I have to find a nuanced way of saying this as I don't want to suggest that anything illegal has gone on.
What I meant by 'organic' selling was by one willing seller to another willing buyer...I am sure that was the case, due to securities lending agreements (see HS for this) but...
Notwithstanding this fact, I do believe there were 'psychologicalselling' walls (tell me you didn't see them to stop anyone buying up into them?) built in the 'sell side' to reflect a preponderance of selling, when in fact, I am of the opinion that it was no such thing. If you followed the t20 and t50 register, this shows up as 'churn' with no real changes taking place. Trust that a lot of the bigger players do not pay brokerage fees like we do...so churning small bids in the line up is not an effort or costly. And sure, there would be a few legitimate sells and buys in there...
In my opinion only, it was an attempt of one of the main players to reduce the share price down so as to achieve more shares at a lower price. How? Let me explain.
With that (understandable) logic that you have displayed (ie: your dismay...this SP will/can only get worse) then your 'lack of participation' in any said capital raise is to their benefit...as they will get some of your allocation of shares cheaply - because you will say no to taking them up. Henceforth this gets a much greater slice of the pie for a much lower cost. [ie: if SP was 4c and they had to raise $20m on the back of a $140m company, can you see that little dilutive effect would be in play? At 2c - ie: a $70m company...you can see that this CR now takes a larger portion of this up. I'll let others get the calculators out but until we see the terms it is only conjecture anyway.]
For those that say conspiracy theory? Do so. All I have is my own thoughts and I am 100% sure this is the case. That is all I need to go on.
And make no mistake Derosie, serial pests will continue on this thread to ensure that as few people as possible take this option up by throwing questions in the mix...so as to award them more shares.
(I think) It is likely we will get to participate as I think this is something Gus will fight for shareholders for. Just IMO. If he does not, then clearly we had no other options and dilution will come thick and fast.
Some will 'oversubscribe' if allowed. That is, you say "no" and others can have a part of your portion you decided not to take up.
But make no mistake, I believe 'they' will have a post announcement interest in sending the share price upward again too to reflect PENs true market value.
Fair? Short term, maybe not, but long term PEN's value will be reflected by every industry measure eventually, so I am not worried about that. But I would be worried about dilution and not getting enough of this pie for myself.
In a nutshell...that statement you just made is exactly the reason the SP was put in this place IMO. That is, 'they' want you to say 'no' and they will buy your allocation.
Hope this makes sense Derosie.
Liam, if Ok with you, I'd prefer you left references of myself (which are just conjecture) and any said T20 representation out of this. It just doesn't matter either way, true or untrue. This is an anonymous thread. Drawing conclusions is inevitable...but clinging onto this and demanding confirmation I think is a little too much.
PEN Price at posting:
2.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)