agree mate and I remember as I follow ASM closely due to my...

agree mate and I remember as I follow ASM closely due to my exposure to ALK.
my point is they did not have to raise $1b. they could have raise ~$200m as working capital and R&D that would have ensure ASM funding for many years. Selling it as working capital and R&D into further enhancing the technology would have been fine. The market was hot and they should not have missed the opportunity. Knowing what you just mentioned I agree they could not and should not go for $1b CR as the tech was not standing on its legs yet - it would have been unethical.
Even when they did raise at much lower price (but still lot higher than now) they should have gone for much bigger CR as it was not hard to imagine what would have happened to the SP if they did not land larger deals.

My view is the reason why they did not do it is because IG could not afford it and did not want to get diluted.

What gets me is when imbeciles come around with the hindsight argument just because they are out of depth on the issue and have literary nothing to add to the discussion. Hindsight is legit when it actually applies but in ASM's case it was as clear as day they would have need to raise some time in the future due to their inability to win enough tenders/orders and it comes to simple math from there on. If people actually care to read ASM's financial statements - not that hard to workout the cash burn and what was coming in. It's a simple company so the statements are not that complex to read.