Re ... "
Now you're claiming that I said dilution is a good thing? No. I said we are comparitively in a better position than companies who are heavily diluted, plus you have to look at where we are in terms of product to market in this unique field."
@dolcevita. I did not say that you think dilution is a good thing - not at all.
What I am suggesting is that you
believe the nasty effects of dilution are improved by having a small number of shares on issue. I am challenging that notion by saying that the number of shares on issue will make not 1 jot of difference to the dilution.
The scenario below has been pinched from madamswer's example
$1.0bn market cap company with
100 million shares on issue
$1.0bn company with
1 billion shares on issue
Let's suppose both companies choose to raise $100 million through an equity raising.
With your logic, the shareholder with a $10,000 investment in the 2nd company would have his/her investment more dramatically diluted than another shareholder who had $10,000 invested in the 1st company simply because there are more shares on issue with the 2nd company.
Your logic is, I believe, flawed. If I have misunderstood your logic and, in fact, you agree, that the number of shares is an absolute irrelevance in determining dilution, then we are then in agreement. At that point you can avoid making comments like "
we don't have a lot of shares on issue. We can take any short term dilution" as you'll know the number of shares is a red herring in this matter.
May I suggest we get a resolution on this one, and then, most happily, we can get back to isolating shorters and hammering dodgy reports.
(20min delay)