you seem pretty fired up over a stock you don't own??
The performance shares were clearly defined in the original prospectus - about Sep 09. Any investor would/should have been well aware of these. Also clearly noted in the recent anns on Eucla project.
I am not clear what a 'compliance project' is, and why you think Forge only has these types of projects? the Eucla Sands releases, and the material on the internet, show that to be an advanced minerals sands prospect based on drilling to date, requiring infill drilling to define a resource (have a look at the Arturus Capital release also on that for more info)
The mkt cap number you quote is not correct as the current (undiluted) mkt capital - have a look at a quote on smh.com.au, and the current shares on issue. As to your statement that its not worth $20m (or whatever value) - thats funny, I believe its worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.... - as reflected in the share price. If you don't like the current price then don't buy it...working out value versus price is what its all about really
The issue of shares in any cap raising is not necessary at 35c as you quote. have a look at the placement recently at 50c. have a look at the proposed price in the terminated deal earlier this year
And yes, when the performance targets are hit, the 24m perf shares will be issued. The chairman did not issue these to himself, that is misleading. The capital structure, including those, was in place at the IPO....If people don't like the capital structure - then don't invest...simple. However, it is hardly unusual - look at HAS as a recent example where a milestone triggered large issue of (perf) shares
I hold mainly junior explorers in my portfolio. They are spec investments, there are hundreds to review and choose from. If you don't like one, move on - whats the point wasting time bagging a stock you don't own? unless you are trying to the push the price down - I can't see what it achieves
FRG Price at posting:
41.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
