefa Gems (SEFA), African Battery Metals (ABM)

Anglo Asian Mining (AAZ) Latest News

Anglo Asian Mining News

Date Time Source Headline
30/9/202207:00UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Total Voting Rights
16/9/202215:39UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Transaction in own shares
15/9/202212:21ALNCNewsAnglo Asian Mining interim profit falls and gold output weakens
15/9/202207:00UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Interim Results
31/8/202207:00UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Total Voting Rights
18/8/202214:14ALNCNewsIN BRIEF: Anglo Asian Mining buys exploration data USD4.0 million
18/8/202207:00UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Acquisition of geological exploration data
10/8/202210:13UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Transaction in own shares
08/8/202215:36ALNCNewsIN BRIEF: Anglo Asian Mining invests in Libero Copper & Gold
08/8/202207:00UKREGAnglo Asian Mining PLC Follow-on investment in Libero Copper & Gold Corp
More Anglo Asian Mining News
Anglo Asian Mining Investors    Anglo Asian Mining Takeover Rumours

Anglo Asian Mining (AAZ) Discussions and Chat

Anglo Asian Mining Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
05/10/202221:02Wanobi & AAZ48,162
05/10/202219:29One of the largest developing gold properties in Eur or Asia54,528
03/9/202210:21Anglo Asian Mining Charts35
20/7/202212:37⚠️ WARNING ⚠️ 10
15/4/202213:57Anglo Asian Mining PLC - gold and copper in Azerbaijan23

Add a New Thread

Anglo Asian Mining (AAZ) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
16:42:5470.0016,27011,388.51O
15:40:0070.0010.70O
15:35:1570.0010070.00UT
15:30:5870.0016,27011,389.00O
15:13:4769.0074.83O
View all Anglo Asian Mining trades in real-time

Anglo Asian Mining (AAZ) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 26/9/2022 08:17 by captain james t kirk
Apologies that it's so long but this is a great, insightful article in the DT. It's behind a pay wall so I have to post it in its entirety. Thatcher’s energy plan was derailed – now we are paying a gigantic price Short-termism prevailed in the push for nuclear power LORD HOWELL 26 September 2022 • 6:00am margaret thatcher nuclear energy CREDIT: Anaïs De Busscher for The Telegraph It was a favourite dictum of the late Ernest Marples, for whom I worked as a young man, that in politics the urgent always ousted the important. When Margaret Thatcher asked me to be Energy Secretary in her first Cabinet I was to learn the truth of this view soon and bitterly. The priorities of that moment, June 1979, both the urgent and the important, seemed clear enough. The first was to do everything possible to protect ourselves against the latest oil shock from OPEC, the second in a decade, which was in full spate as we took office, and to prevent the consequent inflation, already at an inherited 20pc or more, from spiralling still further to the point of total breakdown. This time it had been triggered by the Iranian revolution taking 2 million barrels a day of oil off the market – a small amount globally but enough to send the price rocketing. The second was to prepare and stiffen ourselves against the looming onslaught by the militant and politicised coal miners' leaders. Arthur Scargill was rearing to have a go at a new Tory Government, with memories fresh in our minds of the three-day week and the damage inflicted on the country five years earlier. The third, and most important for the future, was to move as swiftly as possible to replace and expand our ageing fleet of nuclear power stations (the UK having been the pioneer in this field with “atoms for peace”). These aims were connected, complicated and with both short-term and longer term vital aspects needing to be balanced. Reducing reliance They had, at that early stage, the full support of Margaret Thatcher and most of the Cabinet. In my long and detailed conversations with her, many of them in her upstairs flat at Number 10, she made clear her view that the nuclear priority was part of moving away from the stranglehold of domestic coal over the nation’s electricity, as well as reducing reliance on oil and gas imports. There was no mention at that time of nuclear’s low carbon benefit, although I have read since that she was personally well on top of the climate issue. In changing the pattern of something as central as a nation’s energy supply structure one needs to think in decades rather than months or even years, and that is what we set about doing. My first moves were therefore to start cranking up the whole nuclear sector, ready for a new phase of construction as rapidly as possible. At the same time I engaged directly with OPEC leaders, (to bring home to them the dangers for everybody of inducing a world recession by pushing prices higher), while