We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mariana Res | MARL | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 99.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/6/2017 17:11 by pr0t0n Sandstorm can answer..... I guess !INVESTOR RELATIONS Denver Harris Vice President, Capital Markets P604.628.1178 T1.866.584.0234 ext. 254 dharris@sandstormLTD |
Posted at 09/6/2017 13:10 by greenrichard I think that any weakening of the MARL price in UK is likely down to private investors deciding to sell in the run up to the meeting because they don't want the perceived complication and/or currency risk involved in holding SAND. MMs know this and happy to take the shares and sell them onto the hedge funds. |
Posted at 16/5/2017 07:40 by greenrichard MMCAP Fund Inc (‘the Fund’) seeks to exploit market inefficiencies to achieve high risk-adjusted returns for investors. The Fund’s primary focus is on merger arbitrage, private placements and other event driven special situations that provide superior risk-adjusted returns. The Fund managers use market neutral hedging strategies to ensure little exposure to market movements, resulting in absolute returns that are independent of the direction of the market. The Fund targets less followed transactions that are not widely covered in the media or by other hedge funds.They are not long term investors - sames as the others that have been buying in. |
Posted at 09/5/2017 12:39 by greenrichard Anyone going to the proactive investors forum tonight with Mariana presenting.I happen to be down in London so have reserved a place. Should be interesting. |
Posted at 04/5/2017 21:11 by mirabeau Thanks to John Cornford at MI for this excellent article:-Does Mariana’s merger with Sandstorm Gold stack up? John Cornford 04 May 2017 Among the four main ways to make money from mining gold or silver – exploration, development, streaming or financing a mine – it is streaming (or royalties) that can often be by far the most profitable. I showed in my earlier streaming coverage how streamers tended to make much more profit from a mine than did any other participant. But from the would-be producer’s point of view, they are a much more expensive way to finance a mine than any loan or any third-party equity investment. And the streamer usually leaves the poor old owner to take the operating risk. So what are we to make of it when a gold explorer seeks to turn itself into a streamer? As in the case of Mariana Resources (LON:MARL) who just last week agreed (subject to shareholder approval) a ‘combination&r MARL chart Mariana Resources I have avoided mentioning so far, despite that its gold prospect at Hot Maden in North East Turkey is developing into a far richer grade, albeit smaller, potential copper/gold mine than is Solomon Gold’s at Alpala in Ecuador. That was because, even though holding shares myself, Mariana Resources only has a 30% share of Hot Maden, against local Turkish company Lidya who is managing the exploration. So MARL could never control how the prospect is developed, while its shareholders could never be sure how their interest might eventually benefit them. And so it was turning out, with MARL’s £76m market value (at 59.5p) lagging well behind its 30% share (about £330m) of the $1.4bn NPV8 that a January PEA, conducted only 20 months after Hot Maden was first discovered, came up with for its initial more than 4Moz resource. This also exhibited a staggeringly profitable internal return of 153% p.a., against an initial capital cost of only $169m. Given that subsequent high grade drilling results have not been included in the PEA, that estimate is likely to prove rather conservative. (Note that, while most of my coverage has explained why NPVs usually greatly exaggerate the true value of an owner’s stake in a mining project, in a case like Hot Maden’s extremely high IRR, where the initial capex is low compared with the NPV, the true value to the owner can more nearly equate to the latter because financing will be so low as not to require equity dilution or too much borrowing.) Against Mariana’s 59.5p share price, Sandstorm has come up with 28.75p in cash, plus just under one of its shares (listed on TSX and NYSE) for every four Mariana shares – worth 110p at $1.28/£. But on the announcement Mariana’s shares only rose to 92p, while Sandstorm’s fell by 10%. So although Sandstorm thrives on its streaming – and this deal, due to Hot Maden’s rock-solid prospects, ought to be more profitable and even less risky than most – it obviously hasn’t attracted universal joy. SSL chart That is because not only is the deal not yet done, but also that its merits are considerably more difficult than most to evaluate. Certainly I myself can’t quite get my head around the difference between the profit shareholders could expect if staying with Hot Maden (as a minority holder) as part of an independent Mariana Resources (not to mention its other exploration prospects) and that to be expected if they share in the usual super-profitable streaming deal that Sandstorm says it hopes to sign with Lidya to help get Hot Maden into production (not to mention the