We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

AAU Ariana Resources Plc

-0.13 (-4.26%)
24 May 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Ariana Resources Plc AAU London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
-0.13 -4.26% 2.92 16:35:14
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
3.05 2.90 3.05 2.92 3.05
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Ariana Resources AAU Dividends History

Announcement Date Type Currency Dividend Amount Ex Date Record Date Payment Date

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 08/5/2024 12:57 by konil
nov31, yes that is a possibility, but not one the bulls want to hear. its just those with their fuddy duddy approach to risk i.e. the likes of me, that would even think about dilution.

we've already taken a 60% hit on our 23.5% share of good income producing assets should the deal proceed and in reality the only way further dilution will be avoided is if all the required capex is debt funded by aau, otherwise of course equity funding including asx listing and jv's etc will inevitably lead to dilution.

and if entirely debt funded by aau (if that were possible - it might not be because lenders may not go there) then of course aau becomes yet another tiddler with a huge debt overhang...guess what that leaves the door open to.

not worth thinking about, just think of the size of the operation and income, why bother with details like who will end up with the lion's share of it, or whether aau will even be around to see it.

its clear the mood is swinging towards the deal so it will get through.
Posted at 08/5/2024 10:18 by temujiin
The merger with the Dokwe debate is a re-run of Ozaltin JV. AAU and shareholders would probably have been better off without the deal, and now pocketing 50% of the gold produced not 23.5%.

AAU were and are a good company with good assets despite the JV, but it wasn't the right decision, imo.

Dokwe on paper is a great asset, and in 4 years maybe, it will produce a good profit for AAU, but is it good for AAU shareholders now? the share price now, or in the next 2 or 3 years? probably not, imo.

AAU has great potential with Salinbas etc, but management seem more interested in potential and marketcap, not on the current share price and shareholder value.
Posted at 06/5/2024 19:27 by excellance
Do AAU have the clout within the partnership to vote for a dividend paid to AAU?

At 23% the answer is no. They would need the support of another partner.

What if the other partners vote to retain cash and not pay out any dividends, and instead invest the money to grow those assets?

What if another partner with a majority interest offered AAU a cash sum?

AAU would be reluctant to take such an offer if they had no need to do so, or no other project to invest in.

Is it really hard to imagine such a scenario?

All our assets are for sale. This is the AAU MO.
Posted at 03/5/2024 19:02 by jaynesdad
Just been catching up having been out most of the day. I think everybody should pat themselves on the head for some some very fine content!
My feeling at the moment, which may be fluid as the time goes on, is that I don't think I can vote in favour of this deal without reassurance of how the eventual Dockwe plant will be financed. Obviously the board won't be tied to any course even if they make proposals, but I need to see this de risked somehow. The asset will be 100% held by the 'new' AAU, and even if the share price remains the same that means debt will be well in excess of the Market Cap. AAU hasn't got the majority within the JV, even with Proccea acting in concert, to insist that dividends are paid to AAU. So that source of income isn't assured. My ideal is that there will be a separate JV for Dokwe allowing AAU free carry to first pour there but certainly not by ceding more than 50% (or frankly not approaching it). I don't see that would be an unreasonable expectation given that there should be in excess of 1m ounces with a finger in the air net income of £1k per ounce post costs. Would be please to hear anyone else's opinion.
Posted at 02/5/2024 17:24 by konil
what aau is - and what aau is in danger of becoming if dokwe goes ahead as currently presented.

aau has a portfolio of projects - producing, near production, longer term production, and lately via asgard/leopard early stage projects with blue sky discovery potential - and the ability to add value to these with a view to divesting some to generate funds with hopes of windfall profits.

in short aau is set up to grow organically and extremely importantly and uniquely for a small miner to do this with low risk.

so when ks spoke of taking the company to tenfold its mkt cap in ten years, in the above scenario an existing holder would expect to see most if not all that tenfold increase in the value of their holding. and delivered with low risk organic growth.

now, with the way it is intended to progress dokwe, all the negative aspects of dilution and heavy debt relative to company size will be reintroduced.

it is not organic growth.

the risk profile of aau will become very high and similar to most other small miners. aau will have lost its unique edge over the herd of mining minnows.

importantly what this means for existing shareholders is that aau may get to tenfold in size - but after dilution the value of holdings may be lucky to double.

but worse than that - with the increase in risk profile the company may go the way of many overstretched mining minnows - to the graveyard, or in event of a rescue package, for existing holders that is much the same thing.

after the imc presentation today, there was nothing to suggest that dokwe project is not as portrayed above. it will change the nature of aau to the detriment of existing holders.
Posted at 02/5/2024 16:58 by coachsailor
Excellent post Plasbryn (24205)

I agree with Nov31 and Plas re the need for AAU to confirm that we will receive dividends from the income resulting from our original Turkish investments.

In 2020 Kerim clearly indicated that following the 3 Special Dividend payments regular dividends should follow once Tavsan commences production. This to be bolstered a few years later once Salinbas comes on stream.