on the home front we started immediately building up coal stocks in the power stations (and all other chemicals and supplies necessary) to be ready for what looked like imminent battles ahead. The nuclear story is perhaps the most instructive and relevant for today’s energy imbroglio. Margaret said the dithering had to stop and a new programme of nuclear plant building had to begin forthwith. It sounded simple, just as today’s call for eight new reactors sounds, and just as the plan for six new reactors in David Cameron’s time sounded, and just as, going back further, plans aired under Tony Blair when his government changed their mind, after several years delay, about the importance of a strong nuclear power sector (in 2005). It is a saga of good intentions down the years, with none, so far, turning out as planned. ‘Anything seemed possible’ But in 1979 anything seemed possible. After all, the French had built no less than 58 new nuclear plants, of varying sizes, in the previous decade, so why shouldn’t we do something similar, if on a smaller scale? My first task was to get the scientists and nuclear lobbies to agree on what to build. They had been quarrelling for years and had produced a British nuclear pattern of amazing variety, from the old Magnox stations to the much bigger AGRs (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors) which were mostly working well but getting older. There was also an experimental fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay. For a new programme the French pattern of Westinghouse Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) looked a far better prospect. Airey Neave lobbied strongly for an alternative system called SGHWR-(Steam Generated Heavy Water Reactor), which I think was backed by Shell. I admired him greatly and he was an old acquaintance since post-war days, but he was not to be trifled with and gave me quite a hard time. Arnold Weinstock said his company was quite ready to go on building AGRs and ‘pouring concrete for England’ as he put it, but we should change to a new design. Others favoured the Canadian Candu design. But eventually the majority were agreed on the PWR course and I announced to Parliament in October 1979 a brand new programme which would last a decade (at a rate of commissioning one new plant a year- although I suspected it would take much longer) and add about 15 GW to our nation’s electricity capacity out of some 45 GW then needed nationally. Further re-assurance came from Walter Marshall, then the eminent director of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, who told me that the sensitive nuclear waste issue could in fact be solved completely by burying vitrified material two miles down in rock formations that had not moved in eons, adding that if future generations wanted to dig up the glass and eat it, after say 300 years, then they had more problems than the danger of radioactivity. He also explained to me that fusion was like ‘putting the sun in a bottle’ and would work commercially one day, but not for many years to come. I also sought advice from the French industry minister, Andre Giraud, a giant figure in the French nuclear industry. Monsieur Giraud was friendly and interested but when asked how on earth France had pushed through all the planning and acceptance of 58 new nuclear stations so quickly, he shrugged his shoulders and said that in France these things were decided centrally and that anyway local people welcomed a nuclear station nearby and the very low electricity prices that went with it. Sizewell B Despite a proposal to build a nuclear plant every year for a decade, only one was built – Sizewell B CREDIT: WPA Pool/Getty Images Europe In the British case it took 16 years from my announcement in Parliament to see the first one, Sizewell B, actually operating. After that, nothing. The long term vision faded before a hundred more urgent short-term pressures. Wikipedia says that after my departure from Energy in the autumn of 1981 the whole commitment was “rowed back” and somehow lost support. Oil and gas prices, having soared, came down sharply, as they always do, and the economics of building nuclear giants looked less and less attractive. Add to that, there were plans afoot for privatising the whole electricity industry, and more nuclear stations were seen as making the task of selling the system to the private sector far more difficult than it was already going to be. Short-termism prevails So, exit the Thatcher nuclear plan. Short-termism prevailed, as Marples had long ago predicted it would. If the full programme had been sustained most of the new plants would now be on stream and vulnerability to the present oil and gas shock would be very much less than it has grimly turned out to be today Meanwhile, back in 1979, leaping oil prices, with