RE:just a thoughtGood grief, man, stop with the gibberish. The issuance of shares does not affect the share price. Markets do that.
I bet you still own subordinate shares? A few weeks ago I saw subordinate shares being sold for 0.01 when concurrently their were multiple voting shares bid at the equivalent of 0.0178. The seller could have gotten 78% more for their shares if they had only converted their shares to multiple voting shares (which is free). That is a better market for all shareholders, benifitting buyers and sellers, but you and lou still denounce the opportunity.
Now you're bashing on preferred shares. How is the company going to raise money if it doesn't sell shares? Read the going concern statement in the financials over and over again until you understand how things work for companies with no revenue.
The proposed preferred shares are very standard in format. In return for enhanced security of investment, preferred shareholders do not vote at general meetings of shareholders.
A preferred share falls between equity investments (private placements of common shares) and secured loans and debentures (lien on assets). In the event of a wind-down, secured creditors get fully reimbursed (if that is even possible). If there’s anything left, it goes to preferred shareholders. At the rear are common shareholders.
If it can be used to entice investment into the company, then it is a good thing for all investors, including those holding common shares. As it stands now, common shares are worthless in a liquidation. The company would only get the vulture value for its mineral claims or the chromite patent, and the lawyers and receivers in bankruptcy would get that money. Adding preferred shareholders won’t harm common shareholders, and can only benefit them in the long run if it allows the company to finance business development.