Well what a couple of days of posting. Haven't had a chance to post because one of the cats has been a bit sick. Anyway there’s certainly a lot of emotion/fear/joy/backpatting around. I don’t really want to add to any of this so I’ll stick to the following facts :
1. No need to go on about the SPP mechanisms other than to say it’s given all shareholders basically a free pass to sell up to $15k worth of stock and almost be assured of getting it back via the 20% discount to VWAP mechanism. The real game is in the last 5 days before the issue closes so expect the stock IMO to come under pressure then and if it were me I’d be taking advantage of any short term strength to realise the $15k. As much as you all think that you’re all in this together I’d be surprised if a number of you wouldn’t take this opportunity to average down. When you go in to a shop do you pay $10 for something you can buy for $8 just to be doing the right thing? If you’re answer is yes to that question I would be asking yourself why you’re in the stockmarket. I think a number of holders will deploy this strategy because IMO its the most commercial decision to make. In fact I think it would be far better in the longer term for long term shareholders to do this than leave a substantial shortfall to be picked up by a broker who has no long term allegiance to the business and has no interest in the company at the moment. Even if they do hold the stock they’re alloted for the 20 to 30 seconds post the Appendix 3b being issued I’m sure they’d be happy to take their 10% to 20% profit. Remember they’re coming in to this with no hurt in the game at all.
2.
@wkt : the outstanding issued capital is 976,784,189. (Check page 4 of the presentation). Btw you were totally right about them not raising $3.4 million so well done on that you are still welcome on the forum!
3. This leads me to the presentation. I will give credit where credit is due. Aesthetically this is a great improvement from that deplorable presentation that IMO looked more like a school project with it’s Elephants and Rocketships. However it is lacking in important detail as IMO is so often the case. In the last presentation it was noticeable that there was no cash balance when I and others were saying they had no cash and needed to raise but many (particularly
@thegoodoil21) continued to argue to the contrary. Well history now says they needed to raise money and they did so in the form of a secured debt which has a face value of $1.1 million. IMO it defies belief that a company can omit this point from the capital structure. At best (IMO the fantasy conversion clause) the note will convert out in to 22 million shares at 5 cents, again that is fantasy that was put into the mechanics IMO to get people to focus on the 5 cent conversion, not the fact that the company had given away control of the asset potentially for only a million dollars. Regardless this has to be disclosed in the capital structure for the reasons above in either a) its converted so therefore more shares are issued or b) shareholders putting money in now need to be aware that if the note goes in to default they could lose all their money and the underlying asset of the company so in effect you could be left as shareholders in a company with little money and no asset. This surely should be disclosed.
4. There is no commentary on the use of funds in this raise either. Could it be to pay back the $1.1 million loan which leaves the company immediately with no money again? How would you know it’s not explained at all. They continue to say that Stage 1 short term production will happen and cost approximately US$30 million but no DFS and a lot of work to complete it. And remember the $723,836 that needs to be spent on the asset each and every year to keep them in good standing (that was at June 30) so we’re already 2 months in to this period and I’m guessing not a lot of this has been spent as yet given the lack of cash and hence the launching of this Capital Raise.
5.
@stan101 even though you probably won’t see this because you apparently have me on ignore I’ve explained along with others that Trevor Matthews only was paid $90k plus super according to the annual report because he was in the job for less than 6 months so he’ll be part of the $200k club that I spoke about previously. Its amazing what people miss out on by using the ignore function..
6. @nameslittle your point about directors not needing to be owners and potential conflicts of interest doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I wouldn’t even look at a company without significant interests being held by the management. Having no shares in a company and yet spending all of the shareholders money has to be the greatest conflict of all IMO. You used to be a big follower of SYR, how much stock as a percentage of the company did Tolga Kumova, Paul Kehoe and Tom Eadie have when it got going? A Forrest and FMG? K Harmanis and Jubilee ? I could go on with many more examples, I’d be interested if you could provide some examples where juniors have gone from zero to massive successes where the key personnel haven’t owned a share?
7.
@Jasventure unfortunately there has nothing really advanced from when it was 8 cents IMO. That’s why its where it is here.
An interesting few weeks ahead.
(20min delay)