knock-on effects on gas prices, were creating world panic and threatening recession. It should be explained that the gas situation in the UK was very different from the chaotic and frightening scene now confronting us, and a global market for gas, via pipeline or LNG “frozen” shipments, was very much less developed. Sir Denis Rooke was the formidable chief who controlled the entire state-owned British Gas scene, from the bottom of the North Sea to every kitchen gas-ring or boiler in the land, some said in almost Soviet style. He was jealously against what he called his precious gas fuel being burned for electricity. In 1979 only 1pc of electricity came from gas, against 45pc today. He put what he called “my 14 million home customers” first. Denis Rooke had brilliantly presided over the conversion of that number of gas cookers from old coal gas to natural North Sea gas without much fuss at all. Now he was worried that soaring crude oil prices were creating ‘a dash for gas’ and urged me, as the responsible minister, to allow a 10pc price increase to restore market balance. This I did since it seemed sensible economics. My civil service advisers called “courageous221; and sure enough it caused Parliamentary uproar and lost me plenty of popularity all round. Emergency debates were demanded. Robust protection With some North Sea gas fields already draining down in the early Eighties, and some demanding big price jumps in new contracts, such as the Norwegian Frigg Field, Rooke proposed, and I backed, a massive new gas gathering North Sea pipeline system which would have greatly prolonged natural gas supply from the UK Continental Shelf. But it was rejected by the Treasury and an obedient Cabinet majority. More short-termism. I offered my resignation at this point but was shuffled to another department! All along, the oil and energy price crisis required both immediate action and strategic moves to build robust protection against future shocks. On the former I engaged from the start with Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani and other OPEC leaders. Yamani understood our message – that pushing prices too high too fast would cause world recession and we would all be losers – and was strongly committed to the concept of OPEC as a force for stability in world oil markets, as well as greatly increased dialogue between producer and consumer nations (we were both by then). Later I heard that back in Riyadh some of his Saudi government colleagues were not nearly so keen on this moderation, but for the moment his view prevailed. On longer term aspects we were beginning to acquire a key advantage as a nation. Thanks to the steady build-up of North Sea oil and gas production we could speak as both a major oil consumer and a rising producer. For this change of fortunes direct credit was due to my Labour predecessor as Energy Secretary, Tony Benn. Of course I had numerous differences on how to proceed in the North Sea, especially over the status of the British National Oil Corporation, which he had set up with its rather complicated Participation agreements between the private companies and the state entity, and its dangerously large oil trading role. But his vigour in getting North Sea hydrocarbons development under way cannot be questioned. I had numerous further meetings with Yamani and his colleagues, both in London and in Saudi Arabia. Several of them were oddly in a church which had been converted into a restaurant off Belgrave Square called, then, The Belfry, which I think he part-owned. He and Sheikh Ali Khalifa al-Sabah pressed me to put to Mrs Thatcher the idea that the UK should join OPEC as a new oil producer. But I explained to them that she was not a supporter of oil or any other monopolies and never had been, and that it would be an utter waste of time. North sea oil platforms The North Sea is an international province, meaning oil and gas is subject to global market prices CREDIT: Martin Langer / Alamy Stock Photo There was one snag about North Sea oil from the UK continental shelf which seems not fully understood to this day. The North Sea is an international province. The output from it belongs to the licence-holders. It is not ‘ours’. Its investors go there in the first place, from many countries and governments, on the understanding that this output can always be sold to the highest bidder. If it was otherwise, and the oil companies were threatened with a capped price and only one controlled market, the investment would not take place. There seem to be ideas around that oil and gas from fracking and more from the North Sea would help our present plight. They would certainly be available, but only at the current global market price. Generally, we were determined to keep clear of rationing of fuel – a path which my US counterpart, Jim Schlesinger, had