other 155 streaming deals that Sandstorm now has and due to expand usefully in the next three years). In fact Sandstorm has actually said that it only ‘hopes’ to convert what, with its existing holding, will be 37% of Hot Maden into a streaming deal. But it doesn’t look that simple. Hot Maden’s high profitability will stem from the exceptional 11% grade for its gold and the equally exceptional 1.9% for its copper, which means that its mining and production cost is expected to be well under $400/gold oz. That means that as a stand-alone company it probably won’t need the likes of Sandstorm to supply its capital. Sandstorm mainly comes to the aid of miners who can’t fund their developments, in return for which they pay an immense premium (as my initial article on streamers showed) in the form of foregone revenues from their gold, which works out well above what a bank, or equity investor, would expect. In its latest year for instance, Sandstorm made a staggering $1,000 per oz profit by reselling what its streaming clients diverted to it – in a year when gold’s realised price averaged below $1,250/oz, showing just how low a price Sandstorm is paying for its gold streams. So therein lies the rub! On Hot Maden’s exceptional profitability Lidya won’t need any such streaming deal. Sandstorm hasn’t as yet said that it has agreed any such deal – merely that it will negotiate once Hot Maden has passed various development milestones. As a result of this uncertainty there appears to be plenty of opposition to the deal, not least from gold guru Sprott who is bullish on gold’s prospects and has a 4.5% Sandstorm stake. Sprott’s vote, alongside other naysayers, will be set against the 17% or so of its own and its shareholders that Sandstorm has secured to vote for the deal. Bearing in mind the difficulty (without a lot of effort which, no doubt, brokers better paid than me will be feverishly going about right now) of working out the pros and cons for Mariana shareholders, it seems likely those major investors in favour are merely wanting to take their money now and run, rather than wait to see how the deal pans out in the unpredictable medium term. Other reasons for Mariana shareholders to vote yes would be removal of the uncertainty stemming from their lack of a control of Hot Maden, as well from uncertainty about Turkey’s politics. Sandstorm would also give them a 19% share of the 30% increase in the highly profitable streaming revenues it expects over the next three years – although whether that would be earlier than the profits they might expect when Hot Maden goes into production is yet to be seen. Against that, Mariana holders tempted to stay with the shares (instead of taking their money and running) but to vote against the deal would be supported by the conspiracy theorists who are atwitter suggesting that Mariana only agreed to proposing the deal in order to flush out another buyer. They would also point to a recent hiatus in Sandstorm’s earnings which caused weakness in its shares even before the Mariana announcement. And the attempted deal will certainly raise Mariana’s profile (although already listed on the US over-the-counter market) among American investors. But other tweeters wonder why the parties want the deal structured as a merger (needing 75% shareholder agreement by each company) rather than as a straight take-over requiring only 50% of Mariana’s holders. That will only become clearer later when the date for a vote is announced. So although the respective shares have behaved rather calmly since the initial adjustment (smoothed perhaps by automatic arbitraging between the various markets), I wouldn’t be surprised to see rather more volatility developing in the run up to the vote. Meanwhile, I have taken my profit on Mariana but would buy back depending on the extent of any fall if the vote is a ‘no’. - |
Posted at 03/5/2017 08:55 by pr0t0n The following holders of Mariana Shares have given irrevocable undertakings to vote in favour of the Scheme at the Guernsey Court Meeting and the resolutions to be proposed at the General Meeting which are necessary to implement the Combination and any related transactions (and to vote against any resolutions which may result in the Combination not being implemented) in relation to the following Mariana Shares, respectively:Directors Name Number of Mariana Shares Percentage of issued share capital of Mariana John Goodwin 62,000 0.05 John Horsburgh 843,050 0.66 Glen Parsons 337,250 0.26 Eric Roth 649,371 0.51 The undertakings referred to above will remain binding if a higher competing offer for Mariana is made. The undertakings will cease to be binding if: (i) the Announcement is not made by 5.00 p.m. (London time) on 26 April 2017 (or such later date as the Company and the Offeror may agree); or (ii) the Panel consents to Sandstorm not proceeding with the Combination; or (iii) the Scheme does not become Effective by 31 August 2017 (other than in circumstances where Sandstorm has elected to proceed by way of takeover offer and such offer has not lapsed or been withdrawn). Other shareholders Name Number of Mariana Shares Percentage of