HINTS: Ideas for questions today

FYI: I always ask the hard questions, not just today. Contrary to the rubbish I read from Suzie, Trroy and Anndy. Management will vouch - I have no doubt.


ARU-ShareholderQuarterly Meeting 30/07/2025

Question 1: Share Price Strategy & ShareholderProtection

Referring to management’s February 2025 shareholder meeting comments regarding momentum and shorters:

Given ARU’s startup status and the critical need to raise capital at the highest possible price;

a.How does management assess the effectiveness of its current strategy in driving share price momentum?

b.What specific measures are in place to protect existing shareholders from dilution—especially when incoming equity partners appear to benefit from a suppressed share price?

c.Has management investigated opportunistic behaviours such as the ~60 million shares cycled back to shorters (multiple times), and what concrete plans exist to restore momentum and signal alignment with long-term shareholders?

Question 2: Communication Gaps, ASX silence &Speculation – Last three months

The three-month silence between shareholder updates has led to unnecessary speculation. Given ARU’s history of obfuscation—whether to protect incoming partner identities or due to internal inefficiencies—

d.Does management acknowledge that this silence undermines trust and transparency? What action is being taken to improve the cadence and clarity of communication so shareholders are properly informed?

Additionally, Shareholders have received inconsistent messages from senior ARU staff, yet no formal updates have been provided via the ASX.

e.Why are communications leaked, fragmented, and not aligned across official channels? What is being done to ensure accurate, consistent, and timely information is shared with the broader shareholder base?

Question 3. Missed Timelines, Execution Risk &Shareholder Value Erosion

ARU has consistently failed to meet timelines and capital raise milestones over the past eight years. Around 18 months ago, shareholders were told a new team was in place for construction readiness. However, this transition proved premature—ARU effectively placed the cart before the horse, overspent the budget, and triggered additional capital raises that should have been avoided. These missteps have directly eroded shareholder value.

This has created a damaging feedback loop: delays, followed by dilution through equity raises at depressed prices—compounded by over 200 million shares recycled to shorters. This is not incidental—it’s systemic. And while it was genuinely brought to management’s attention, shareholders have yet to see proactive measures taken to interrupt the cycle.

f.What has this cost retail investors—not just from the impact of those 200 million shares, but from the broader collapse in market confidence, repeat low-price raises, over step in budgets and hiring, and the increased dilution risk now facing investors at FID?

g.With new equity clearly on the horizon, likely aligned to the pending FID, how can shareholders have confidence that ARU has the right team in place to manage construction and delivery complexities?

h.Is management actively listening to shareholder feedback—especially as many of these concerns were raised early but not addressed with genuine action?

Let me also clarify: shareholders are invested in ARU—not the broader ASX. Please avoid generalising these issues as market-wide norms. It’s also important to note that shorting practices are regulated under both ASX and ASIC frameworks—market manipulation is not permissible under those regulations. If schemes have targeted ARU to benefit incoming interests, they must be acknowledged.

Obfuscation is not an acceptable response.

i.Shareholders have outlined the impacts of these schemes clearly. What assurance can you provide that this pattern will not be repeated?

Question 4. Cashflow Risk & Capital StrategyTransparency

With cashflow expected to tighten in the coming quarter, what direct assurances can ARU management offer shareholders regarding the next capital raise to address immediate cashflow needs?

j.How does ARU plan to break the damaging feedback loop—where low share price depresses buyer interest, enables shorting, and results in ongoing value destruction during equity issuance, given we have an overhang of another capital raise for cashflow?

This isn’t just a short-term consideration: any near-term raise will set the tone for the much larger FID-related capital event. Missteps now could severely undercut long-term shareholder value.

k.What concrete plans are in place to restore trust in ARU’s short term capital strategy?

l.Can you decisively remove this concern off the table—without obfuscation or deflection—and provide absolute clarity on how investor value will be protected?

Question 5: Delays, Conflicts of Interest &Shareholder Erosion

Management has frequently attributed delays to third-party partners.

m.Do JV or equity participants stand to gain from delays via increased share uptake at depressed prices?

n.Has this potential conflict of interest been formally addressed with the incoming partners and how will they be penalised for further delays?

o.What steps are being taken to ensure new participants don’t profit at the expense of longstanding shareholders, especially when the incoming have contributed to delays?

Question 7: HRE Recovery Opportunity

Based on the quarterly update:
Is the review of the Nolans Project’s residue storage facility—scheduled for the September 2025 quarter.

p.Is this intended to enable the exportation or commercial recovery of SEG/HREs such as Dy and Tb? Or is it primarily environmental and structural?

q.How does this work align with ARU’s strategic response to China’s export restrictions and the potential development of a parallel HRE revenue stream?

Question 8: Magnet Manufacturing

Given ARU’s need for tolling or processing obligations to magnets.

r.What is the realistic likelihood of securing an Ex-China partnership to complete the full value chain—including magnet production?

s.Have any formal partnerships or commitments been secured? How close is ARU to confirming this last stage of the supply chain?

Question 9: Offtake Partner Commitment

Given ARU’s historical delays—and the explicit presence of time clauses in all binding and non-binding contracts—execution risk is significantly amplified. These delays don’t exist in isolation; they directly compromise contract credibility, invite renegotiation pressure, and ultimately degrade the company’s strategic position.

t.Could management provide an update on existing offtake arrangements? Are these partners still committed and willing to wait through ongoing delays to source NdPrO from ARU as a reliable Ex-China supply?

u.How are those relationships being maintained, and what does this mean for long-term commercial confidence?