Hi Cadel, I completely get your post as the whole thing is a...

Hi Cadel, I completely get your post as the whole thing is a little hazy.
First of all terminology, there is a difference between an cross listed company and an dual listed company (see BHP - dual listed, 2 entities become one, trade as two but share costs/profits as one ... wiki link above), but then other definitions you'll find, a dual listing is pretty much same def. as cross listed, so it gets blurry.

My understanding is that new shares being created (to be cross listed) is not a requirement. Granted, firms do cross list to expose themselves to capital they cannot get locally and will float more stock upon listing. I read a paper awhile ago on the pros and cons of this and the examples used were companies not from 3rd world economies, but hardly robust either and the results were mixed as to whether (in hindsight) it was a positive move.

But again, I don't think the creation of new stock is an obligation to cross list.
I don't see the need for GXY to go through the trouble and expense to head down this path for capital raising requirements. If we wanted 50-100M tomorrow, it would be done without the need to list anywhere else.
So really it comes down to our motivation to even consider listing elsewhere eg: exposure??

Given it's an costly exercise whichever terminology we use, we'd want to be 100% certain we're armed, hence my comment earlier that to do it now would be premature, we'd need to be firing on all cylinders to even consider such a move. As theDean stated above, the shorters/manipulators would have a field day in our current state.

Maybe Bobsacremento or someone who has held stock in a co. that has gone down this path could shed more light on the topic, genuinely interested myself.

GL