issued share capital of Mariana AngloGold Ashanti Holdings PLC 4,898,295 3.82 Australian Investors Pty Ltd 3,819,794 2.98 The undertakings referred to above will remain binding if a higher competing offer for Mariana is made. The undertakings will cease to be binding if: (i) the Announcement is not released by 5.00 p.m. (London time) on 27 April 2017; or (ii) the Panel consents to Sandstorm not proceeding with the Combination; or (iii) the Scheme does not become Effective by 31 August 2017 (other than in circumstances where Sandstorm has elected to proceed by way of takeover offer and such offer has not lapsed or been withdrawn); or (iv) an offer is announced by a third party on terms which represent in the reasonable opinion of KPMG LLP (in the case of Australian Investors Pty Ltd) or RFC Ambrian Limited (in the case of AngloGold Ashanti Holdings PLC) an improvement of ten per cent or more on the value of the consideration offered under the Combination. |
Posted at 02/5/2017 08:04 by doublestexan All- thanks for all the thoughtsabout this situation we find ourselves in. Like Little Alice I have a fairly nice size investment in Mariana and though it's a two bagger for me right now, I view it as a pretty meager deal and am considering buying more shares. In general, I believe the Sandstorm investors aren't too crazy about a junior resource company and can't speak for others, but the Sandstorm arrangement doesn't appeal to me. Mariana shareholders Whether they have a hundred shares or a million shares are entitled to ( there is that word again ENTITLEMENT) fair treatment. |
Posted at 30/4/2017 11:48 by exbroker Judging by the way the Sandstorm price has performed this week the market things they have paid too much! The volume has been much too large to be arbitrage selling. Sandstorm could always increase the bid if they wanted to as its not Final. How many of you Private Investors who moan about bids always being too cheap and how the management have sold you down the river have a holding in the company of more than 5% of your portfolio or £25000? |
Posted at 06/3/2017 08:26 by bookvan Cpap manYou asked for constructive thoughts. A few days ago I tried stir up the board to get some frank discussion of the issues. Like you, I was looking for reasons to remain invested. I had already sold a proportion of my holding but was tempted to sell it all. At the time the boards had gone almost silent and I wanted to get an idea what people were thinking. There were a few replies and none of them 100% persuasive. That's not a criticism: it's nobody's job to make my investment decisions for me. It might surprise you but I decided to remain invested in MARL. In fact, I brought my holding up to be equal to SOLG. It had been much, much less. I am not sure I can give you concrete reasons any more than other posters could. I don't think Turkey is a problem for MARL but it could for some investors. There seems to be a real effort by some people to make investors think it is. There are a couple of comments by other posters I would draw attention to. First, a post by Chipperford on this board said the story hadn't changed. As far as I can see there is no evidence at all that he is wrong about that. Second, a post on LSE by Kelsbels. He said that Eric and Glen are just plodding along - his phrase - getting on with the job. I think he has put his finger right on it and there is quite a lot that we can infer from that - all of it favourable. So - having been or almost been in your position and given the matter a lot - I mean a lot - of thought, I have become a lot more positive. I hope some of this helps your own considerations as people on here were kind enough to help me with mine. |
Posted at 16/12/2016 07:30 by cpap man Post Fed meeting, the freefall in gold and gold stocks continues. It’s a perverse characteristic of investing that the narrative gets better as the market gets worse. Rick Rule believes that a 35-40% decline in gold stocks makes them 35-40% more attractive. He shares with Palisade a two part strategy for investors and speculators.Part one: alpha investments in the best-of-the-best juniors, via private placement financings when available. The summer’s strong junior mining stock performance has now given way to falling prices. That means better value for prudent investors. To a sophisticated, accredited investor, Q1 2017 should be superb because the aftermarket action- particularly in the junior gold sector- will be challenging. Part two: beta investments when the market tone returns. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) expose you to the direction of the market with little liquidity risk and greatly reduced individual company risk. Eventually gold will be cheap enough, and the confidence driving general securities markets will evaporate. Rick is confident that while the price of gold mining companies have deteriorated 15% in a few days, the values improve with every trading session. He remembered to us that in 1975 the bullion market fell 50% from $200 to $100/oz, shook investors out, and then ran to $850/oz. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
