maybe someone can make sense of this as i'm still at work..
20 Dec 19 update:
$4m debt Nov 19. 2.4m est Dec 19 We issued about $700k. What i couldn't extrapolate back then was the $700k < 50% of debt so therefore the difference of $1.6m was settled for $700k? Tick? Makes sense. or at the time I did mentioned that the crafty use of 'estimated' does this mean including future writeoffs that were to come in Dec?
And today's announcement:
Either way, we now have settled another $670k, yet the estimated Dec 19 has gone down to 1.75m? Which seems to indicate we settled for nearly 1 for 1 basis? This doesn't make sense to me? If this was an additional settlement - I'd imagine $$670k x 2 = $1.3m roughly face value debt should have been taken off. So 2.4m estimate for Dec 19 down to roughly say 1.1m?
Either the 20 Dec was somewhat worded crafty and the 2.4m est in dec 19 included part of today's settlement that was expected, in which case our $700k debt then may onl yhave settled say 1.4m (just over) or less, as the key words are some debts settled at more than 50% discount.
It does not word it as "total" debt overall if the average settlement was > 50% discount or not. This is worth asking. No point settling $500k of debt at $200k (>50% discount) and 1m debt at 35% of discount and quoting majority of debt was >50% . This would be very crafty and i'm giving Ted benefit of doubt.
The easiest way to resolve this was to simply write: total debt $1.7m, settlement amount is $670k shares. The lack thereof is concerning, albeit we do know 1.7m of debt left.
Technically if the 50% statistic isn't crafty in the way it is worded then we should expect $850k in shares to be issued, or less, to settle. After that debt free.
EN1 Price at posting:
2.2¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