been pushed into following – America being at that time still a huge importer of oil. We reckoned that direct interference with prices, even at these uncomfortable heights, would make matters worse, as it did in the US, and delay a return to more normal ranges. Balanced diversity Some lessons from long ago: The key to a reliable, affordable, clean national energy system, secure in all eventualities, is, and has been all along, balanced diversity and deep resilience along with adequate reserves and storage. Generating 45pc of electricity from gas is not diversity. Closing down adequate storage, whether of gas or hydrogen or any other energy vector, is not diversity, or common sense. Over-reliance on wind power without adequate back-up when the wind drops is not diversity. Letting low-carbon nuclear run down to few gigawatts is not diversity, nor is putting faith in over-sized, outdated nuclear designs. Finally, disorderly energy transition, closing down fossil fuels production faster than demand is falling, is neither diversity nor wise management and balance. Nor is fooling ourselves that our own net zero target will halt the rise of global emissions, and protect us uniquely from climate violence. Much more violent weather is coming and will require huge adaptation. That has not been started either. In the closing age of coal in the latter part of the last century many lessons were ignored. Coal which had seemed to make us self-sufficient ended up bringing the nation to its knees, illustrating the folly of narrow self-sufficiency as a strategy. In the ages which followed of oil and gas they were forgotten again, while North Sea plenty, for a time minimising import needs, lulled us into false security. Wars occurred, as in Ukraine now, and in the Middle East earlier on, of the kind which military pundits did not expect to occur, and wrong decisions were taken. Now we are paying the price and it is gigantic, far exceeding any short-term economies in the past. Other “long terms” lie ahead, full of uncertainties, for which utterly resilient plans, national and international, must now be laid, with a lot more wisdom and foresight than in the past, even while we struggle with the appalling outcomes of yesterday’s failures and errors. Let’s hope democracy, and the leaders it gives us, are up to the task.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 25/9/2022 16:17 by podgyted
AAZ was one of the shares I sold throughout last week in a major move into cash. To be fair I was thinking of selling anyway - I had problems with the interim accounts - FWIW I thought I'd post here so people could look at further and come to their own conclusions and do their own research. I thoroughly expected the interim accounts to show a loss so a bit shocked at a $5m profit before tax being disclosed. Looking at the accounts the Gross Profit percentage has gone up from 19% in H2 2021 to 35% in H1 2022. According to AAZ price achieved for gold was $1820 in H2 2021 but rose 4% to $1900 in H1 2022 so that explains a little bit of the increase - the copper price on the other hand seems to have been static (I've used the quarterly realisations achieved by AYTM for the 2 periods here). On the other hand there are some startling % increases in costs being reported by miners in general in H1 2022 so at best, overall I wouldn't have expected any impact on the Gross profit percentage. In the Q2 production update (14/7/22) the following information was given:- "· Inventory valued at $15.6 million as at 30 June 2022 (7,000 ounces of gold valued at $12.7 million and copper concentrate valued at $2.9 million)" If you look at the interim accounts Bullion is given at $10.5m and concentrate at $3.5m. If these figures are directly comparable (apart from a bit of silver) but the accounts figure being at cost not value then this shows a Gross Profit percentage of only 8%. Doesn't make sense to me - anyone got any comments/problems with my figures? Secondly, they have equity accounted for Libero. While legitimate, I would have preferred a mark to market. This would have increased the loss on Libero from $0.9m to $2.3m and may well happen at the year-end anyway following an impairment review. On the other hand some good news may come out of Libero. {Thirdly - and this is just a question to ask the BoD because it seems bizarre. The figure for "Gold held due to the Government of Azerbaijan" is now $22.5m (12,500 ozs). They don't seem to have taken any gold in a long time. But by including a debtor and creditor in the accounts it suggests AAZ is responsible for it. Where is it? (Presumably at the Swizz smelters or related banks). I presume there are storage costs, possibly insurance costs ?} With the current market and macro chaos I have a pretty short-term time horizon so the longer term prospects will have to wait for now. Anyway GLAH - and keep posting - this is beyond doubt one of the best BB's here. PT
