Links for Survey parts:

Click on each link to fill out the 3 parts separately. Thanks

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Survey Results

 Survey Part1Questions
 Survey Part 2 Questions

Survey Part 3 Questions


Showing 46 text responses
it appears we have a management team that is too finance oriented with little regard for development of mines at low cost or alternatively deciding to hold off on development until better terms for financing can be worked out. Development of shafter and LaNegra at any cost and /or further acquisitions or dilution of shares must be stopped at all cost. Develop what we have . Get a geologist as CEO and not a money guy looking to build his own wealth at the expense of the common share holder.FR .T should be a model to follow.

24/2/2013 10:08 PMView Responses

I am scared the rollback's hidden purpose is to finance another acquisition on the backs of current shareholders. If it is truly to get a TSX listing then I am okay with it. The company should have announced a share buy-back and then a reverse split to get the TSX listing. As of right now the market has zero confidence in current management. I wish the company would focus on building value for shareholders with their current projects.

24/2/2013 8:32 PMView Responses

Many of the questions, and the wording of many questions, leave much to be desired. Did you ask current shareholders for their inputs as to the questions to ask, and the wording of those questions? Whatever the results of this survey, it will be meaningless, but I hope it makes you feel better.

24/2/2013 4:21 PMView Responses

This company has evolved in the last 5 years as a case study for why investors don't put their money in juniors. Management has fully diluted its loyal shareholders, insiders regularly sell their shares into the market, the CEO gets a massive salary regardless of performance....etc, etc, etc. I would never by another share of a public company represented by any of the Directors of this company...especially the CEO, who constantly provides guidance that isn't met.

24/2/2013 9:51 AMView Responses

If I was unable to answer "yes" to the questions beginning with "Do you have confidence in . . . " I would not be invested in the company. Some of the questions seemed worded with the intent of obtaining a desired response. For example: "Do you think retail shareholders are rewarded when confiscating their shares via rollbacks of a public company?" Likely nobody wants their shares "confiscated." However, many shareholders likely support the share consolidation (I suspect the vote at the end of March will show that most support it). The inclusion of a word such as "confiscating" effectively confounds the interpretation of the results to an extent that will make them effectively meaningless. Another problem question: "Were you satisfied that retail shareholders were not included in any of AUN's financings?" Had the private placements been unavailable to retail shareholders such might well have been a concern; however, they were available. Many retail investors participated in the private placements. The treatment of a disputable issue as a fact in the wording of the question again makes the results uninterpretable in a meaningful way.

23/2/2013 2:32 PMView Responses

My answer to 5, 6 and 7 is a qualified NO. It would change to a YES if they responde to this survey in a positive manner and started to run the company in a way that showed that they cared what us retail investors thought.

23/2/2013 12:19 AMView Responses

Lenic is a banker just like the crooks at the fed. We need a smart operator to give back the value to the shareholders in a consistent fashion. Lenic should not be the spokesperson for this company. His accent, combined with the poor audio found a some venues makes it difficult to hear and presents a poor front. Aurcana please find a spokesperson.

23/2/2013 8:42 AMView Responses

Over promising, under delivering, this stock should be represented by someone else than LR. It seems we keep hearing a broken record on the interview and everything keeps happening later than sooner.

23/2/2013 8:41 AMView Responses

we are in bad market sentiment and environment.

22/2/2013 9:23 PMView Responses

If you want to reduce the share count, buy them back and retire them. Don't do a rollback as this hurts the small shareholder who doesn't have the same funds as the institutions. I got into the stock seeing that if I could accumulate a good amount of shares, then maintaining that large number will leverage my exposure to the upside potential. With a rollback, my exposure to upside gain is reduced significantly. This is also do to the fact that there are psychological price resistance points, meaning it is harder for a stock to go from $5 to $40 than from $1 to $8. If Lenic does a rollback, I don't the stock will have the same upward momentum compared to if we just concentrated on mining instead.

