DV, Firstly the confirmation from Rego was that he attended the meeting, and can confirm that more than 20 deals had been rejected based on the fact that FAS would be diluted as the deals required an equity stake. Please tell me in your experience which cornerstone company is going to cough up 300M to FAS without wanting an equity stake?? Furthermore, there has obviously been no concern with dilution or "loss of control " of the company, which seems to be your defence, by issuing more than 12% of the stock in 3bs to parties in the last 12 months. Well again who are these parties, and why would you assume that they are not hostile, but a cornerstone investor will become hostile? KR stated an example, accurate or not, that one potential JV party wanted as much as 25% of the asset. Is this unreasonable for 300M? Have the 12% equity and interest rate beneficiaries given us $120M? A further 150 M shares of dilution are pegged for another investor since the close of meeting. Does this mentality of giving away 27% percent, compared to rejecting deals based on equity reasons make sense?!
Furthermore, let's discuss the choice of FRL. Any other advisor that has not been able to deliver of this time frame, may well have been shown the door by now. Why the adamant stance on their model which KR categorically stated is the best and only option they will consider?
FRL, jersey based, which was actually discussed early this year - here is the thread if you wish to refresh your memory.
Is this tax haven company going to benefit the shareholder? Is so, why didn't the board point these benefits out, on how the individual holder is going to enjoy the rewards of using FRL? So please answer who really benefits from FRL model? Do the commissions and fees that FRL or whoever receive on a 300M funding deal get special tax treatment? Are these going back into the shareholders pockets as a dividend?
No focus - apparently our gold asset had a one ounce per tonne strike!!! I cannot source the figures for this remark. However one would think that if we cannot obtain the funding for a massive capex for ship, that the option would be to spend a few million on the ground and prove this miraculous resource. Wouldn't that bring some value to the company, share price and make us all happy, without much relative costs?
No wages for six months - please read the admin expenditure in all the quarterlies and FY end. Yes, what cash remains today and what has been used for the assets and what for admin? 3bs have been used to hold the assets. Please refer to the annual report regarding the ship tenement and monies owing to Peter Gianni and the other party, and the terms of the deal. In the meeting summary it's states Gianni as a 3b receiver to the tune of 15M shares. So the cash was not used to pay and hold is asset.
IMO the funding delay is solely due to the choice to reject previous offers of a JV due to a dilution excuse. This has no merit due the other methodologies currently used. The reason for the use of FRL and who really benefits from this can be for you to decide. I for one see a further stream of 3bs. If you think that a funding deal will nullify the dilutionary effects then I think unfortunately you may be disappointed.
FAS Price at posting:
0.8¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Held
