RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:AmazingKentWilkens wrote:
sorry JC, etc, that begs response. Their reasons for the gratuitous financing at a maximum discount to market were lame. Part and parcel of why the junior mining industry gets little respect from real investors, too many shady deals to unknown people, almost always leaving out the real owners of the company, treating them like their own personal mushroom farm. They COULD incentivize the sector by RESTRICTING pps to EXISTING shareholders, limited to their current holdings, and only excess being picked up by outsiders. They don't because buddy deal dilutions are part of the DNA of the industry. It is shortsighted because it causes immediate devaluation of the company, and guts investor confidence, which is the bedrock of company value. If you do not think NF or others have EARNED the right to complain about such shenanigans, you know nothing about the history of this board. Regardless, the saviour of the diluted owners of the company will be CU.
My gripe was with the idea that the performance bond was the reason for the PP. To me, that does not make sense. Performance bonds can be covered by insurance, and if that was the reason for the PP, then there is no reason that exec would not have said so.
I do believe their reasons for the PP were as stated. I disagree with NF on the alternative way of raising cash, and I would never deny him the right to his opinion. One of the reasons I come here is to hear his opinion. I have learned a lot about this industry from him.
I am not denying what you are saying about the PP completely though. The low price on the PP is fishy. They raised cash and they needed it, but they raised in a way to benefit a specific group of people for some unknown reason. Friends and family? I hope not. Hopefully it was an incentive to a JV partner or something like that. I totally agree with you that restricting to existing shareholders would be a good idea.