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 24/9/2022 16:21 by loafofbread
It is worth remembering the £/$ was at $1.25 and the share price at 90p when AAZ announced it's intention to start the buy back. All our earnings are in $ so they are able to get the same share for $1.09 and buy at 75p. Effectively 25% cheaper than when the BOD thought we were seriously undervalued. Very difficult to understand why the share buyback is not a regular event. (Other than incompetence by share price Angel)
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 16/9/2022 22:40 by pogue
RB I sold for a little over 48p later today didnt want to think about it over the long weekend and I have a bad feeling about this drop now its below 50p so cash out and wait to buy back later. So my selling average will be 52p ish roughly same as you! Only I went a different route lol. Focus on PRD for me now who are about to drill for the sweet spot of a gas field in Morocco. Very low share price considering what they are expecting to find if it hits, and they seem pretty confident. If it hits it could be a beast. 3 weeks or so to spudding 12 to 15 days to drill so short term punt. Thinking share price will rise into the drill, it did last time they drilled this field but never got the sweet spot this time with more knowledge they are hoping better result. Looking to get my original stake out and have a free ride for the result of the drill :0) Gotta be optimistic lol DYOR, I am not a financial advisor, I hold PRD
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 15/9/2022 12:31 by king suarez
Have taken a small starter position in PRD today in my SIPP - better late than never. May add more if the share price doesn't rise too far! We haven't spoken about RMM lately? - another small cap miner struggling in the current environment. Issued a poor and ambiguous RNS the other day regarding extra capital requirements - share price has tanked since and I should have bailed immediately. Might be an opportunity depending on what they reveal later with their interim results some point this month..
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 15/9/2022 09:16 by lloydypool
At the risk of being laughed at by the doomsayers on here, I actually think there are some really good signs from that update (apart from the sad news about the death of an employee). I guess it is not surprising that the lack of updates and signposting in detail the costs of the new areas, how much they are expected to produce and when they are to come on line and the strange approach to the buy back, have all contributed to a lack of confidence. My judgements is that this is all symptomatic of a company that doesn't do communication to investors that well, as opposed to the board not running the business well. I don't believe they would be paying 4c out in divi if they weren't confident they could meet cash flow requirements, like I don't believe they would have invested in Libero if the cash flow was an issue (though I disagree with the latter). The bigger picture here divides long term investors from short term traders (traders have clearly got the better of the last 18 months) and the current share price either represent good long term opportunity for you or not. I believe the signs are there for the share price to be much higher in the future, but I'm not very good at judging how far it drops before the rise starts. Going on such negative views on here though, I imagine a lot are already out & we know a lot of stock is tightly held so who knows, maybe the tide isn't far from turning?
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 13/9/2022 14:04 by bozzy_s
Thanks 2sp - an excellent summary as usual. Let's hope they do something in the near term to grow and promote the company. It's been such a disappointing 2 years. Of course the war, and Covid to a lesser extent, took their toll. But I doubt things would've been much better without them. If there was at least some jam tomorrow, something to say they'll invest $xx over the next 3 years to increase production to 100k GEOs by 2025. That this will be funded by existing cash and some debt finance. Anything for us shareholders and potential new shareholders to cling to. They need to get a move on if they want cheap debt finance. It's only going to cost more as this delay gets longer. As for the share price, it feels like we're close to the bottom. Under £80m for the existing operations / balance sheet / dividend looks decent value. Actually thanks to the exchange rate it's a discount of 20% to AAZ's net asset value, and roughly priced at AAZ's tangible net asset value. There are better value shares out there though (CAML, GKP lower PE / far higher divi yield).
