Have just had a thought and would like to retract the above post...

Have just had a thought and would like to retract the above post in favour of the following edited and reduced post:

Yes, 1B hypothetical obscured the viewpoint. Any estimation of how undervalued TMR is would roughly be the rate at which this money would need to increase to add shareholder value.

For instance, if management believes TMR is valued at 23c as some other posters do, then this 11.5c would need to increase at the same rate as the rate in which the price returns to fundamentals.

Say I bought in at 23c. SP drops unfairly to 11.5c. Hold because I have faith in management and fundametals. Diluted by 10% at 11.5c for 10M. Share price raises back to 23c. This 10M would need to become 20M at an increase of 100% gain for the value of the placement to be worth it.

1B is a hypothetical, my point wasn't "once this happens, then we lose 100M on the company". We both agree nothing is certain and 1B is anything but.

My point being, either management believe TMR is ridiculously undervalued, in which case the return on the capital would have to increase at the same rate as the undervaluation of the company for it to benefit shareholders

OR management believes the company is only slightly undervalued, and in this case the capital raised would only have to make a gain of this slight undervaluation to increase SH value.

Either way, it's either very bad for SH value OR very bad for those that believe how undervalued TMR is, and the first scenario is correct in my firm opinion. It is very contradictory or illogical.

You could argue the reverse of this. If the company ISN'T undervalued then this is the right thing to do, and if the company IS undervalued, then shut up and be happy you have an undervalued company, but I want my returns, and so do those shareholders who are sitting on 20c buy-in with the belief that THIS was fair value.

Also they only recently stated in Feb no capital raisings were envisioned. I overstretched myself on TMR as previously stated with this statement a major consideration, and it is only 2 months later. As stated, I haven't agreed with the credibility issues other posters have with them, but in this case, their word needs to mean something especially in the issue of the shares themselves.

Again, if my logic is correct, whatever ratio management believes TMR is undervalued, this is the ratio by which the capital would have increase for it to be worthwhile. Given management believes this ratio to be so high, someone would surely loan them money at a much lesser rate.

I still believe in the company and won't consider selling out.