22/2/2013 7:28 PMView Responses

Good communication on a regulare basis would be a trustfull sign towards ALL the stockholders, not only the privileged ones. A little respect for the bottom would make this company a stronghold. Good luck with the job!

21/2/2013 8:56 AMView Responses

Thanks for the opportunity to have some feedback on the share consolidation. But, I think some of the questions are "loaded", i.e. I believe you are not in favour of the rollback because of the nature of the questions. For example, #4. Do you think management has rewarded their retail shareholders? No, I do not believe they have rewarded shareholders YET, but I believe management should do what is right for the company in the LONG TERM, and bowing to unhappy SHORT TERM thinkers is not the solution.

21/2/2013 8:33 AMView Responses

If there is a rollback, will all stock option contracts and and any other existing plans for payment with stock be rolled back in the same proportion. If not, holders of these options or payment plans would be making 8 times more than originally intended. In particular, would Lenic's options and share payments be reduced by the same factor of 8? In short, if all holders of stock receive the same percentage reduction in present and future shares, my confidence in the plan would improve. Still, reverse splits fail to improve value much more often than they succeed. Furthermore, 4 to one combined with greater production and a higher silver price should work as well.

21/2/2013 12:29 AMView Responses

I think that not all of these questions were yes or no.... I think generally that rollbacks are not good. I think a share buyback would be better. However with 461MM current shares outstanding and eventually another 90-100MM, it would take forever to buyback shares to increase the value of the stock. If the roll back is intended to get on to the TSX and a US exchange.... then the focus needs to be exactly that, immediate upon roll back if a roll back were to occur in order to hold value... no lag time. I really question the depth of the rollback.... I think 1 for 8 is very deep but if $5+ is the target... then.... the exposure to greater buckets pf money and larger funds will be very beneficial to building and holding value.... that will never happen on the venture exchange. Further, I think that it needs to be very clear that any sort of dilution post rollback(if it occurs) cannot happen.... focus on getting La Negra and Shafter turning big numbers and use cash to finace any expansion... drill to prove up current resources with revenues.. do not increase share count post rollback... or my next opportunity to vote against the current board and CEO will be the choice I make!!! Burn me once........

20/2/2013 10:33 PMView Responses

If Aurcana is absolutely determined to do a consolidation of shares, let it be less onerous to their sharesholders and do it at a 1:4 ratio (instead of the planned 1:8) ratio which will still bring it well in line with their peers. I believe Lenic wants to do a 1:8 so they can can turn around and do another PP on the backs of their current shareholders!

20/2/2013 8:22 PMView Responses

I have poured much of my life savings into Aurcana based a lot on my believing in Lenic R and what he was doing with the fantastic properties that we hold. I have been very disappointed with the way that decisions have been made, seemingly with out regard for shareholder interests. I feel my support and trust has been betrayed.

20/2/2013 12:06 AMView Responses

Lenic had stated that growth in Aurcana could be achieved with a minimum of share dilution. This was not achieved. Instead of expanding La Negra using profits and thus increasing cash flow to finance Shafter, mgmt embarked on a massive dilution that has hurt the retail investor. First Majestic is a good example of a company buying back shares and rewarding long term investors in that stock. Their is no excuse with the growth potential of this stock for it to be less than .70. The massive float of Aurcana is holding back s/p appreciation. A token gesture of buying back a few million shares would go a long way to building confidence for retail investors. A very small dividend would reduce the short sellers by forcing them to cover. I am no longer adding to my position in Aurcana. Currently holding my position for now.

20/2/2013 12:05 AMView Responses

lost confidence after being told no more dilution and then a rollback was anounced. Also it was done at a low share price. Rollback could have been done at $1.15. 8 to 1 is way to much dilution. 4 to 1 could get us on the other boards, so could positive action rather than lies and dilution. I see no advantage going forward ,to me the share holder, the to roll back hurts my future profitability.The stock will now have to move up .08 cents to make me the same as a .o1 cent move up would have. I'm pissed at that....Seems lenic lied to us and thru a huge negative at our stock , just when it had started to gather strenght.