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 13/9/2022 11:25 by 2sporrans
Following on from above post: Ideally, Demirli access asap, followed by plant restoration and 'production drilling'; then copper [copper moly] production will all happen well ahead of Garadagh-Xarxar production. This way: 1. AAZ will have a greatly enhanced net cashflow versus the current, depleting pits + Zafer, Vejnaly, Gosha, steady-state production we are looking to through 2023 into/through 2024. This greater net cashflow pays for all the G+X drilling and development costs and AAZ can leverage a much higher share price than now for large, cheap loans for the new plant/infra. CAPEX + a share capital raise if desired. 2. AAZ gets to learn a lot about efficient copper [plant] production, suited to Garadagh-Xarxar, in advance of even spending serious procurement monies. Ideally, imho.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 10/9/2022 17:39 by odsjp
Thejonah - Very interesting what is happening with AAZ at the moment in terms of share price. I believe there can't be any 'bad' news otherwise they would have had to issue an RNS where 'bad' means not delivering on their 54-58K GEO. Yes their AISC will be higher then last year but they still must be making money and they have not said what it will be anyway yet. We should get interims out in two weeks and they have already stated that they have produced over 28K GEO, so on track for full year before Hasan and Vejnaly. So worse case scenario is that they don't contribute anything this year. Also on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday the volume of shares traded was only about 0.1% on each day so can only assume the sells were as a result of investors getting fed up that no buyback was happening. Someone mentioned that if they haven't used a third party for purchasing the shares then they would be restricted on when they could buy. If this is true, then guess they can only start to buy after the interims. I hope that will clarify this at some point Also maybe next week we might get news on H2 GEO's, AISC, contribution (if any) from Hasan and Vejnaly and then the following week the interims along with a dividend being declared. Last years dividend was 4.5c but the USD/GBP rate was 1.3662 meaning we received 3.29p per share. If this years interim dividend is maintained and with the exchange rate at 1.15 then that would be 3.91p per share almost a 20% increase. Even if they decrease the interim dividend to 3.5c then that would still pay out 3.04p per share. So yes, our AISC will most likely be going up but we are producing a USD asset. If we end up receiving 8c dividend for the full year, that would be 6.95p so pretty much a 10% dividend. IMHO, we are very cheap at this price!
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Posted at 08/9/2022 17:14 by 2sporrans
1k "I wonder if the truth is that we all got ahead of ourselves, and the truth is that there is a long, expensive, slog ahead, with ever rising development costs and AISC, and that the dividend will be an early casualty of that?" This is, and has long been the most pressing concern afaic. There may well be huge copper resource in the AAZ ground, reasonably accessible/extractable [+more pepperings of Gold], yet the future may not be as rewarding as the revenue streams this implies. We know little of the margins to come; both metal price and cost of production are largely speculative. Then again, AAZ has proved itself to be an efficient producer; that improves its odds significantly. One must also tkae into account the emerging prospect of Demirli access. This is a proven, large, well profitable asset with over a decade of such life in it, if and when full access is granted. Nothing in the share price for it, or next to. Vexingly and frustratingly, management have failed to demonstrate the same efficacy when it comes to investor relationship and disconcertingly, some of the commercial decision making is looking poorly conceived. This has exacerbated the ongoing sell-off that is common to all gold/copper miners. These, imho, were poor decisions of late with significant consequence: 1. To not sell gold during a period [H1] of high prices but gamble on them going higher [despite a fading market, $ ascendant]. Hence the ludicrous 7k-oz dore in inventory. If this remains unsold, they've dug a fair old hole for themselves. 2. The buyback [NOT !!] debacle of which enough has been posted for me to spare you with re-iteration. adding to these: 3. To raise expectations for imminent new mine production [Vejnaly/Gosha], then fail to follow up with anything of substance to evidence the scale of gold production to come. The ko dates being far less important than the production profiles. I have not forgotten the long episode of the 2020-21 Avshancli-1 debacle; the juicy carrot that turned out a wizened root. 4. Libero. If a cashflow hiatus has arrived [exacerbated by that inventory 1.] that may be prolonged past mid 2023, one has to question the wisdom of so generously [over $3-mn recently] feeding further $millions into this highly speculative, very long lead payback venture, now that Macoa has been punted into the long grass. One has to question the wisdom in any event, even with hugely abundant cash+cashflow. 5?? "dividend will be an early casualty" Well, I and others have posted plenty on this prospect. The manner in which the divi is managed and how this is communicated to us may mean it will be 5. in this list. + further niggles, such as the personal loan All the above are spooking investors right now. Loads of posts here attest to this. The potentially good side to the above list is that much/most can be sensibly mitigated and/or concerns assuaged by management.
Read Full Thread
Follow
Reply
Anglo Asian Mining share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
AAZ
Anglo Asia..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20221005 21:16:20