Nevada Copper Corp NEVDQ

Metals & Mining Copper

Nevada Copper Corp is a Canada-based mining company. The Company is engaged in the development, operation, and exploration of its copper project (the Project) at its Pumpkin Hollow Property (the Property) in Western Nevada, United States of America. Its two fully permitted projects include the high-grade Underground Mine and processing facility, which is undergoing a restart of operations, and a large-scale open pit PFS stage project. The Property is located in northwestern Nevada and consists of approximately 24,300 acres of contiguous mineral rights including approximately 10,800 acres of owned private land and leased patented claims. Pumpkin Hollow is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the small town of Yerington, Nevada in Lyon County, one- and one-half hours drive southeast of Reno. The Company’s wholly owned subsidiary is Nevada Copper, Inc.

GREY:NEVDQ - Post by User

Nevada Copper Corp > Patchh; what are the requirements if the warrants

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by Notgnuon Apr 19, 2021 2:17pm

82 Views

Post# 33022941

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Patchh; what are the requirements if the warrants

I am more cynical than you Arb. (sorry patchh if I am wrong but...) I believe patchh is a version of a "subtle basher" who tries to build a specious version of credibility by sowing subtle confusion. Just enough confussion to disuade investors but not so much as to lose credibility with new potential investors.

I think patchh is working with a group who are on the bid at lower prices and accumulating on dips.

Cheers,
N

Arbourmark wrote:
I agree with comments on Patch. I have said similar things that he/she speaks in riddles and generally spews nonsense. In regards to warrants he/she has no clue how warrants work.

I have read comments that some are suggesting that the maturity date could be accelerated once the share price hits .20 cents for first warrants and .22 cents for the A warrants.

I do not believe there is any acceleration clause tied to the warrants, simply a maturity date of 18 months from date of closing the bought deal.

I have stated previously that first off I do not believe the maturity date will be a cause of concern for warrant holders as spot copper continues to rise and will continue to do so, but playing devils advocate let's assume that maturity date becomes a reality and warrants still below strike price. Keep in mind the biggest holder of warrants is Pala and company needs the money raised from warrants being exercised. Companies can extend the maturity date of the warrants and this happens all the time.

Below is part of the news release from January for the A warrants. There is a maturity date but no mention of any acceleration clause.

I have Patch, Bog and a few others on ignore for useless political comments for months, useless information relation to NCU and often I cannot even understand what exactly they are trying to communicate.

westcoast1000 wrote:

patchh wrote: simpy don't kno... these are swampy creatures.. i suspect if they call the wts early - they will hav to apply a premium..

why ? avoid a higher stok price on the intrinsiv value of the warrants: trading into the common stok as the call options mature

A + B = C + D :: the metric here is potentially communatative !

this reversal is either null or assyemetrical

I love to know what this message above says but it is unintelligible.

There is no premium involved in calling the warrants in, IMHO. Once the strike price is hit, the company can state that the warrants be immediately exercized. That is it, as far as I know.

Remember, this is not a call option, despite what is written above. A call means someone has to sell you a stock at a price. In this case, a new share is issued by the company. The price of the warrants is directly tied to the stock price, except for market anomalies, once the strike price is exceeded. The warrants expiring next January would have to be exercized by then, or expire out of the money if the price does not make it to .20. The statement above, with the the stock price being driven by the intrinsic value accruing in the warrant price, makes no sense.

I start to be wary of patchh. This is a person who can write in English if he or she wants to. But this person also writes in gibberish at times.