20/2/2013 10:35 AMView Responses

I have been a shareholder for more than 7 years now and have seen one very common thread in the management teams that AUN has had over that period; a general lack of timely reporting of results, failure to deliver on quarterly updates of activities and an overwhelming penchant to dilute shareholders positions. I have sent several queries to the AUN investor contact email address and have yet to have even one acknowledged in even the most cursory manner. I've heard many positive assessments of Lenic Rodriguez but my personal observation of this entire management team can best be summarized as less than impressive with respect to the retail investors. It is hard to know what our strength is as investors but it is clear we have no more voice than the american taxpayer as they watch their life work being confiscated via inflationary debasement; I see little to no difference. My past experience with rollbacks has been with Nortel and JDS Uniphase from many years ago, reverse split only serves to increase the shorting potential particularly in a market as heavily manipulated as the silver and gold space at this time. I have to ask - WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE IDIOTS THINKING ??? THIS ROLLBACK WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASED SHORTING LEVER!!! I know PE multiples are still viewed as valid but I no longer see this as being reasonable in the current environment as it simply is not reasonable in any way. Lenic and the BOD that allow this madness of dilution then reversal have failed to deliver on so many occasions and the market has taken the attitude of show me don't tell me......... For me Lenic is Bernake just another tool with a printing press

20/2/2013 10:14 AMView Responses

If a little more patience was forthcoming to let Shafter get into proper production and make good the forcasts the share price would recover and head in the right direction without doing something rediculous like an 8:1 split!! Who ever thought of that!

20/2/2013 10:06 AMView Responses

I think Rodriquez should be removed as CEO. I would bet dollars to donuts that once the reverse split is done, Rodriquez will once again start doing private placements, thus further diluting the shareholder value. YoPoetman1@yahoo.com Robert B Burnds, CPA - holder of 150,000 shares.

20/2/2013 12:41 AMView Responses

I would just like to reiterate that now is the time to concentrate on getting La Negra and Shafter running at peak efficiency. I am tired of being given misleading timelines and broken promises. I could possibly support a share consolidation in the future if and when the shares are fully valued however a share buyback would much preferrable. This is not the right time and long time retail shareholders like myself have seen liitle or no gains over five years due to punishing financing activities by the management of the company. Shareholders are very suspicious that the rollback is being done to facilitate another financing that would punish retail shareholders once again.I would plead with management to abandon this reckless plan and work at raising the shareprice by optimizing and increasing production at the two current mines.

19/2/2013 10:20 PMView Responses

AURCANA should be focusing upon current properties. Shafter and La Negra are more than able to increase market cap by over 600%. There is absolutely 0 need to rush into a reverse split just so AURCANA can give out more shares to buy more property. Some respect needs to be given to shareholders who have suffered through several dilutions. Especially those who were shareholders before the crash of 2008. THIS IS NOT A GAME OF MONOPOLY. IF management desires a U.S. listing ... ok, fine, start putting out specific news releases like Timmins Gold(see below). Also start making aggressive moves like announcing the purchase of 10 000 000 shares. Not a lot of shares, but the message will be clear to the market. How about directors actually going in and purchasing shares at market price to show their confidence in AURCANA? With positive Management action and mine production the share price can make it to $2.50 quite easily. Once the company proves it is producing 9 million oz eq. the share price will be approaching $5 and the company can get their coveted U.S. listing. This can all be achieved within the next 18 months ... well before silver ever hits $75+ per oz. It needs to be earned... not bought on the back of loyal shareholders who only invested because of belief in the properties. May God watch over your decision. http://www.timminsgold.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=565163&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Timmins-Gold-Reports-Record-Production-of-94444-ounces-of-gold-for-2012

19/2/2013 9:41 PMView Responses

A reverse split only works if there is a strong leadership that makes good decisions. If the market thinks there is weakness, the shares will plummet after the reverse split.