I, like many others on here, believed what we were told and therefore that the valuation above 5p was realistic. With dividends on the near horizon, during 2021 and 2022 as the price dropped, I invested much more in AAU through our ISAs. I am currently faced with a substantial loss in our ISAs, wheras a profit on my Share Account which were mostly bought up to 15 years ago and a lot more in 2024 almost all below 2p. Potential CGT on the Share Acct and a hefty loss on the ISA`s is not a good time to bail out.

Confirmation that they will stick to their word on the regular dividends from the original investments would go a long way to recovering shareholder support.
Posted at 02/5/2024 10:54 by konil
dividends - ks comments during imc:
zenit dividends to aau, proccea, ozaltin to resume after tavsan build paid for and tavsan in production. then aau to assess what can be paid to shareholders after allowing for costs such as on dokwe.

in other words - basically forget dividends for the forseeable future.

that would be ok if we get capital gain through the share price but that seems a long way off now.
Posted at 02/5/2024 09:58 by bigglesbingham
The main thing that came up there was the fact that KS will be available for one to one at a venue in May which I'll do my best to be at. There are many unanswered questions I asked five during the meeting which were difficult questions so interested to see the written replies. My reading of dividend from tarsvan monies was that the dividend referred to is dividend to AAU and not shareholders. But this requires clarification. Logic says if you are raising money via dilution to institutions you aren't going to be paying shareholders dividends. Something I'm not too bothered about with taxation tbh. They appear comfortable as to how to get it out of the ground and as I said Proccea look stick on for that. Many major companies mining in Zim which is good. Venus they will sell on in my opinion providing they get a reasonable wedge.
Posted at 01/5/2024 20:38 by masterg1
The merger between AAU and Rockover, essentially a takeover by AAU. This is seen from the proportion of existing share s and those to be issued to Rockover shareholders. The ratio is 5/8 : 3/8. This can also be seen by the existing directors and appointment of new directors from Rockover. The ratio is 2/3 : 1/3.
Dr Kerim Sener has been carefully spreading risks, which to some appeared dull. I have no worries on any perceived dilution, as I believe K S would only takeover Rockover in order to increase overall net asset value per share. Earnings per share maybe lower short-term, but expect them to pick up thereafter.
Taking over Rockover has been on the cards for a while, with AAU looking for flagship investment. I was little surprised by the speed, it has come about. Soon as I saw RNS, I paused at the thought of a merger. Than my thoughts turned to not being able to buy anymore under 3p, I won’t have more funds until later this month.
I have had a holding here for around ten years, was content to hold. I just starting adding after the deal with Ozaltin. I have added substantially to my previous holding over the last 3 1/2 year.
I took 5 - 10 year view for capital appreciation. I am all for this deal, this deal will fast track getting gold out of the ground. ( not the usual 20 years or so). I am in favour of this transaction and will continue to add at these price. I am quickly coming to a point where I have all the shares I wanted and more. I will wait for the shares to appreciate in value, any dividends wouldn’t go amiss. I am not one watching to get over 3p, I become interested when it hits 10p. I expect AAU to hit jackpot sooner or later, with all the hands in the different pies.
I do follow this BB regularly and read every RNS by AAU.
Posted at 26/4/2024 20:39 by konil
jeeeeezzzzz, turn my head for 2 days and i come back to 350 posts.

everything has been covered by everyone so i only have 3 points:

1. biggles was on the money when he thought ks would hang onto dokwe and i was waaaayyyy off when i thought ks would look for a quick monetisation opportunity and exit.
i regret that and wish it had been the other way round for reasons below.

2. strange how they have already 'priced' the purchase of dokwe without knowing the total cost to get to first gold pour??????
it may be that the out-of-date pfs is ok because the variables appear to be on the upside, but until a *bfs* is done its still a lot of fita.

3. the main point - risk!!!
aau had become a relatively safe small miner, with good income, no debt and a portfolio of manageable value accretive exploration projects to work on, but now it has taken on a project the size of which compared to the size of aau makes it a very risky entity

- financially because even with income from kizil and tavsan probably lots more dilution to come beyond the 688m shares so far. the get out could be if aau have sufficient resources (cash, gold holdings, income) to navigate this at limited further dilution. and assuming non-equity funding will be available when needed.

- politically because despite all the positive noises (well what else would ks say), zimbabwe is still frontier territory

- corporately, with unknown jv's/deals to be done, and at an uncomfortable size for aau, to enable progress at dokwe. (could newmont wade in and gain an outsize holding relative to their buy-in cost due to their muscle?)
plus a rather unwelcome dual listing for aau from a uk shareholder viewpoint.

3 years, probably more like 6, is a long time for a company the size of aau to carry this size of risk. and if they want to offset that risk will existing holders get heavily diluted in the process?
this is not the company profile i invested in with overweight allocation of my funds.
they might have done better to scale down dokwe ambition and focus on venus/apliki, but therein lies another tale and i feel we have been blindsided on that.

of course all these thoughts are on scant detail but has ks's ambition together with an overly chummy association with dokwe proponents led ks down the wrong path? great geologist? yes! great corporate strategist?

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock