Everyone likes to be right. Why else would you bother replying to my comments?
"Shares on issue has nothing to do with the number of holders e.g. you can have 5 holders that combined hold a million shares or 100 holders that combined hold a million shares." I understand this. What I mistakenly did was make the assumption that because ECS has more shares on issue, there is more than likely more holders. My lack of experience has also led to me not simply checking the annual report. Didn't know they listed the distribution of equity holders in there. ECS - 4,403 holders: CAN - 26,220 holders (yowzers):
I'm genuinely surprised by this statistic. I thought for sure that CAN would have less holders (again just by comparing the shares on issue - silly me). But I suppose CAN's publicity was far more prolific than ECS early on in the piece when Cannabis was a booming industry, likely alot of these holders are in the red because they bought into the most popular cannabis stock at the time. In your opinion, is it more desirable to have less holders in a company than to have many? Or are you indifferent?
I'm guessing you would prefer to have the right kind of holders in a company, never mind the amount. Obsidian being one that is not considered desirable.
Earlier you said this: A standard cap raise is locked in at a specific price for a specific quantity. Not being able to access this means a company may turn to convertible notes which is not locked in at a specific nor a specific quantitiy. Instead the price drops and the quantity increases which is a lose/lose scenario for existing shareholders. I also get that the price for a CR is locked in vs a convertible note being variable. But is it that a convertible note can be exercised at the discretion of the company? As in if CAN decide they need money, they provide shares at whatever price meet the CN conditions at the time that they need money?
Example, Obsidians condition is 20% discount to SP - (I don't know what the actual conditions of the agreement are)
Moment in time 1: CAN SP = 10c they need money, give shares to obsidian at 8c. CAN get $X and issue Y shares Moment in time 2: CAN SP = 5c they need money, give shares to obsidian at 4c. CAN get $X and issue Y shares Moment in time 3: CAN SP = 20c they need money, give shares to obsidian at 16c. CAN get $X and issue Y shares
If this was the way ECS was getting their money right now, I'm sure it would be pitched by the ECS holders as a very flexible arrangement in which, if ECS played their cards right, could be beneficial to the company, affording them the flexibility they needed to sustain their aspirations in the final stages of proving their cultivation arm was sustainable.
G'day, NoRunningLights.
Have you been going out on your regular morning harborside strolls lately? Met anyone who didn't fit in with your ideals? Or are you back in the whitest gentrified sections of Thailand, trying to maintain that "cool well travelled individual" persona?
I bought into ECS. at 2.8c last year. I'm in the red unfortunately, I really thought I picked the bottom, I was wrong it got worse. How's your investment holding up? You in the green? (Yikes)
CAN Price at posting:
6.9¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)