19/2/2013 8:34 PMView Responses

Current Aurcana management is not transparent. Management failed to disclose what lies behind the one and a half year delay in Shafter I am concerned with the slow rump up in Shafter. The lack of information disclosure by Aurcana management sucks. I kept adding shares trusting Lenic Rodriguez who is on record that Shafter would be in 1500 tons per day production by mid-2012.

19/2/2013 8:28 PMView Responses

I am a medium to long term investor, not a trader

19/2/2013 6:42 PMView Responses

I could live with 4-1 split. 8-1 is criminal.

19/2/2013 6:33 PMView Responses

i think if we were to have a 3 -1 roll back and then buy back shares so you dont hurt the share holders as much it.s ok for the front office to talk big as they give them selves shares every year plus the big salerieseverytime they open there mouths it hurts the small share holder i,m 72 and was hoping that this was my year,but it looks like bankrupt for me if this isn,t making money and bring our company to were it should be at 5.00 a share and don,t tell me that a 8-1 split will help me as you are taking 80 percent of my shares away, leaves me with nothing

19/2/2013 12:40 AMView Responses

The board should fire Rodriguez!!!!!

19/2/2013 12:06 AMView Responses

This company needs to get the news releases flowing. I have not seen the results of ONE drilling core, yet they are drilling......or at least tell us they are. The list could go on and on. News, transparence, and information are greatly needed.

19/2/2013 9:31 AMView Responses

We need to reduce our share count to reach the big boards. It is a positive thing if done for the right reasons. Too many noisy folks are assuming it will done for the wrong reasons.

19/2/2013 9:06 AMView Responses

LR must step down now.

19/2/2013 1:57 AMView Responses

Learn from Keith Neumeyer. He is doing things right. Just copy his moves, and you strengthen the confidence in this management and thereby strenghten the share price.

19/2/2013 1:28 AMView Responses

I'm not against the rollback. However the timing of the announcement was atrocious and should have been made adter Shafter was running comfortably as many have now assumed that there are major problems at Shafter and the rollback is designed to facilitate an additional private placement. I do not think that a share buyback would have been a wise decision at this point. Management clearly waited far too long to inform shareholders of the delay at Shafter.

19/2/2013 12:50 AMView Responses

Yes I have been long on AUN for some years. Your survey is slanted towards your beliefs and then your going to put that propaganda on the board. Lenic has taken a company from near BK .08 to 1.25. He is not responsible for the recent slide. In case you missed it, the whole venture exchange is down 50% in the last 24mths, yes 50%. AUN has shined. The recent slide in price is for 2 reasons overall market, shafter delay/over promise and the lack of information. With the way people cry on this board, I would be reluctant to put out neg details as well. Not Lenics job to thwart shorts other than to creat value that drives price. He is doing that. The market will take care of itself when more value is created. No I never shorted a stock in my life but its a free country. Not many mine startups go smooth. There is a serious lack of labor with the mining companies. AUMN down the road just PR'ed their labor problem. You cant blame Lenic for everything and its not his job to supple tissues and hold investors hands. Im upset at the prise as well but Im not going to blame Lenic for everything. Some of the drival Matt talks about is flat out wrong and miss leading.

19/2/2013 12:28 AMView Responses

If someone could provide a name of someone suitable I would vote in a new company president or a cut in Lenics pay/compensation. Lenics pay/compensation can return to current level once shareholder value has been created. Shareholders are not a bank account to be abused. Printing shares and rolling them back is an amateur ,unprofessional way to operate a company, the market is telling you how shity your decision was to do a rollback at a time when the company is not fully up and running. Fail on meeting your time lines might be palatable but a rollback when we aren't at 100% operations you stupid fuck$!! Can wait to come by your booth at a show and tell you in person how i feel.

