I amcurious what people think about the debt v equity point covered in the latest Cruxinterview. In the previous interview Mark Gray was very confident about the imminent debt arrangement, but since then he opted instead for a 100% equity raise. Matthew Gordon probes this point repeatedly and Mark Gray responds simply that the full capex was available from institutions via equity - so he took it. You can see why Matthew Gordon is puzzled - surely debt funding beats further dilution. If the terms of the debt was so onerous that he chose not to take it why didn't he say this? Mark Gray frankly seemed uncomfortable on the point.
For therecord I still believe this is a great investment - but I do think this point needsa better answer.
