General discussion, page-1539

I think it's a bit unfair to say they should have raised at 15-20c. In hindsight yes they should have, but if you remember NAIF was at play then and no one (not just major shareholder) wanted to get diluted. Everyone was greedy based on the info we had. Whether the info was overly simplistic or optimistic is a different question.

Debt financing is not that simple these days for many reasons. The whole market is skewed towards property, lenders are much more risk averse due to higher rates. The issues I anticipate that this company would be dealing with in negotiations around debt:
1. Proving sustainable cash flows - Last quarter and a bit only really, may need another one, but could be satisfied by contracts.
2. Contracts - ticked.
3. Security (inventory) - this has been really built up only in the past couple months.
4. Term - I expect the company to be able to pay off debt within 15 months, so some lenders are not interested because for them it's an investment to go through the process. Essentially, it's a separate economics process for a lender. I would say that based on the expected term lenders are not keen on the process unless they are being asked for 10mln + (to make a margin of say $500-750k on 10-12% charge out interest rate which costs them 5-6%). And once you ask for that kind of debt my points 1, 2 and 3 come into play. I think it's closer than we think and there is nothing to worry about. It just takes time to prove debt serviceability and security in our circumstances.

Obviously, many investors expected NAIF to be a breeze and were overly optimistic about it. Well, that didn't happen and the company had to go the conventional route.

I don't think there was any chance of proper debt funding in the last year unless it was some magical NAIF funding which I am not sure they do.