18/2/2013 11:57 PMView Responses

Check out T.TOU, that's how I want management to run this company from A to Z..

18/2/2013 11:16 PMView Responses

Some of the question seemed loaded to get a desired response rather than to accurately assess the opinions of the respondent. While I understand the urge to do such, it limits the interpretability of the results.

18/2/2013 10:41 PMView Responses

Investors who simply "sit and hold" are bitter because they are not making money. One HAS to make ongoing DD and see things as they really are. To blame LR or anyone else is wrong, investors should look to themselves first and take full responsibility for their lack of DD.

18/2/2013 10:20 PMView Responses

If Lenic R and the Board don't pull a rabbit out of their hats and reward shareholders in the next 6 months, they will lose their credibility with institutional investors, as they already have with most retail investors. They will be unlikely to be able to secure subscribers to future financings, and may find that they have trouble finding anyone to purchase their existing shares.

18/2/2013 9:00 PMView Responses

aurcana are saying the 1 for 8 share consolidation is the best way forward for share price. I strongly disagree. Management should concentrate on bringing the production up at both mines and buy back shares rather than taking the easy route in which existing shareholders are punished for managements personal gain. I do not see anyone in management taking a hit???

18/2/2013 8:54 PMView Responses

Companies in-arrears with their creditors do not get equitable financing. AUN is lucky SLW was willing to negotiate arrears payments versus saying enough is enough and shut them down. Longs would have lost 100% versus still being around. The failure of management prior to Lenic in may 2009 made AUN a non-prime client. Non-prime (dilutive) financings followed as a result. Non prime clients over time can be come prime again but its not something that happens inside a couple years. It takes time...Many consecutive profitable quarters have been demonstrated since Lenic's appointment. On speculation. If postponement of completing TSX listing in 2012 as promised in 2011 was to avoid the embarrassment because of Shafter Production Problems... Could restructure and re-listing be an attempt to demonstrate they are ready to prove they are now ready for a second chance to become prime? Restructure and new listing with an upcoming failure could be quite damaging. Targets for 2012 were missed and if duplicated in 2013, a change could be imminent.

18/2/2013 7:49 PMView Responses

I think the majority of shareholders have lost confidence in the CEO due to his not looking out for the shareholders. His propsed reverse split will eliminate the reason that a lot of us got into the stock in the first place for, which is for leverage. I am sure, that once silver takes off through it's old highs of $50, that AUN will be so profitable that the share price will easily clear $5.00 and thereby allowing mutual funds the ability to buy then. Why ignore the little guy who carried this company when it was expanding to buy Shafter and its silver stream back. Reward the shareholders who have been in this stock since it went from $2.00 down to 10 cents. Not all of us are profitable in this stock yet. Consider that in your decisions Lenic. If you bought in at $2.00, you'd have lost money also. Look after the retail crowd for a change.

18/2/2013 7:34 PMView Responses

when shares are grossly undervalued some type of buyback or threat of buyback may be in order we don't know what acquisition opportunities management is contemplating with the market currently in shambles, dissaray and cash strapped. eventually market cap will be determined by cash flow and the stock price will move accordingly we could use more timely updates showing progress in reaching their production goals and details of their ongoing operations

18/2/2013 6:51 PMView Responses

aun should just carry on with no rollback until share appreciation has taken place due to increased revenue from increased production. nobody wins when a rollback occurs except insiders who get to reload at ridiculously cheap prices via further pp's and granting of options. loyal longs get screwed by consolidation almost every time.

18/2/2013 6:49 PMView Responses

It has been 28 months that AUN retailers that hold long and provide capital for AUN to grow have not been paid. Seventy cents and 576 million shares is a travesty for those of us that provided the seed capital for Lenic to finance Shafter and buy out SLW. Instead of perpetually desiring for growth and expansion the company should concentrate on rewarding the retail shareholders that have suffered without a return on investment but paid the highest price in terms of time and capital invested with Lenic.